Is it misleading to call a movement anti immigration when its primary focus

[hulka38]

is to stop illegal immigration? Isn't calling it anti illegal immigration more accurate and honest?

[Xipe Totec]

1. Since the people who will be hassled by the cops are legal immigrants, no

[hulka38]

2. The bad AZ law aside. The movement and the problem

of illegal immigration existed long before this law.

[JuniperLea]

5. There is no "problem"

This is a "stir the shit" tactic/issue that never gets seen until an election cycle. The Pubbies have been in charge a very long time... if this issue were really as important to them as they claim, they would have "fixed" it when they had the chance.

They really don't want to fix it, for two reasons.

1 - The above-referenced election cycle shit-stirring device

2 - The big company RWers that fund the Pubbies NEED those illegal immigrants as a low-cost work force

[hulka38]

10. What the Republicans have done or want to do is beside the point.

The name is misleading. Illegal immigration is a problem imo but that is also beside the point.

[JuniperLea]

18. No, you're splitting hairs

It's all the same thing. It's all racism to rile their base up and get them to the polls. Nothing more. They NEED those illegal immigrants! Cheap labor that won't complain to the authorities when labor and safety laws are ignored. That keeps money in the fat cat company whore wallets so they can continue to support Pubbie candidates to do their evil bidding.

[Xipe Totec]

7. I don't give a fuck how long it has existed

Hassling legal immigrants is not the solution.

This is as stupid as invading Iraq because some Saudi Arabians blew up the WTC and went into hiding in Afghanistan.

[hulka38]

12. A month ago before the AZ law existed, what would you have said about my post?

[Xipe Totec]

44. Never ask a question, if you can't stand to hear the answer

In this case I'll abide by the rules to the forum and refrain from giving you an honest answer.

If you really want to know my thoughts, you can always check my journal.

I hope you make it to 1,000 posts.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. I would have said you were either naive or part of the nativist bullshit

By the way, we need immigrants to help fund social security. Or we could be like Japan and some European nations with huge demographic problems that can persist for decades and tend to stagnate the economy and drain a lot of tax revenue resource. Or we could have a lot of old people dumpster diving as we fail to meet our obligations to them. So many choices, yes on reflection, cracking down on mexicans certainly will help us feel better about just how shitty our country has become, and just how little power we have to do anything effective about it.

[hulka38]

71. This is not an anti immigrant post.

Illegal immigrants are paid off the books. They are not contributing to social security.

[boppers]

130. FWIW, a great many undocumented workers pay into Social Security.

They pay under somebody else's number, so they can get a job.

They do not get SS benefits back for this. But they do get work.

[joeglow3]

141. For the record, most don't

They are independent contractors who receive a 1099. NOTHING is withheld into social security under a 1099 - it is up to the taxpayer to pay both the employer and employee share when they file their income tax return. I think you can guess how many file income tax returns.

[Warren Stupidity]

149. 7,000,000,000/yr into the SS earnings suspense file

almost all of which is thought to be from undocumented workers.

[joeglow3]

140. Are you saying social security is a ponzi scheme?

The key compenent of a ponzi scheme is the need to always have new people at the bottom of the pyramid. You basically said SS would collapse without get as many people (legal or illegal) to go to the bottome of the pyramid.

[Warren Stupidity]

148. No I am saying it can have demographic problems

that can, if not addressed responsibly, result in either a huge drain on resources or dumpster diving elders. As we as a political society have shown no capacity for responsible political choice-making, we will not do the right thing.

A Ponzi Scheme is a fraud. Social security is not a fraud, it is a socialized pension system funded by taxpayer revenue. If there is a prolonged demographic blip where there aren't enough people currently paying in to adequately fund those getting benefits then a society has to increase taxes, increase the contribution base, decrease benefits, starve all other government programs, or incur large debt obligations pushing the problem into the future.

We are currently facing a 'crisis' in the form of actually having to honor the trust fund t-bills that back social security, as it starts to dip into its surplus while the boomer generation winds its way through the end of its life. That bogus crisis is only a crisis because we have, for 30 years now, floated the rest of the government on the SS surplus while handing out massive tax cuts to the very wealthy. If you are looking for fraud, look no further than Reaganism. That crisis is best solved by undoing those tax cuts, not by cutting benefits to the elderly who have paid into the system for the last 40 years. It can also be massively mitigated by increasing the young end of the demographic cohorts by increasing legal immigration, like from South America.

[blue97keet]

175. And the people at the bottom better be little green robots

who will never need social security and medicare themselves or the entire Ponzi scheme blows up like Bernie Madoff.

[MikeW]

45. Well ... dont be too sure under the law they can already be asked

A lot of people are having a fit over being asked for imm. documentation but those here legally
are already required to carry that proof on them at all times under federal law.

Its directly from the "Welcome to the US - A guide for new immigrants" document.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf

Carrying ID and being required to do so is already set in law so other than the possibility of profiling
I dont see how this differs.

Immigrants are ALREADY required to carry proof of citizenship by federal law.


Permanent residents are issued a valid Permanent Resident
Card (Form I-551) as proof of their legal status in
the United States. Some people call this a “Green Card.”
If you are a permanent resident who is 18 years or
older, you must carry proof of your immigration status.
You must show it to an immigration officer if asked for
it.Your card is valid for 10 years and must be renewed
before it expires.You should file Form I-90 to replace or
renew your Permanent Resident Card.You can get this
form at http://www.uscis.gov or by calling the USCIS
Forms Line. There is a fee to file Form I-90.

[Xipe Totec]

46. You are out of your depth, sparky,

You are quoting a rule that applies to legal residents, not United States Citizens.

You are confusing legal residents (green card holders) with Naturalized citizens; United States Citizens who were born outside the US, just like John McCain.

[MikeW]

49. your origional post said ...

legal residents.

thats what I was replying to.

Anyway I found this after watching the news ... didnt even know it existed.

[Xipe Totec]

51. I said legal immigrants, not legal residents

United States Citizens who are born outside the United States are, by definition, legal immigrants.

[billh58]

105. You have just

highlighted the problem with this obscene, racial-profiling, Jim Crow, Arizona monstrosity of a "law": native-born and naturalized Hispanics are NOT required by Federal Law to carry ANY sort of ID, but they are the ones whose civil rights will be violated.

People are NOT "having a fit" over the existing requirement for Green Card holders to carry documentation. That is the whole reason for issuing a bloody Green Card. People are up in arms about the bullshit Arizona requirement that American citizens who happen to be Hispanic will be forced to carry documentation to prove that they are legal citizens. Guilty until proven innocent -- get it?

This entire "Arizona is only enforcing Federal Law" asinine defense of SB1070 is pure and utter bullshit, and is a transparent attempt to justify racial-profiling and intimidation of ALL Hispanics. Will the Arizona racist legislators now pass a bill stating that Sheriff Joe can use "reasonable suspicion" to make Arizonians "prove" that they have paid their Federal taxes? How about making them "prove" that they are not interstate bank robbers, or slavers?

One can not immigrate to Arizona, but only to the United States of America. If Arizona wants to become a nation unto itself, with its own racist laws, then they can fucking well secede from the United States of America and good riddance to rednecked Republican rubbish.

[Dr Morbius]

111. I gotta disagree. I agree with your sentiment, entirely.

But I'd rather kick their asses than see them secede. Same as the last time some states decided they were more important than the nation as a whole. Can't allow it. No sir.

Let's kick their asses instead. For the moment, it is enough to block the implementation of this silly law, and in fact, it looks like aside from that nutty sheriff out there, most of the Arizona police are going to be motivated to steer WAY clear of this mess.

We need to fix the real problem, and that's the lure which brings immigrants to this nation. We need to blame ourselves for allowing it, not blame the sorry workingmen and women who bust their heinies for their families. And we need to provide a path to citizenship for the affected parties. Oh, and we need immigration laws that actually cope with immigration, and manpower to enforce them. Until any of that happens, picking on the fruit pickers is damn unfair.

[billh58]

116. Aw, they don't

have the cojones to secede, and I totally agree with your call to "kick their asses"...;-)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Legal immigrants and freaking citizens.

[Xipe Totec]

43. by legal immigrants I meant citizens

Like myself.

But legal residents (green card holders) will also hassled.

[JuniperLea]

3. There's nothing honest about this bill...

The legal immigrants will suffer more than anyone else; the bill is really anti LEGAL immigrants!

[hulka38]

4. You're off point.

The movement and the AZ bill/law are two different things.

[JuniperLea]

6. No they aren't

They are exactly the same, from the same people, for the same reasons. See my reasons #'s 1 and 2...

