nation of immigrants
We're a "nation of immigrants" and a "nation of laws"
Yet another massive/illegal immigration talking point, repeated almost like a mantra, is that we're a "nation of immigrants". That's sometimes followed by the actually correct claim that we're a "nation of laws". They fail to note that we're actually a country of citizens. Most Americans, of course, have immigrant ancestors but they are now citizens and not immigrants. See also immigration tradition fallacy and the discussion of "reconquista"-style comments from Barack Obama.
Michael Barone's shallow, 2470-word logical fallacy ("A Nation Built for Immigrants", WSJ) - 09/22/13
In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Barone offers "A Nation Built for Immigrants" , a 2470-word article designed to make elites feel good about the mass immigration they support. The entire article is a logical fallacy: it claims that current immigration will work out just like former immigration did. That claim is hardly certain because the U.S.
Catholic College Presidents promote bad, immoral immigration policy (ACCU letter to Congress) - 07/19/13
Yesterday 93 presidents of Catholic colleges and universities sent a letter to all members of Congress demanding that they support comprehensive immigration reform (see the link for the downsides of that plan).
I'll quote the letter and then briefly describe how it deceives and promotes bad policy. From the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities ("ACCU") letter :
The section about immigration in the Democratic Party 2012 platform is below. It only has broad outlines and countless Democratic leaders have repeated these same things many times before.
They were wrong then, and the platform is wrong now (see each link for the details):
Obama misleads on immigration at Facebook; Zuckerberg and incompetent/corrupt GOP, Teaparty leaders help - 04/21/11
Barack Obama spoke live over Facebook yesterday at an event sponsored by that company. He misled about immigration and promoted an anti-American bill. He got direct help with his attempt to mislead from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and he got indirect help from corrupt or incompetent GOP and Teaparty leaders:
[UPDATE: Make sure and see this too]
Youtube and Barack Obama are conducting yet another scam, soliciting questions for Obama based on the State of the Union that he'll answer on Thursday, January 27. Other users vote up or down submitted questions, and then Obama will answer the top vote-getters.
The questions that get the most votes will invariably not be the best questions, the ones that Obama should be pressed on. In fact, they're likely to be some of the weakest questions of all. Obama and all other politicians should be "cross-examined" over their policies, and this latest scam will not even come close.
How systems like this are scams has already been discussed over and over with several examples involving Obama, Youtube, and others on the popular voting systems and Youtube corporate pages. If you don't agree that such systems are scams, see those pages and the past examples.
I submitted the following three questions to their immigration category; I'm not even going to bother suggesting voting them up because I know they'll never get enough of a vote differential between up and down.
For instance, at post time, six people like the DREAM Act question but five don't. The question is perfectly valid, very important, and needs to be asked. Yet, five people don't want it to be asked despite how valid it is. Under my plan (see the popular voting systems page), that wouldn't happen: known quantities who participated would be voting on how tough a question is, and if they unjustifiably voted a very tough question down they could be held publicly accountable.
Here are the questions; you might be able to find them through a search or here:
The Fed is profiting from money that illegal aliens send home to Mexico through their Directo a Mexico program ( http://24ahead.com/n/5978 ). Do you agree that a federal entity seeking to profit from illegally-earned money is a sign of corruption?
Do you agree that both college slots and college funding are finite? Do you agree that any college slots/funding given to illegal aliens under the DREAM Act will deprive some U.S. citizens of college? (attached video: youtube.com/watch?v=WZkvEmSy1vk)
Due to massive legal & illegal immigration, do you admit that the Mexican gov't has political power inside the U.S.? Do you agree that foreign countries shouldn't have political power inside the U.S.? What do you intend to do about it?
1/27/11 UPDATE 1: As yet another example of how Google Moderator (the software used in this case) and popular voting systems in general don't work, with voting closed the top 80 or so questions are all about pot. Those voting up the questions didn't abuse the system, they followed the rules of the system. And, the system revealed its flaws.
As for my questions, they have up/down votes of 9/6, 6/5, and 4/4 respectively. Meanwhile, this has 3152/282:
Mr. President, what is your stance on Net Neutrality? What do you intend to do to keep the internet free from censorship?
