Open Letter to The Nation about their Open Letter to Barack Obama (immigration)

Dear Comrade:

A few weeks back you at The Nation offered an Open Letter to Barack Obama (link) [1], listing some of the things he must stay true to in order to fulfill the progressive agenda. While much in the Letter is worthy of discussion and debate, I'd specifically like to know more about this desideratum:

An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.

Regarding the first part, I'm going to assume you mean "enter" in the broadest terms possible. Let's look at all the ways various groups can "enter" the U.S.:

1. Various people crossing the borders or flying or sailing in legally. I've heard about a few issues in this regard, such as a journalist being denied a visa or a dropoff in visitors. However, millions seem to do OK and the most I've heard about is some rude treatment, nothing that could be considered non-"humane". Do you have specific issues or proposals?

2. Legal immigrants. It's hard to be non-"humane" to those who are located in other countries, and the most I've heard about is some rude behavior. Again, any specific issues or proposals?

3. Students, visiting workers, etc. Ditto.

4. Mexicans and others crossing the borders illegally. Try as they might, the left has only been able to come up with a few isolated instances of abuse of detainees, and there's no pattern of widespread non-"humane" treatment. Unless, of course, one assumes that detaining people in the first place rather than just letting them enter the country at will is non-"humane" in your eyes. If so, please be honest enough to admit that you want open borders.

5. Longer-term illegal aliens, whether visa overstays or those who entered illegally over a border. I know how you think, and that's why I'm trying to define "enter" as broadly as possible. Try as Bob Menendez and others want, they can't show a widespread pattern of non-"humane" treatment of those caught up in immigration raids, fugitives captured by ICE, and so forth. About the only thing that might be slightly questionable is the practice of moving detainees to detention centers in other states. If you object to that, change the law. Since most of those detainees will end up being deported and since almost anyone who put themselves in that situation knew the consequences, there isn't anything fundamentally non-"humane" about that process. Unless, of course, you don't believe in enforcing our immigration laws, in which case you should be honest enough to admit that.

Regarding the rest, here's a discussion of some of the downsides of amnesty. There are more here, here, and here. If those aren't downsides to you, please present your argument for supporting them. If you don't think those are issues, please explain why. If you agree they're important downsides, explain exactly what you intend to do to mitigate your concerns.

Thank you,

The Editorial Board of

[1] Famous signatories include such intellectual heavyweights as Mike Stark (shown here advocating digging up personal dirt on Ron Fournier of the AP:, Phil Donahue, Robert Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Tom Hayden, Katrina van den Heuvel, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Bob Scheer, and many more.


Hmmmm, interesting. Are you a genuine McCain supporter or are you just content to go for the easy joke and make fun of Obama the entire time? Pointing out the weakness in the other candidate is NOT the same thing as supporting your candidate. It also insults the intelligence of your (sparse) readership. I've yet to meet someone who genuinely supports McCain's presidential bid, probably because there's no tangible difference between McWarcriminal and Obama. Both are reprehensible candidates.

Eddie, if you were a regular reader of this blog, you would realize the author does not support Juan McAmnesty either. And I would not consider this blog's readership as being "sparse," just because you do not read it.

Silly me, I saw the McCain bumper sticker and thought it was (at least) a pseudo McCain blog. Besides, one need only to skim the front page of this blog to know there's no real substance - just cheap political jokes and repeated media slogans. Excuse me if I couldn't weed through all of the anti-Obama stuff to find the anti-McCain stuff. Juan McAmnesty is clever, but it's hardly new (yawn). I'll hold my breath for something fresh and insightful...

Why don't you start your own blog before you go around criticizing someone else's? It's like criticizing the condition someone's car when you have to take the bus everyday.

PB: Because a piece of crap blog is a piece of crap blog, that's why. My status as a bus rider doesn't somehow turn your beat up Pinto into a Ferrari...dig? Does your insecurity always come through in spades? Clearly I've hit a nerve. What would FOX News advise you to do in this situation? Seeing as you know nothing about me and therefore cannot attack my beliefs, you are forced to defend your mindless jokes and intellectually vacant blog posts. Heh. Good luck with that.

It's not my blog, but you are free to make erroneous assumptions. You are still taking the short bus regardless. If this is a piece of crap blog, why do you keep coming back?

Fox News? That's really original and funny. Your wit is as sharp as a butterknife.

Hey, it took you two comments= slots (and an extra minute) to come up with that slaptastic remark. Well done, PB. I'm not interested in engaging you in any form of intelligent debate; I was merely observing the general lack of substance on this blog. My reasons for coming back here are purely comedic - I get a kick out of people's attempts to be witty when, in reality, they just advertise their stupidity. You fit that category nicely...thanks for the laugh!

Yet you don't cite a single instance of said "stupidity." Now that's not only stupid, it's absurd as well. I try not to feed the trolls like you, but they seem so hungry for attention since they didn't get any as a child. It must be difficult to live your life in your mom's basement with an dial-up modem on your Commodore PC trolling blogs you know nothing about to make baseless insults. Keep spewing from your pie hole--We love it. You're like a clown in the circus. Like I said, you can leave if you don't like it. But something tells me you troll for the attention. Poor baby.

Gee, I don't know. We're up to what, nine comments on this story, including your double comment where you just had to get that last jab in? I'd say my contributions have made this the most read story on the blog. Just sayin' Call me a troll, fine, whatever. Changing the argument doesn't make you right, it only makes you look more stupid. That said, my previous observation stands: the attempts here to be witty only end up broadcasting your stupidity. Nonetheless, I'm enjoying it.

"I'm not interested in engaging you in any form of intelligent debate" You cannot engage in intelligent debate if you do not possess any intelligence. You think reading your baseless insults is the least bit interesting? I think not. "Changing the argument doesn't make you right" Um, yes it does, and it doesn't change the fact you are a troll who needs attention. I'm just here to make sure pathetic trolls do not get the last word in. I can continue this into infinity if you like. Like I said, you keep coming back because you need the attention. You are not entertained--you're an angry, lonely, pathetic troll. If you don't like it, leave and go write your own blog. We all know you come here because you love the abuse, like battered wife syndrome.

OK, you win. I'm a troll and I crave - no, I NEED - attention. Thank you for indulging me. Just promise me you'll stop threatening me with the promise that you'll "get the last word in" no matter what! Your brand of online bullying is particularly acerbic - I'm genuinely intimidated by you. Ha. Here's an idea: instead of spending your time thinking of online zingers, why not do some research and post something coherent and intelligent? All I see here is hackneyed anti-democrat jokes and sure you're not a genuine McCain supporter?

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, but I will repeat myself once more since, like a battered wife, you just don't listen: I am not the author of this blog. And even if I were, there is nothing wrong with ethnocentricism. I agree that there really isn't much difference between the candidates, but if you actually bothered to read this page you would understand that no one here is a McCain supporter. The advertisements for him on this page are not an endorsement. A suggestion for you: instead of baselessly insulting people on random blogs, you should spend your time and energy starting your own.