[BlueStater]

147. Yes, they are.

I'm opposed to immigrants living illegally in this country but I also think the Arizona law is piece of shit.

In my mind, the "movement" means the opposition to illegal immigration in general, not just what some conservative thinks.

[ProSense]

8. The GOP were and are anti immigrant.

English only? They are really bigots and racists. Give me a break.

They've been pushing anti-immigrant policies for years.

[JuniperLea]

9. Pushing, and never "fixing" and look how long they were in power!

They have no desire and no incentive to "fix" this "problem" at all. They need it to rile up the bigots and racists so they get out and vote once in a while.

[ProSense]

11. Because they're

the main culprits when it comes to taking advantage of illegal immigrants. Ask Mitt Romney.

[JuniperLea]

14. Yep... that's point #2...

Their fat wallet company whores who support the Pubbie campaigns need all that low cost labor. Not only can they pay them less, but they can treat them like slaves... who are they going to complain to? No one.

This is so transparent... what the hell is wrong with people that they fall for this crap?

[Cha]

13. Exactly..just like any wedge issue they

have to fatten their coffers.

[JuniperLea]

21. Indeed, my dear Cha!

We've seen this too many times not to recognize it for what it is. If it meant that much to them, they would have fixed it when they had all the power in the world.

[Cha]

28. ..

:hug:JuniperLea~

[JuniperLea]

30. .

:hug:

[daylan b]

26. You forgot

about the cheap labor that is easily expoited.

[JuniperLea]

27. Indeed!

They are horrifically exploited! These companies save in salary payments as well as money it takes to keep workers safe and to follow the rules. No overtime pay, horrible work hours, disgusting work conditions, no safety equipment, nothing. They can't complain to the authorities either, so it's win win for the companies.

[Dr Morbius]

20. They always have been.

When the Republican party formed in the 1850's, it was comprised of free-territory Democrats, former Whigs, and Know-Nothings, which was a virulently anti-immigrant group. The anti-immigrant sentiment has always been an aspect of the Republican party, and of conservatism as well.

I can little stomach, any longer, the claim that the opposition is merely to "illegal" immigration as opposed to immigration. The laws concerning immigration are a joke, the governmental systems overseeing them understaffed, the border is porous, and the drug laws are a huge part of the problem. Real people, decent folk who actually go to church every week and pay their bills and work like horses, are the kind of people we want in America. We invited them by offering them work. There's a help wanted sign right there on that big fence we're building. We invited these people in and then ten or twenty or thirty years later, we drop the bomb on them that since they didn't jump through the hoops which no one was watching anyway (and we've made lots of money off their labor), they can get the f*** out.

The "problem" is that they ain't white.

[AlinPA]

15. No. Those people are anti-immigrant. Look at all the teabagger signs that call for

"English" only. They are worried about too many hispanic people who would vote Democratic.

[hulka38]

16. Are there a significant number of Americans that view illegal immigration

as a problem who aren't racists?

[ProSense]

22. Democratic lawmakers have been pushing immigration reform, which

has nothing to do with the anti-immigrant stance the Republicans have embraced. You cannot conflate the two.

[hulka38]

32. Look, what Washington did or didn't do has nothing to do with the question above.

I think there are many non Republican tea baggers and conservative business people who look at the uncontrolled flow over the border as a problem. Not everyone who's concerned about this is a xenophobe. In that respect I think you're the one conflating.

[ProSense]

35. "people who look at the uncontrolled flow over the border "

"Not everyone who's concerned about this is a xenophobe."

What a crock!

[hulka38]

36. Why is it a crock?

[ProSense]

37. Because that comment reeks

of xenophobia.

[JuniperLea]

56. +1

.

[hulka38]

73. There is a flow over the border of illegal immigrants.

Is it not controlled.

Are these statements false?

[ProSense]

81. Which border?

Are you concerned about all illegal immigrants or the just those coming over the border between the U.S. and Mexico?

What about the other four million illegal immigrants?

[hulka38]

84. Is there another border with a substantial and uncontrolled flow of illegals

aside from the Mexican border? The other illegals are here illegally. That's a problem.


Now about my xenophobia, what about the question in 73?

[William Z. Foster]

109. a request

Please stop referring to human beings as "illegals."

[hulka38]

114. Right illegal immigrants

[boppers]

131. There is no uncontrolled border, or flow.

The whole reason human smuggling exists is *because* of the flow being controlled.

Should the EU re-instate massive access control, because the EU failed, due to all the people having uncontrolled flow?

[hulka38]

133. Human traffic is flowing over and in many cases under the border.

There is most certainly a flow. There southern border is not controlled by any stretch.

The EU can do whatever it wants. I'm not concerned.

[boppers]

134. An English language hint:

"Uncontrolled" is not the same as "I think the controls are inadequate".

Same with "Not controlled".

It's as simple as complaining that "all colors are black, if they're not white".

In this case, such a comparison seems to fit, to point out the racism involved, and the shallow levels of thinking that leads to it.

edit:explain simile

[hulka38]

136. I concede the semantic point.

On the other point, are you saying that my desire to have orderly processing and cooperation of immigrants and adequate control over the borders is akin to racism?

[boppers]

159. Orderly processing makes sense.

A threat of prison and deportation makes such processing difficult.

Where racism comes into play is when only certain groups are targeted for "processing".

[hulka38]

164. targeted for "processing"

Cue the dark music. Show the villain twirling his mustache. C'mon, you're the word guy. "Processing" doesn't have to be as dramatically diabolical as you're implying. All of my grandparents were processed upon entering this country. So were the Jews at Auschwitz.

And yet again with the racism charge. What's your daily quota? I'm not singling out certain groups.

"A threat of prison and deportation makes such processing difficult." - I hope we figure it out on the Federal level. Ignoring it or throwing our hands is not a solution.
Ooooh, he said 'solution'!

[boppers]

167. How about this:

Amend the law so that when a police officer encounters an undocumented immigrant within US borders, the police are required to provide paperwork so that a person can become a citizen if they would like, or they can opt for a trip back home.

No jail, no deportation, if they've made it here, aren't committing a major crime, and want to stay.

The reason for calling it "processing" is that it's a euphemism (in this case, as the law currently stands) for "jail and deportation", not a euphemism for "granted citizenship".

[hulka38]

172. And we could redefine "processing" to mean what it meant wrt

immigration a century ago when immigrants were accounted for, we had a system that worked and would be immigrants knew that if they wanted to become Americans they had to follow the procedure.

Flesh out your details and email it to the big man.

[Go2Peace]

90. No, it is a perfectly legitimate political policy question

Some people want to slow immigration because of concerns about or natural heritage and open spaces we have been able to enjoy.

Some people believe that we can't keep quality social nets and services if people are undocumented and cannot be accounted for and be part of both the costs and benefits.

Some people think that porous borders are a national security concern, not because most Mexicans are not a solid people, but because when people pour over the border without an orderly system that criminals are free to move through undetected as well.

Think about it. Would you be open to having undocumented people be able to hop on a plane to the US? If not why not, there is an argument they are similar concepts.

There are a range of policy and DEMOCRATIC decisions to be made around this issue and people have a right to have a wide range of preferences in what kind of immigration policy and security policies that we have.

To paint this purely as anyone who does not want a freely open and undocumented border process is somehow racist is intellectually dishonest and UNDEMOCRATIC.

Call out profiling and racist policies, but we only hurt democracy when we close our minds through pure ideology that does not allow legitimate policy discussions. And to some extent that has happened with this issue.

[ProSense]

95. What?

"Think about it. Would you be open to having undocumented people be able to hop on a plane to the US? If not why not, there is an argument they are similar concepts."

This comment is whack. The OP's premise in one line: Is it misleading to call a movement anti immigration when its primary focus is to stop illegal immigration?

No one categorized the push for immigration reform as anti immigration. The characterization was strictly applied to the GOP's actions and comments.

A lot of illegal immigrants enter the U.S. by plane.

"There are a range of policy and DEMOCRATIC decisions to be made around this issue and people have a right to have a wide range of preferences in what kind of immigration policy and security policies that we have."

And none of these decisions have anything to do with the GOP's racist actions.

[hulka38]

120. "The characterization was strictly applied to the GOP's actions and comments"

No. It was not. I should know, I wrote it. No where have I said that. There are many people across the political spectrum who believe for various reasons that allowing completely unchecked immigration is bad policy. This is not limited to the GOP.