Obama's stance on Net Neutrality has been known for years and years and the FCC has taken steps in that area. A question that was going to do a public service would ask Obama a specific question about what his FCC has done in that specific area, based on a full knowledge of what they've said and done. Instead, questions like that just allow politicians to give stock speeches they've given many times before.
And, MoveOn voted up a similarly weak question about Net Neutrality in 2007 in a similar sham.
1/27/11 UPDATE 2: The event went exactly as expected: it was a complete sham. Steve Grove asked a series of weak questions, including some that were even weaker than "boxers or briefs?" And, Youtube managed to get in various plugs for their service, occasionally using the president of the U.S. as little more than a prop to promote a commercial company.
Video is attached, and at 33:00 you'll see Obama answer the only immigration question, about the anti-American DREAM Act. Instead of calling Obama on the downsides of that bill, Grove simply introduced a video of an apparent illegal alien and asked Obama when the bill might pass. (And, didn't call Obama on his use of nation of immigrants).
Personal anecdotes about the DREAM Act are not at all difficult to find (see dozens on the PIIPP page), but a debate about the downsides is very difficult to find. There are two or more sides to every story, yet all Youtube could do is present one side without acknowledging the viewpoint of another side.
1/28/11 UPDATE: I fixed the bad year (10) in the updates above. More importantly, the DREAM Act question that Grove chose is unpopular, but just happens to be from an organization that's partnered with Youtube in the past. See the link for the details.
Obama thinks illegal aliens are Americans; forgets about massive unemployment; promotes massive immigration - 09/29/10
1. He referred to illegal aliens as "us"; he's given them citizenship in his own mind or he's confused about basic American concepts...
2. He seemed not to remember that millions of Americans are unemployed...
3. And, he generally promoted massive immigration. He did that with a series of canards and at one point sounded just like George W Bush.
Video of the appearance is at peekURL.com/v26f71b and for the first, here's what he said :
Now, unfortunately, right now this is getting demagogued. A lot of folks think it’s an easy way to score political points is by trying to act as if there’s a “them” and an “us,” instead of just an “us.” And I’m always suspicious of politics that is dividing people instead of bringing them together. I think now is the time for us to come together.
Obviously, there is a "them" and an "us". The "us" are U.S. citizens, including those who voted for Obama. The "them" are foreign citizens. Obama has either naturalized all 12 million or so illegal aliens in his mind, or he's unclear on the very concept of U.S. citizenship. Considering his past comments it could be either one of those or a combination; he hasn't shown that he has a fundamental grasp of American concepts in past speeches (this, this are just two examples)
For the second, as if he hadn't paid attention to what's been going on with the economy for several years, he said:
[immigration] means our economy's more vital, and we've got more people in the workforce who are gonna be out there workin' and startin' businesses and supporting us when we're retired, makin' sure Social Security is solvent, all those things are important
He sounded just like George Bush both in content and in delivery. Did he forget about the millions of unemployed, the stimulus plan, and all of that? Pretending he's speaking about long-term gains isn't going to wash since those gains can be wiped out by protracted downturns such as the one we're currently experiencing, including where we have five workers for every job opening.
Other than those two, the rest was a regular Festival of Canards.
He used, as one might expect, the nation of immigrants canard. Of course, he also hastens to remind us - as they all do - that we're a nation of laws too. Then, he uses a variant of the safe legal orderly shibboleth ("we have to make sure our immigration system is orderly, and fair.")
He then admits that allowing illegal immigration isn't fair to those in other countries waiting to come here legally. However, that follows him blaming the system for that, a variant of system is broken.
He then states we need to "affirm our immigrant traditions"; see immigration tradition fallacy.
He then states, "yes, let's secure our borders"; see secure the border.
Making a false claim about policy, he thinks if we made legal immigration easier we'd reduce illegal immigration. He ignores the fact that there are about 6.5 billion people outside the U.S. (and about 5 billion of them are poorer than Mexicans). And, a large percentage of those people would come here if they could. So many would want to come here that we could raise legal immigration from now til doomsday and it would only make illegal immigration worse.
He wants to crack down on employers, but the only reasons he mentions are from the perspective of illegal aliens: he doesn't want them to be underpaid, etc. I don't want that either, but the more relevant reason to crack down on employers is to make sure they hire Americans or legal workers. See the somewhat related immigration wage floor, although he didn't mention the impact of illegal aliens being hired on Americans at all.