[Bluenorthwest]

137. Towering Strawman

You keep raving about 'completely unchecked immigration' and no one, no one is suggesting such a thing. That is Strawman Classic. You are foisting a point and arguing against it as if others had foisted it to begin with.
Another of your strawmen is your declaration that the focus of the hate groups is stemming illegal immigration, which it is not. If it were, they would not focus on harassment of individuals, but upon ending the employer habit of mass hiring for low wages, and also upon the currently untenable legal channels that virtually everyone would use if it were possible. If you want everyone to be 'legal' then you have to make it possible for them to be legal, and impossible for companies to exploit them when they are not.
Anytime I agree with Prosense, anyone should take note. And we agree here, about this unamerican and ineffective law and the reasons for that law.
I'll point out that many have issues with this law, the President has asked the DOJ to investigate, even Republicans such as Rove and Jeb Bush are against this legislation. Do you claim that both Obama and Jeb Bush are for 'completely unchecked immigration' or will you admit that they are speaking about a more nuanced way of seeing things? Is Obama calling you a racist, and calling for open borders? No, he's not. No one is. That is your straw, your delusion, your own heart made manifest before our eyes.
Really pitiful stuff you are posting. Not just bigoted, but very poorly argued. I'd say it is GOP like, but too many of the GOP have the sense to oppose this crap as well, so I'll just say poorly thought out, poorly argued.

[hulka38]

161. 'completely unchecked immigration' was a poor choice of words.

I was trying to respond to many different posts in a short amount of time.

"You keep raving..." - Where else was I foisting this point? Saying that I'm raving is a mischaracterization. My posts have been on the low end of the emotional scale on this thread.

My point throughout has been that maintaining the current policy wrt illegal immigration is a problem. So here's a better, more rested less hurried way of making the point. There are many people across the political spectrum who believe for various reasons that illegal immigration is a problem. This is not limited to the GOP. It is certainly not limited to the tea baggers. You are assuming that the movement I was referring to was exclusively tea bag. The vast majority of Americans believe that illegal immigration is a somewhat serious or serious issue. CBS in a recent poll has it at 86%.

Poorly argued maybe, because I never made it clear who I was talking about. But there are some interesting things to be learned from these posts because of that lack of clarity. First, there is a stunning failure to understand that not everyone who thinks illegal immigration is a problem is by definition a tea bagging, racist, bigoted xenophobe. There are many independents and liberals who feel that illegal immigration is a problem. And second, the failure to understand that many who think that illegal immigration is a problem do not support the AZ law.

"Anytime I agree with Prosense, anyone should take note." - Don't flatter yourself. No one gives a shit.

[billh58]

166. Actually, many of

us "give a shit" what is being said by those log-time DU-ers who are pointing out the flaws in your OP. Maybe you should consider the degree of self-flattery you are engaging in, as you continue to be hoist with your own petard, bubba...

[hulka38]

169. Is this bubba thing bad?

[SwampG8r]

102. howdy

i thought your reply was so well thought out and it was what i was trying to say in a OP i had up so i copied it to my OP before i asked
i hope you dont mind
anything anyone says positive on my OP will be due to youre eloquence
all negatives will be to my poor expression
thank you or forgive me
whichever will apply

[billh58]

113. And what has

ANY of this to do with SB1070 and its intent to legalize Sheriff Joe's racial-profiling?

This obscene "law" was written by white-supremacists for the express purpose of legitimizing Sheriff Joe's pogrom, has absolutely nothing to do with "illegal immigration," and everything to do with intimidating a growing Democratic-voting native-born Hispanic population.

This entire affair is just another bigoted Republican attempt to intimidate potential Democratic voters. If these bigoted asswipes were serious about finding a solution for the undocumented alien "problem," they would go through the courts and sue the Federal government for redress. As it stands, it looks like the reverse will occur, and the Federal government may sue Arizona (presumably for being stupid AND rednecked).

[William Z. Foster]

124. my mind is wide open

I am very much open to all sorts of possible approaches to this, and speaking out against racism is not "ideology" - pure or otherwise - nor is speaking out for human rights.

All of the goals you list are laudable, and I only ask that they be achieved in a manner consistent with honoring human rights. In fact I say that they only CAN be achieved by actions consistent with honoring human rights. If you are sincere about those goals, and truly do want an open process and intelligent discussion, then let's have that. So far, you have not been willing to even consider my ideas for achieving the very goals that you say you want to see achieved. I did not say "open the borders and the hell with worrying about crime, the environment, jobs and the social safety net." I said that open borders will get us to those goals, and the anti-immigrant movement will not.

I agree that a "disorderly system" is bad and can foster crime. The police model and the racist anti-immigrant hysteria is creating a disorderly system.

The collapsing social safety net is a function of an all out assault on it for decades by the right wing. As pro-Labor Democrats, we know that Labor is the source of wealth and that the only reason there ever is not enough for the workers is because management has taken too much of what the workers produced. Immigrants now are paying into the social safety net, and not getting back from it. So they are not collapsing it, they are supporting it and maybe even saving it.

The environment is being threatened by exploitation and pollution, at the hands of the owners and corporations, and is not threatened by the poor working people.

When people show up at the border seeking work, give them an id card and a work permit, renewable at periodic intervals. They are brought into the system, and all problems are solved.

What people are saying here is not that you personally are a racist, but rather than the anti-immigrant movement is. That seems to be to be beyond any question. See the difference?

[Caretha]

160. There are non-republican tea baggers?

who knew

[treestar]

24. No

We let these people stay here, choose not to deport them, benefit from the lower prices, let them work without protections, and then sneer that they are "illegal." The solution is to make them legal, so they can have workplace rights and be hired on the same terms as Americans. They can be exploited now and we let that go so we can benefit from lower prices.

Being stuck on the "legal" aspect is just an excuse. If they were rounded up and deported tomorrow, those same people would start working on restrictions on legal immigration and restrictions on legal immigrants.

[hulka38]

34. Snear or not, they are illegal. That is a distinction from being legal.

[retread]

40. The law is the law! Good, bad or indifferent it must be upheld to the letter!

[treestar]

142. They are illegal and the only consequence in the law is for the federal

government to deport them. That's it. If you're stuck on the illegality of their being here, then be stuck on the legality of the consequences. There are no consequences, LEGALLY, than one: INS deporting them.

[William Z. Foster]

187. no they are not

Human beings cannot "be illegal." That is a very dangerous concept.

Won't you think this through a little more and engage in some constructive discussion about it rather than repeating and repeating the same dangerous ideas and playing at dueling talking points?

[salguine]

48. I think illegal immigration is a huge problem, and I'm not a racist. I would think

it was a problem if massive numbers of Danes and Swedes were entering the country illegally. The thing is, it's very difficult to have any meaningful discussion on the issue when some people—a LOT of people—are ready to instantly paint as a racist anyone who even says "maybe illegal immigration is a problem."

[ProSense]

58. Interesting!

I would think...

it was a problem if massive numbers of Danes and Swedes were entering the country illegally. The thing is, it's very difficult to have any meaningful discussion on the issue when some people—a LOT of people—are ready to instantly paint as a racist anyone who even says "maybe illegal immigration is a problem."

Anywhere from one million to two million (or 10 percent) are European. It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation about illegal immigration when the issue is being conflated with the GOP's anti-immigrant stance. When the Republicans are passing racist laws and yapping about deporting U.S. citizens, they need to be called out.

Here is how Karl Rove denounced Arizona's racist law (paraphrase): This law is likely unconstitutional, but illegal immigration is a problem.

John McCain said something to the effect that he can understand the anger that led to the law.

See the problem?

If anyone wants to have a meaningful conversation about illegal immigration, using criticism of the GOP's stance to claim that people are making light of illegal immigration is ludicrous.




Edited typo and word for clarity.

[hulka38]

82. It's hard to have a conversation with people who are hyperventilating.

The responses have been interesting.

[ProSense]

85. "Hyperventilating"? You're having a xenophobic moment because

people are criticizing the GOP's anti-immigrant stance. It's obvious you're extremely concerned that labeling the GOP's position as such is the same as making light of illegal immigration.

[hulka38]

87. I'm not even sure what that means but I'm not anti immigrant.

I'm anti illegal immigration. How am I making light of illegal immigration? The whole point is that I'm concerned about it while most here are blowing it off as a non issue.

[Go2Peace]

92. There are a lot of people in the Democratic Party feel the same as you

and on this site. But they are being "shut up" right now by a vocal minority who wants to paint this as a "with us or against us"/monotonal issue.

And there is a lot of political capital to be gained. While certainly our basic ideas are far more civil than the rights, we are engaging in the same stuff that Fox news does, as many capitalize on the issue with a somewhat intellectually dishonest discourse.

Does it work? Sure it does, the Republicans proved that. Ultimately does it make a more sane and better world. No.

[hulka38]

99. I guess.

With respect to the shouting down of discourse and assuming the worst about people who disagree with you, there are plenty here who share this trait with certain other groups. Overall I think DU's a good site, I've chatted with some good people, it's interesting and I really should contribute some $. On this I thought I'd see if I could generate some independent thought on a pretty narrow subject knowing it was close to a nerve. I knew I'd get plenty of knee jerk. I was a little surprised it turned into a psychobilly freakout. But that's fine. It's interesting.

[billh58]

139. Let's see...

People who do not agree with you completely are in the midst of a "psychobilly freakout?" That bit of condescending bullshit speaks volumes about you bubba. You seem to believe that you are the only poster here that can generate "independent thought," while the truth is that you are parroting the xenophobic religious right racist "movement" almost word-for-word.

I stated in another post that I didn't believe that you are intentionally a racist or xenophobic, but your continued insistence on resorting to strawmen arguments, attacking those who dare to disagree with your brilliant OP, and inventing doomsday "the illegals are coming!" scenarios out of whole cloth has changed my mind. Sheriff Joe and Jan Brewer thank you for supporting their positions, and be sure and check under your bed tonight in case any "illegals" are lurking...

[hulka38]

153. Disagree with me all you want.

Don't attribute things to me I've never said.

"You seem to believe that you are the only poster here that can generate 'independent thought,' " - I don't think it and never said it.
"Attacking those who dare to disagree with your brilliant OP..." - I never said my post was brilliant. I don't even think it's that good. I probably should have been clearer about what I meant by "movement". People automatically assume I mean tea bag. I meant anyone who thinks that illegal immigration is a problem, which is the vast majority of Americans. Americans may not think it's the country's top priority or even view it as a serious issue but it is an issue for them nonetheless.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003551-503544.html
You are among the very few who don't understand that not everyone who thinks illegal immigration is a problem are by definition tea bagging, racist xenophobes. It's just that nearly everyone who thinks like you happens to have weighed in on this thread.
"...inventing doomsday "the illegals are coming!" scenarios out of whole cloth..." - illegal immigrants are here in the tens of millions. That's reality. I think it's a problem. I don't think it's doomsday and I never said it was.
"...but your continued insistence on resorting to strawmen arguments..." - what strawmen arguments?
I don't know who Sheriff Joe is aside from assuming he's a sheriff in AZ. I don't support the AZ law.
These are examples of inventing out of whole cloth and creating strawmen. In fact your entire post is a strawman attack.

[billh58]

154. Meh...

Walks like? Talks like? Probably is. Don't forget to look under your bed bubba...

[treestar]

146. It just doesn't have that much effect on daily life - maybe lower

vegetable prices - so it is difficult to figure out why anyone would have any other reason to care about it and considered a huge "problem" or "concern." There's really nothing else there to make it a big problem - to a person to whom it is The Most Important and Terrible Problem, you've got to wonder why.

There are plenty on DU claiming they lost a job to an H-1B and those are LEGAL aliens.

Few claim to have lost a job to an undocumented Mexican.

One bothered by the irregularity could call for issuing them visas.

So to support this law because the undocumented are such a huge "concern" suggests only one thing.

[Zynx]

53. I think we have an illegal immigration problem simply because our quotas are too low.

I am in favor of greatly expanding the legal channels.

[Go2Peace]

94. I am in favor of expanding the legal channels, but not greatly

There are problems with expanding too rapidly. And there is a legitimate argument that some may have that they prefer not to end up with a supra high density per square mile nation. If you live all your life in an urban center you may like having high density around you (or you may not). But we have a heritage that few nations enjoy with a lot of low density open spaces, parks, Wilderness. All of those things are pressured if growth is fast or/and unplanned.

Why is it that everyone stakes out a position on something like this as a "moral stand" on immigration policy (numbers) when this is supposedly a Democracy and in democracies people are supposed to be free to debate and vote and have some general choice on which way we want to go?

[treestar]

19. They could just as well ask that the law be changed

to make it easier to be legal, if that were the case.

Somehow, they never do.

No, they are anti-immigrant. If all the undocumented were gone and everyone in the country was legal, they would start wanting restrictions on the legal aliens and cutbacks on the number who could come legally.

[Go2Peace]

97. Read my post right above. It is perfectly acceptable to want to have a democratic immigration policy

There are reasons other than racism to want to have an orderly immigration outlook. It affects many other things than what is in the media. And people have a right to have a feeling one way or another about the changes that having a very high density (people per sq mile) Nation. Right now we have a fairly low density population and that has some drawbacks, but also some benefits.
There are other legitimate policy positions as well that have nothing to do with race.

It is perfectly appropriate in a Democracy to express a variety of viewpoints on the rate of immigration. It is undemocratic that so many are so emotional about this that they want to take a dogmatic position that steamrolls others and "profiles" and slurs people who see the policy components differently.

Of course emotionalizing and trivializing it like Fox news does to gain politically is something that certainly has been proven to work. But it is intellectually honest and does it really promote sustainable democratic concepts?

We should stick to the truth and call out racial profiling. But we should also stick to our principles and not get caught up in the same type of tactics and anti-democratic approaches as those we despise.

[treestar]

143. It would be more orderly if it allowed them to come legally

Instead of being so restrictive, that it is impossible to enforce and results in 12 million undocumented aliens. If orderly were their real goal, they'd want visas for anyone who enters, so they could keep better track.

But that's never what they want.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Always lovely to see Jim Crow law defenders on DU.

[hulka38]

25. Again, I don't like the law.

The point of discussion is labeling. Congrats on being the first to call me a racist.

[Xipe Totec]

60. If I knew it was a contest I would have hurried nt

[retread]

33. Haven't seen this many since Professor Gates was arrested for breaking into his own house.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. we are still waiting for all the information on that incident before

we rush to any conclusions.

:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Remember all the fans Lou Dobbs used to have.

Maybe I should look it up to see who those people were.

I've forgotten the usernames.

[treestar]

29. I really doubt it's the primary focus

If AZ contained nothing but citizens and legal aliens, that wouldn't be good enough, you betcha. Next they would go for the legals. I would say their primary focus is making their state whiter.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Their primary focus is harassment of individuals

If they were actually trying to stop illegal immigration, they would take actions that might accomplish that, such as dealing harshly with the companies that exploit them, such as making legal immigration and work visits actually available. They don't do that. So to suggest that others are being less than honest is ludicrous.

[JuniperLea]

57. +1!

.

[damntexdem]

38. The proper term is "Know Nothingism."

And this racist movement is as anti-immigrant as it is anti-illegal-immigrant.

[chollybocker]

39. No. There are already laws on the books Re; illegal immigration.

This law is about keeping brown people out. Point finale.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Just call them Nazis.

It's both simpler and more honest.

[salguine]

47. Yes, it is very misleading.

[hulka38]

83. Thank you

I think the emotion of the moment is making people want to rant which is understandable.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. I'll call it anti-Latino until I see the Minutemen patrolling the Irish bars of Sunnyside, Queens

:eyes:

[Xipe Totec]

61. Plenty of illegal Irish immigrants up here in Dorchester

But I'll be damned before I turn them in.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. I wouldn't turn a one of them in

They mostly work construction jobs and play nice. The fact that the Minutemen don't breath a word of them speaks to their hypocrisy.

[Zynx]

52. I've never seen the two separated.

Ever.

[William Z. Foster]

54. something definitely needs to be done

Your post has convinced me that something needs to be done to solve this problem, and I am afraid that it might require drastic measures that may not go over so well with some people. But this problem has become intolerable and is destroying the country.

It is time to deport the white people. They have been here long enough, and they did all came here illegally in the first place. They have been hogging up all of the resources, defiling the land and destroying the environment, and going all around the globe to grab whatever they want and to exploit people everywhere. Why did they leave England or wherever to begin with? Why didn't they solve the problems in their own country instead of bringing them here? And the attitudes! God what an insufferable bunch of people - violent, intolerant, self-centered, arrogant, bossy and domineering. And the hypocrisy - "all men are created equal" and "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." They have no moral values at all - everything is measured by money with them. Rich people can go wherever they want to go and do whatever they want, borders or no borders. But poor people trying to feed their families? They persecute them, treat them like they were the criminals. And then they accuse those poor people of trying to take away "what is ours" after everything they have was stolen, and they accuse the immigrants of not sharing "our American values" - what American values? The whites don't honor their own "American values." Easy for them to call other people "illegal aliens" when they are the ones who make up the laws, who decide that anyone not like them is "alien," and who are the ones with the money and guns to back that up. Who is really "illegal" and who is really "alien" over the last few hundred years, if we are going to single out any group?

We can do this humanely. No need for paramilitary swat teams and a reign of terror, no need for detention centers and the rest. We can let them sell their property - at public auction, no white people allowed to bid (they will cheat and monopolize property, break treaties and contracts, and "turn" everything for maximum profit through various deceits and stunts, as we have seen now for 300 years) - and then they have ten years to relocate. I am sure that the UK and perhaps other WASP havens will welcome them back home.

I think they have had their way long enough, have had their opportunity, and they have made a horrific mess of the place and now threaten the entire planet and the survival of the human race itself. They treat the entire planet as though it were their litterbox, and treat all of the living things in it including the people as though they were their pets, that exist solely for their own amusement and selfish gratifications.

Once all of the white people are back in Sussex or Flanders or Westphalia or Prussia or wherever they are from, then we need to seal those damned borders once and for all to keep them in where they belong before they get loose again and go conquering the world, tearing everything up, enslaving everyone else, and spreading their hateful poisonous "culture" everywhere.

But unlike the whites, we can even be more tolerant and humane than that. Poor white folks - debased and tormented and exploited by their own people! can stay and help us rebuild the country and save the planet, and we will welcome them in peace as brothers and sisters.

It may not be too late, and something most definitely needs to be done to solve this problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[JuniperLea]

59. I was born here, but my 11th great grandmother arrived in a boat from England...

I'll leave. Let the Latinos stay... at least their country of origin is closer... hell, THIS really is their country too... "we" stole it from them after "we" stole it from the Indians!

[hulka38]

80. So open unenforced borders?

Should we dissolve the borders all together?

[William Z. Foster]

88. yes, absolutely

No Democrat can justify any other position that can be reconciled with the principles we honor. Closed borders is 100% a right wing position, and an important one to take a stand against, especially now.

It is amazing to me that any American could fail to see that open borders are the best approach, since we have lived with the most successful open border on modern history for almost 200 years. Borders are closed - always - to keep people in, and the authorities always use the excuse that it is to keep people out.

When the border is open, law enforcement can devote resources and manpower to the real threats. When everyone is a suspect, it all breaks down. Police states and closed borders always increase the problems they are supposed to be solving. Open borders always make the problems manageable.

There are jobs here that represent an opportunity for immigrants that do not represent an opportunity for native born people - literate, educated, enjoying the benefits that came from the blood and sweat of the Union organizers from the past. Filling those jobs creates more jobs in management, sales, supervisory work, and on and on. It also increases the chances of worker solidarity - immigrants have always been in the vanguard of the organized Labor movement, which is one reason the right wing always goes after immigrants and stirs up fear and hatred - and acts as a check against tyranny, since immigrants so often come to escape tyranny and are not complacent and obedient the way native born people so often are - today more so than ever, probably. The immigrants are doing far, far more for us than we are for them. They are probably keeping Social Security afloat, since they are paying in and not taking out. They are the check against control over our food by a handful of corporations, the death of family farming, and reliance upon inferior imported food. They are the hope for a revival of organized Labor, which is desperately needed as we all slide slowly into terrible poverty and jobs are disappearing. Now, the Republicans say that if we terrorize the workers and give the wealthy everything they want, that somehow property will trickle down. Today they terrorize the immigrants - and also citizens who happen to be brown - and tomorrow those same terror tactics will be turned on all of us. To deny that is to deny history. As Democrats we reject that right wing world view of terror and punishment, of favoring the rich and grinding the poor into the ground.

Amnesty means people can come out of the shadows, and then be paid more and have upward mobility. The "problem" is self-correcting - money flows back to the home village and improves conditions there which lessens the pressure for people to immigrate. That happened with dozens of European countries. Upgraded standards of living and education is the most reliable factor that reduces birthrates, which decreases population pressure.

Open borders is the sane approach, the humane approach, the only approach consistent with human rights, the solution to the various associated social problems, a check against the extreme right wing, and very possibly the salvation of the country.

[hulka38]

93. You are in favor of open, unenforced borders with free flow

of people and materials in and out of the U.S.A. ? I didn't advocate closed borders. You may be willfully misunderstanding me.

[William Z. Foster]

96. no idea

You asked, I answered. I don't know what you are advocating.

If a free flow of people and materials is a problem, why not put "enforced borders" between states? Between towns?

In any case, we have "a free flow of people and materials" for wealthy people - it is called "free trade" to make it sound nice and innocuous. Wealthy people flow freely across borders and do pretty much whatever they want - like stealing land in other countries, exploiting cheap labor, impoverishing the people, evading environmental, safety, and labor standards, and causing the immigration pressure in the first place.

If the wealthy people are free to cross borders in order to increase profits, should not poor people be just as free in order to feed their families, escape tyranny, and survive?

No position that recognizes rights for the wealthy that are then denied to poor people is consistent with the principles the country was founded upon, so just what sort of "America" is it that we are protecting with the anti-immigrant ideas?

[hulka38]

106. Are you saying that only wealthy people are free to cross borders

because that's what it sounds like your saying. Not too long ago my ancestors came here legally. They were poor. So were many others. Again, it's not anti immigrant, it's anti illegal immigrant. I never thought NAFTA was a good idea. I was for the bail out of Mexico. I don't want the wealthy profiting from the poor. But I also don't want to dissolve the borders of this country and say this is the United Statesish. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

[William Z. Foster]

117. I said what I said

Of course I didn't say that "only wealthy people are free to cross borders."

Whether or not your ancestors came here legally was not up to them, it was up to the authorities. They would have come in any case. Who has and who has not been seen as "illegal" over the years has always been a function of bigotry, and never a function of the law. Wealthy people have always had an easier time. By saying that I am of course not saying that only wealthy people ever cross borders.

I did say that capital (wealthy people) is extraordinary free to cross borders for their purposes - legal or not, hell they topple governments and get the US military to enforce their right to cross borders to do whatever they like - while Labor (poor people) are called "illegals" and persecuted, and you are calling for the US military to suppress their rights. Their only crime is being poor and being brown.

Look, the wealthy people write the laws. It is literally true today that corporate lobbyists and attorneys actually write the legislation for Congress. All sort of things have been made "legal" for the bosses. owners, and wealthy people to do, and all sorts of things that the working people do are continually being made "illegal." The law is an ongoing process, part of the struggle between the haves and the have nots, not something that Moses brought down from the mountain etched into stone.

When you have a lot of people breaking the law - be it prohibition, or the war on drugs, or workers crossing the border - it is time to question the wisdom of the law, not call for ever more police action and enforcement. The law should serve the people, the people do not serve the law. That is spelled out ion the founding documents of the country, upon which the entire legitimacy of the whole framework of law rests.

Immigrants are guilty of minor paperwork infractions in the vast majority of cases. We know that because by the governments own statistics, in the hundreds of thousands of people arbitrarily rounded up and indefinitely detained and denied due process, a very small percentage of actual criminals have been apprehended.

[hulka38]

125. My ancestors would have come in any case? Knowing nothing about the story

that's quite an assumption. I know some basic nuggets and I can't assume that. In fact I believe it's likely that they wouldn't have. But what do you know about my ancestors?

I'm not advocating this law in AZ.

[salguine]

112. You're just being deliberately obtuse.

[Go2Peace]

101. and that goes for getting on a plane too?

Because if not you are being inconsistant.

No documentation? No stop and search?

[William Z. Foster]

108. correct

That is my position - "that goes" in all situations. The ideas expressed in the Bill of Rights are universally applicable and unalienable, or they mean nothing.

I am not so naive as to think that cops, Homeland Security, border patrol, customs agents, Blackwater and whomever will not trample on those, I am questioning why any of us would defend that or promote it. I believe that it could only be because people are fearful and have accepted the illusion that security can be purchased by surrendering, compromising on human rights. My position is that surrendering rights always decreases security.

If we are to say that the principles in the Bill of Rights can justifiably be suspended when getting on a plane, then why not when getting in a car, or walking across the street? Those pushing us into a police state nightmare wish to demand documentation and perform searches at all times and in all places from whomever they choose. By citing exceptions - "but what about airplanes??" - we are encouraging the drift toward abuse of police authority and the trampling of human rights.

The authorities are always a greater threat to us ultimately and in the long run than the various bad people are that they want us to get all worked up about. "Terrorists" is a bad enough excuse to drive us into supporting and accepting the various horrors now being perpetrated by the authorities - arbitrary arrest, kidnapping, rendition, torture, targeted killings, "collateral damage" in the form of civilians maimed and murdered, detention, denial of due process - but good God, poor indigenous people coming here to work? Have we lost our minds?

There are times when it is appropriate for agents of the state to perform searches and other activities to protect public safety. That must always be strictly monitored and controlled, lest it get out of hand. When it does get out of hand - and the tendency is always in that direction - public safety is increasingly threatened not enhanced. The more manpower and resources devoted to treating all as suspects, the less available for use against the real threats to public safety.

[Go2Peace]

118. A consistant position

In a theory I agree with you, but practically speaking I don't think we are there yet. We have a lot of work to do first to disarm radicalism and violent people. I would love a safe "kumbaya" world, but the reality is, that in some places I want safety measure. I don't see a problem with those. Police are good, police abuse is bad. We need better restrictions on police activity so it does not trample on rights, we are behind in legislation of privacy rights. But I want that check. Do you really want your child to board an international plane with no inspection in the world as it is?

[William Z. Foster]

152. agreed

We are not there yet. The question is, how do we get there?

This is a chronic problem on a number of issues. Do we "go to the right" in order to be practical and realistic, in the hope that someday in the future the climate will change and we can then go left, or is that actually helping to steer things to the right? There is a separation in many people's minds between principles and ideals - to be seen as dreamland, utopian, kumbaya and the like - and what we actually do or advocate for. The thinking is that we must advocate for and support something other than what we actually support, or claim to support, because we need to be practical and realistic.

I am saying that you cannot go to the right in order to get to the left, and you cannot go toward a police state in order to get freedom.

Don't call people's better nature, and calls for working with that rather than with fear and bigotry, "kumbaya."

[JuniperLea]

138. We live on stolen property...

Seems fairly low and disgusting to say others can't come here too. I live in El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciúncula... what right do I have to say Latinos can't live here?

We're spending a hell of a lot of hate energy, money, and precious time trying to stop the Earth from turning on its axis. It just might be time to put all those resources to better use in finding a better way to deal with this situation. Hate, racism, bigotry and xenophobia haven't worked for a couple hundred years now.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. t.y. great response.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Well, it is misleading to call a law immigration reform when its real purpose is . . .

. . . to make sure that as many Hispanic American citizens as possible are in the slammer on election day.

[saltpoint]

62. IMO its primary intent is to create a permission slip for law enforcement

to practice bigotry.

It is reactionary at best and it is cruel in every other regard.

Governor Brewer was a coward to sign 1070. It was the act of a craven opportunist.

The bill creates an instrument with which to practice bigotry based on race.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. no it is dishonest to pretend that you all aren't a bunch of racist idiots. nt.

[salguine]

70. Well, I can see how you got YOUR name.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. oh fine insult my parents.

By the way, my grandfather snuck into this country after stealing the family cow to pay for his passage. We are a nation of immigrants, legal or otherwise. The nativist tradition of the less recent arrivals attacking the newest arrivals is only around 200 years old or so. The only nativists who had an honest case were the original people here, and they should have killed us all when they had the chance. The rest are a bunch of know-nothing pointy-head bigots.

[hulka38]

79. What was the point of Ellis Island?

Do you give any credit what so ever to all those immigrants who followed the procedures they were asked to be allowed into this country let alone become U.S. citizens?

[boppers]

132. Elllis Island was disease control.

Would you be in favor of open borders with disease control?

[hulka38]

135. Ellis functioned very well as an orderly processing plant for this country.

It tracked who came in. It was concerned primarily with disease control as you said. It addressed the gravest threat at the time. That was a century ago.

[hulka38]

67. I was afk for a while.

Immigration, illegal immigration, tea baggers, racism are all hot topics now because of this law in AZ. My OP wasn't about this law.

The Duers who've responded believe the following:

1. Everyone who is concerned about illegal immigration is essentially a tea bagger and is a racist xenophobe and possibly a nazi.
2. Illegal immigration is not a concern.
and 3. Several if not most here think I'm a racist for bringing up the subject.


A few more Q's

Should there be a distinction between immigrants who are here legally and illegally?
Should there be no such thing as an illegal immigrant?
Should the borders be completely open and unenforced?
Is the alternative to open and unenforced borders racist?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. We really don't think you're concerned about illegal immigration.

1. If you people were half as concerned about "the rule of law" as you claim to be, you wouldn't be so quick to violate the constitution.

2. Consider the same people who support this racist shit are the same ones that want to "deport" legal American citizens of hispanic descent, i.e. "anchor babies," we also can't take you seriously on the "illegal" part.

I'd rather open the borders to all the illegal immigrants in the world, then the racist trash who were born here and support this shit.

[hulka38]

74. I don't support this law, I'm not a tea bagger

and I do not want to deport legal American citizens of any kind.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. I'm an astronaut.

[hulka38]

78. Good for you

[Warren Stupidity]

72. "Several if not most here think I'm a racist for bringing up the subject"

You didn't bring up 'this subject' you freaking lectured us on how improper it was to call a bunch of nativist bigots a bunch of nativist bigots.

[hulka38]

77. I didn't lecture. I asked a question.

This was the question: Is it misleading to call a movement anti immigration when its primary focus is to stop illegal immigration? Isn't calling it anti illegal immigration more accurate and honest?

I understand that the tea baggers are the group most identified with the ant illegal and anti immigrant stand. But what I'm hearing is that anyone who is concerned about illegal immigration is a tea bagger and a bigot.

[Dr Morbius]

86. False premise.

The "primary focus" of this movement is not concerning illegal immigration. Do you know which nation has sent the second-most illegal immigrants into America, after Mexico? I bet you don't, because PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LEGALITY (it's Ireland, by the way). They don't want more Mexicans.

[hulka38]

89. I'm sure there's a substantial percentage of tea baggers who don't care about the legality

and simply don't want more Mexicans. There are also an enormous amount of people across the political spectrum who do care about the legality. They also want some control over the border of their country. This may not be the topic of greatest concern but it's a concern nonetheless. The most interesting thing about this thread is how adamant people are that the latter people don't exist.

Thanks for the irrelevant historical footnote.

[Dr Morbius]

98. You think it's irrelevant that the Irish comprise the second greatest number...

...of illegal immigrants in America today, and you think this is "historical."

Why be so concerned about laws - unenforced laws, mind you - that were broken by immigrants when you've never shown concern about the laws broken by those who invited them into the country?

Amend the laws concerning businesses in America, and declare that no business can cite a legal deduction without a federal tax ID number or a social security number. Companies can continue to use "independent contractors" but not without a tax number. Then if the IRS discovers the same social security number appearing multiple times, they are able to track down the person using somebody else's social security number (a greater crime, IMO, than coming to America to work) and arrest him or her. Ergo, if you don't have your own social security number, you won't be able to be deducted as a valid business expense. Take away the under-the-table payments, and the hated Mexicans will leave on their own.

Freaking problem solved, but I bet that's not enough, is it?

[hulka38]

123. How do you know what I've never shown concern about?

I'm sure it's a wonderful plan you have there.

[billh58]

162. What you're hearing

is NOT what is being said, and I suspect that you know that all too well. What is actually being said (to you), is that you need to stop viewing "illegals" as pests and varmints which need to be eradicated, and consider that these are human beings with the same wants and needs as you and me.

I have noticed that those who complain the loudest about "illegals," hardly ever offer suggestions as to how to solve the problem. Even Dubya came to the conclusion that the most humane, and quickest way to address the issue would be to grant amnesty to those otherwise law-abiding, but undocumented aliens already here, make legal immigration and work visas for our neighboring countries' citizens easier to obtain, and revamp our border policies. But his neoconservative, religious-right, xenophobic, racist "base" went absolutely berserk over that suggestion. Now compare your OP to the neoconservative stand that "illegals" are a problem, and have a potential to threaten our very existence. You offer absolutely no remedies or suggestions, but just a strawman complaint, with very few actual facts to back it up.

Your assertions that the majority of those DU-ers who have responded to you are somehow bleeding-heart liberals who just "don't get it," is the height of arrogance. Some very prolific posters have offered you coherent, and highly intelligent responses (and no, I'm not among them) but your answers to them have been condescending and combative. Believe me, we ALL "get it," and your OP, as written, is more in tune with the Arizona rednecks than with the thoughts of a majority of Democratic Liberals.

[hulka38]

168. I want to eradicate the pests and varmints?

Is that what I want to do? And you're going to accuse me of being condescending and combative after that? You are a trip.

[billh58]

176. The implication is

there for all to see bubba, except for you maybe. Your references to "illegals" gives off a mental picture of you picking up a dog turd, or calling animal control to remove a skunk from your yard.

You can continue your rant about "illegals" now, and I've got much better things to do than to argue with a closet bigot.

Ta ta...

[hulka38]

182. Don't forget to brush that tooth, bill.

[billh58]

128. Claiming that your

OP isn't about the Arizona law is a little weak. The only reason that "immigration" is such a hot topic over the last few days, is ALL about the racist Arizona law. What do you expect people to believe when you post an OP calling for a distinction between "anti-immigration," and "anti-illegal-immigration?" On its face, the question sounds a lot like a defense of the "anti-illegal" portion of Arizona's sham "law."

The question that has been raised elsewhere on this thread: "why don't we have interstate, or intercity immigration policies is an intriguing one. We DO have interstate commerce, and interstate agriculture laws and regulations -- why not interstate immigration laws as well?

I suspect the answer is that we are a Federation of states, and therefore immigration from state-to-state is an inherent "right." Interestingly, the European Union has adopted a policy of "free movement" of people between member States with some restrictions, but very few hoops to jump through. One of the "Teabaggers" worst nightmares is the specter of a "North American Union," similar to Europe's model.

So yes, there are possible aspects of racism and xenophobia mingled in with the "anti-illegal" mindset, depending on what your worldview is. I happen to believe that borders, like organized religions, are highly overrated and mostly imaginary.

[treestar]

144. It is not a big concern

Most people ignore it and it doesn't affect them. Those who are concerned are the racists and the teabaggers.

Not a huge problem. Illegal driving under the influence, etc. is far more dangerous; we should have far more concern about that. Or is dangerous. Going to a country that won't give you a visa doesn't do much harm to anyone and could even be a benefit.

Besides, the illegal nature of it is not the problem with the people who would want this law. They are also against LEGAL aliens - you see rants daily on DU about H-1Bs and how there should be no more of them. If by miracle there were no undocumented entrants, the same people would still be unhappy with the number of green cards and Hs, Ls, and whatever else.

[Lyric]

91. The primary focus is racism, not illegal immigration.

They aren't hunting down illegal WHITE immigrants en masse. Illegal white immigrants are usually only caught when they do something stupid, like committing a crime of some kind and getting busted. Not the case for Latinos, who can be accosted and hassled about their immigration status (by authorities and also by nosy, racist co-workers and neighbors) for no particular reason whatsoever other than their perceived racial status.

[Skip Intro]

100. That seems like a fair question to me, and I think the insults being hulred at you for asking it

are sad and embarrassing.

There may be a big difference between the intent of the law and the real effect of the law. But the stated goal is to stop illegal immigration, not immigration. That you have been called a racist for asking about such an obvious and important distinction blows my mind.

[ProSense]

103. Ah, a defense of the Arizona bill

"There may be a big difference between the intent of the law and the real effect of the law. But the stated goal is to stop illegal immigration, not immigration."

The legislation requires law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone who they have a "reasonable suspicion" is in the country illegally.

She said she will not tolerate racial discrimination or profiling. Brewer also said she had worked with legislators to make sure the bill protects civil rights.

"We must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color, accent or social status," she said, adding that the bill's opponents are "over-reacting."

An estimated 1,200 protesters, many of them students, gathered outside the Capitol to demonstrate against the bill.

She urged the law's supporters and enforcers to be careful not to make "even the slightest misstep."

link

The Arizona law, in addition to being racist, is what is sad and embarrassing.

[Dr Morbius]

104. Who called the OP a racist?

He has taken a stance that reeks of racism, but it's entirely fair to point that out. We're here to focus our attacks and vitriol not on each other, but the posts we make and the stands we take are fair game! That's debate. There is a difference, and a profound difference at that, between stating a position is racist and stating a poster is racist. The first is acceptable provided one backs it up, and the second is completely unacceptable.

Who called the OP a racist, please?

[hulka38]

110. What about my stand reeks of racism?

There is nothing remotely fair about claiming anything I've said on this thread is racist.

From your perspective I'm an empty vessel with the sole exception of what you think is a racist comment. If you're honest, from your perspective, I'm already in that camp until proven otherwise. A persons stands or beliefs make up who they are.

Does bigot count? Jim Crow advocate. Read the thread.

Focusing attacks and vitriol is not debate.

[Dr Morbius]

119. My point there was that you were complaining about attacks you never received.

From my perspective you're a GOP operative, not an empty vessel at all. But you see, I insist on defining my own perspective. I do not allow others to tell me what my perspective is.

If people are going to attack, let them attack the posts as opposed to the posters. If you want a world where people converse civilly and politely, try a fantasy novel.

You insist it's all about the illegal immigration, not about immigration. I don't believe you. Where was the interest in law and order before the immigration topic came up? Nowhere. I've pointed out the illegal side of the problem from the American side; you ignore that and insist these PEOPLE are "illegals."

Ever drive through a stop sign? You're an illegal, too. Ever smoke a joint? You're an illegal. The adjective "illegal" refers to actions, not people. Or don't you think people are something more than statistics? Why the focus on illegal immigrants? Where is the interest in stopping employers from using illegal immigrants? And, how is government supposed to enforce these laws when conservatives are screaming about government spending being way too high?

Ever read the history of the nineteenth century? You'd know the "know-nothing" party started out of - you guessed it - racism. The underlying mistrust of any who aren't "one of us" is connected with the Republican party ever since. This dates back a century and a half. The Republican party for many years was also the party of African-Americans, which should have created an interesting dynamic but since largely, African-Americans weren't allowed to vote, did not.

[hulka38]

126. You're wrong

I'm neither a Republican nor a GOP operative, whatever that is.

"Where was the interest in law and order before the immigration topic came up? Nowhere."
You haven't the slightest idea what I'm interested in.

"I've pointed out the illegal side of the problem from the American side; you ignore that and insist these PEOPLE are 'illegals.'"
No clue about what you're talking about.

Why focus on illegal immigrants? Because it's a relevant topic.

I knew when I posted this that people like you would be uncivil and impolite which is fine otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. Still, attacks and vitriol are not debate.

[billh58]

121. I, for one, do not

believe that you are an intentional racist, and your stand on "illegal immigration" is a more-or-less fair one. Where I disagree, however, is that SB1070 has absolutely nothing to do with honestly addressing the problem of undocumented aliens, or with tightening our borders.

The Arizona Republicans who are currently in charge of the State government are little more than white supremacists, and bigots who are deathly afraid of losing power to Democrats who are supported by Hispanics. This obscene "law" is designed for the sole purpose of intimidating Hispanics, but I believe that it will backfire and serve to solidify the Arizona Hispanic community.

Immigration, both legal and illegal, is a national issue, and is long overdue for a complete overhaul. Hopefully, we Democrats can maintain control of the Congress long enough to get much-needed national reform implemented.

[hulka38]

127. I'm not in favor of that bill ffs.

[William Z. Foster]

151. good grief

Here is a clue - should someone say that you have made a racist comment or an argument that supports or defends racism, stop, think about it, and consider that MAYBE, just maybe, that in the context of growing up in an extremely racist society that any of us - yes, even you - are liable to make racist comments or arguments that promote racism, even if inadvertently.

Taking it personally and immediately claiming to be offended and hurt and getting all defensive very strongly suggest that you ARE promoting racism, since that is exactly the argument used by Buchanan, Hannity, Limbaugh and other notorious and blatant racists. Every time the subject of racism comes up, they start acting hurt and offended and say "how dare you call me a racist?" This gives them cart blanche to continue to spread racist hatred and not be called on it. Are you sure you want to use that same line of defense?

Another clue - if you don't want people to suspect that you are promoting racism, do not use the exact same line of argumentation that the most notorious racists use.

Another clue - being defensive and unwilling to discuss racism, and instead turning the tables and trying to convince us that you are the poor persecuted person here - because, gasp!!! someone suggested that your line of reasoning promotes racism - does not help your case.

[salguine]

115. I challenge you to point out what, in the OP, "reeks of racism".

[Dr Morbius]

122. You're right. It was the original poster, but not the original post.

Here's the line (post #73):

There is a flow over the border of illegal immigrants.

Note the "over the border". We have two borders, and illegal immigrants fly in every day. But "the border" means Mexico, and that smells like anti-Mexican sentiment to me.

You are right, however. It wasn't in the original post, and I stand corrected.

[hulka38]

129. This thread of course has gone off the rails a long time ago and I need to hit the hay but

this I find hilarious. Here's part of your post #74:

"He has taken a stance that reeks of racism, but it's entirely fair to point that out...there is a difference, and a profound difference at that, between stating a position is racist and stating a poster is racist. The first is acceptable provided one backs it up, and the second is completely unacceptable.
Who called the OP a racist, please?"

And here's you post above:
"It was the original poster , but not the original post ."


It's the perfect way to cap off the evening.

[Go2Peace]

190. It's our own 14% group

The people who have taken over these threads represent are our own version of the emotional part of our party. They are willing to broadbrush and argue circles in order to prove that others are what they imagine them to be. They call out people as "Racists" when they don't form their opinions the same way they do, in the same way the Red Baiters did with McCarthy, even willing to go on a purity witch hunt on a board full of other liberals. They ignore facts if it get's in the way of the ideology. They whip themselves into a froth and there are people that are using that to energize people into anger and hate, just like Beck and Limbaugh.

There should be a "firestorm" over racist behavior and laws, but as Democrats we should stay near the truth, and we should not invoke this kind of fundamentalist/puritanical rage in order motivate a movement, even if the movement is in the right.

We should learn to recognize this. Because while indeed there is some truth involved what is being said, the indiscrimate nature, fundamentalist "us or them" viewpoint, and way it spreads and infuses it's message with distortions and unfounded accusations, has way too much in common with what is involved in other rage based movements like the teabagger movement. And I am not talking about immigrant groups, because most immigrant groups are not engaging in the severe type of rhetoric we see here and on some radio shows right now.

[billh58]

107. This obscene

Jim Crow, racist-Republican, "law" has absolutely nothing to do with curtailing "illegal immigration" regardless of what in the hell you call it. The only purpose of SB1070 is to give Sheriff Joe's ongoing racial-profiling and intimidation of Hispanics a degree of legitimacy.

The bill was written by a white supremacist, for white supremacists, passed by white racist bigots, and signed into law by a cowardly white Republican shill pandering for white rednecked votes. Unless every Arizonian who is stopped, for ANY reason, by the Arizona Gestapo is required to prove their citizenship, or legal immigration status, then SB1070 is racial-profiling pure and simple.

After passing the "Birther Bill" because of their "Teabagger" fear and hatred of our African-American POTUS and CIC, this racist move by the rednecked politicians of Arizona is not in the least out-of-character.

[SoxFan]

145. No, the movement is xenophobic and anti-immigration

I've heard these folks complaining about "immigrants" from Puerto Rico. From a purely legal standpoint, this is like complaining about immigrants from White Plains or Chillicothe.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

156. we had to agree on something eventually and i guess this is the something

:)

[BlueStater]

150. I agree with what you're saying.

Unfortunately, when discussing this issue, you have to choose your words VERY carefully because there's always somebody in the shadows waiting to jump out and accuse you of being a racist. Sad.

[Xipe Totec]

155. Especially sad, if it turns out to be true nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

157. indeed

[BlueStater]

180. But it isn't always true.

There are millions of people in this country who oppose illegal immigration. Trying to paint them all as racists is a stupid tactic that isn't going to work.

[Go2Peace]

193. But it is a great way to whip people into a frenzy and motivate, Republicans know this

this is just our own version of emotionally based thinking. I suspect some here understand what they are doing, but they feel that the compromise is justified. Unfortunately we will probably have to deal with a lot of this in the future. Fundamentalism is increasing in all spheres.

And as I have said before, I am not talking about immigrant groups and most of the dialog around immigration. Most immigrant NGO orgs are not partaking in this kind of rhetoric.

[Forkboy]

165. I can't imagine why anyone defending this would be called racist.

[BlueStater]

181. Are you referring to the Arizona law?

Who in this thread has defended it?

[Go2Peace]

191. exactly, it's irrational rage, the same phenominon we hate in teabaggers

[golfguru]

158. I am a legal immigrant with brown skin

I had to wait many years just to get my green card,
had to work my butt off so my employer would keep
renewing my application for green card every 6 months.
I can't see any valid reason why others should get a
free pass when I did not.

I do not mind being searched at airports since it makes
me feel safer getting on the plane, hoping they searched
many others thoroughly.

When I lived in Chicago, I was stopped routinely by
traffic cops. I am sure it was my brown skin driving
and living in a high class white neighborhood, but I
can't prove that. Since I had nothing illegal on me, it
was just a minor inconvenience, and no big deal. Actually
I got to know some cops in the neighborhood that way and
it is always good to know cops on first name basis.
There always will be some rogue cops. No law is going to
change that.

On the whole I support any effort to send illegal immigrants
back to where they came from, and encourage them to work
through the system of legal immigration.

[boppers]

170. Because it was hard for you, it should be hard for others?

"I can't see any valid reason why others should get a free pass when I did not."

How's this for a reason: You were treated wrong.

[Xipe Totec]

171. On the internets anybody can be brown

Your attitude belies any experience of racism in your own skin.

PS: Si quieres echar una platicada, llamame. Pero por lo que veo, ya mamaste.

[hulka38]

173. Be careful with that palantir stone.

[Xipe Totec]

174. I commend you for your sense of humor

Credit when it is due.

[hulka38]

179. Thanks Xipe

I'll take it.

[Xipe Totec]

188. You should

It was heartfelt.

You made me laugh.

[Go2Peace]

195. um, why do you assume because someone has "brown skin" that

they must be hispanic? There are people of every shade of the rainbow with many different cultures, languages, and backgrounds. Don't you feel a little foolish stereotyping while claiming to be an authority on immigrant history and racism?

[golfguru]

196. Born of parents from India makes me

brown skinned. In sunny India, my ancestors have naturally
turned brown over 4000 years of migration, to fight the
ultra-violet rays. Indians from southern part are are usually
most dark skinned, eastern India next, and northwest Indians
have the lighter skin color. All a result of how intense is
the sun in the area and ancestral mix. The Aryan nomads who
invaded India 4000 years ago were light skinned and got
darker over centuries from sun and mixing with native Indians.

All Americans will acquire the hue of native Americans after
a couple of thousand years.

What makes India unique is that the oldest institution of
higher learning is over 2000 years old! Many major religions
got their start in India such as Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
Hindu religion had beginnings 4000 years ago.

The largest democracy in world is doing just fine. However
I am now a proud naturalized American citizen.

[noamnety]

177. Imagine someone saying this:

"I don't see why women should be treated fairly. I was discriminated against most of my life and abused by my husband. Why should other women get a free pass?"

[EFerrari]

185. There was a study done in Chicago a few years ago that found

black male drivers were stopped 8X more often than white male drivers.

And, do you actually know anything about what people from Latin America have to go through to survive US encroachment on their national autonomy or to get into this country legally when we destroy their economy?

On the whole, it doesn't sound like it.

[Go2Peace]

194. deleted

put the reply under the wrong post

[Bad Thoughts]

163. Is it right to call it anti-illegal immigration when it is a pretext ...

... for racism. I'm sorry, but just because they seem to be focused on a legal issue does not mean that they are not focused elsewhere. Immigration is just a wedge with which to breakdown resistance to prejudice. I'm sure that those who ascribe to this movement also are in the English-only, water-board them, convert them movements.

[noamnety]

178. If it looks like racism and smells like racism ...

The underlying sentiment always seems to be "those bastards are taking jobs. I have more of a right to support my family than they have, dammit, because I was born in America. If they were born where they didn't have opportunities, fuck em, my needs as a human trump theirs."

And there is usually some added resentment because stores are run by people who don't speak English, like it's that fucking hard to figure out what you are buying and hand someone money for it when it's rung up.

I have a very hard time believing that there is all this anger and that people are so emotionally wrapped up in this that they want to shoot and imprison immigrants or let them die in the desert of thirst all because Americans care about bureaucratic paperwork. That's the excuse, not the underlying cause for the hysteria about immigrants. People forge papers all the time, they fudge building permits for example, or cheat on their taxes, or claim they had an immunization when they really didn't, or lie about having witnesses at some wedding done through the yellow pages for cheap, and there isn't the same sort of witch hunt against those people.

[Berserker]

183. Yes but

you can't say that in DU. You racist fuck. LOL

[hulka38]

184. Hah

Thanks for not calling me a bigoted, all things Jim Crow lovin, varmint exterminatin xenophobe. You're really way too nice.

[tekisui]

186. No.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

189. Any immigration law should be constitutional and come from the fed gov.

[Go2Peace]

192. I don't think anyone would argue that, nor would the OP.

This whole thread is off the topic of the OP. They don't want any discussion. They just want to rage and hate. They want to return hate with hate. Trouble is they are indiscriminate and irrational.

I don't see many immigrant NGO orgs doing this. It is a minority.