He then expresses support for comprehensive immigration reform; see the link for the downsides he didn't acknowledge.
He also says "economically, immigrants can also be a huge source of strength", mentioning that we have a younger workforce than Europe or Japan. Except, their population is much more educated than most of our immigrants.
On Thursday, July 1, 2010, Barack Obama gave a speech in support of comprehensive immigration reform and his remarks are at whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-comprehensive-immigration-reform
In recent days, the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country, with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America. Some have rallied behind this new policy. Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state. And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.
See system is broken for why the last bit is misleading.
Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new. On the one hand, we’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts. Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is. The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.
And then there are the countless names and the quiet acts that never made the history books but were no less consequential in building this country -- the generations who braved hardship and great risk to reach our shores in search of a better life for themselves and their families; the millions of people, ancestors to most of us, who believed that there was a place where they could be, at long last, free to work and worship and live their lives in peace.
The "most of us" part recalls Obama's "reconquista"-style comments before the election.
So this steady stream of hardworking and talented people has made America the engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world. And it’s allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change. To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe. Folks travel here in the hopes of being a part of a culture of entrepreneurship and ingenuity, and by doing so they strengthen and enrich that culture. Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy -- than many of our competitors. And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.
Some immigration is good, some isn't so good; Obama isn't making a distinction. For a counter-example to his comments, see How immigration changed California for the worse (education, income inequality...) Obama goes on to praise immigration in general in two more paragraphs, then:
Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval. Our founding was rooted in the notion that America was unique as a place of refuge and freedom for, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “oppressed humanity.” But the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when, amidst conflict, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances. A century ago, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, other European countries were routinely subjected to rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes. Chinese immigrants were held in detention and deported from Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay. They didn’t even get to come in... ...So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious. And that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.
He isn't even acknowledging that those who might want to cut back immigration during "times of economic upheaval" might have a point. In Obama's mind, we have to keep on admitting immigrants no matter what. Which, in fact, we have been doing: hundreds of thousands more foreign citizens got work permits than any stimulus jobs "created or saved". And, many "newcomers" do in fact have foreign allegiances. Adding in all the examples here would take too long, but start at immigration march organizers have foreign links. The "they didn't even get to come in" is like something a child would say, and it seeks to deny us the right to decide who can come into our country. While some of the exclusion of Chinese might have been based on invalid reasons, other parts were based on a policy decision regarding large numbers of low-skilled workers taking jobs from Americans. Apparently in Obama's world there were enough low-skilled jobs to go around then just as - in his world - there are now. For even more on the fallacy he's engaging in, see immigration tradition fallacy.
To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas... The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage. Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward. And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe. And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.
The reason the borders are porous isn't because Washington hasn't fixed the system, it's because Washington is too corrupt to do its job. Obama could easily secure the border if he wanted, and likewise with his predecessors. All of the negatives Obama states are ones that those like he helped bring about.
More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally. Indeed, after years of patchwork fixes and ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders. Backlogs and bureaucracy means the process can take years. While an applicant waits for approval, he or she is often forbidden from visiting the United States –- which means even husbands and wives may be forced to spend many years apart. High fees and the need for lawyers may exclude worthy applicants. And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.
Obama's solution to the current backlog would involve either adding yet another huge backlog, or legalizing illegal aliens without doing thorough background checks. The second part of the above would involve braindraining the world.
In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.
By "everybody" he's probably not thinking beyond the Beltway establishment. As stated above, the problem isn't with the system, it's with political corruption: politicians like Obama are simply too corrupt to enforce our laws.
Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult... And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing... These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound. And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.
1. Apparently Obama thinks determining legal status is "unenforceable". He should tell that to the Border Patrol and other agencies that have been successfully doing that for decades.
2. While the law might be used against those reporting crimes, the chances of that are slim; Obama isn't waiting to find out.
3. See Police chiefs who opposed Arizona immigration law in progressive PERF group; were any he referred to in that same group? How much of their opinions are based on politics?
4. All laws have "the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents". Again, Obama isn't waiting to find out.
5. The Arizona law has tried to hew to federal law. To a good extent, the only "patchwork" that would exist would result from localities who decided to undercut federal law, such as sanctuary cities.
The above is only half of his speech; the rest will be covered later today.
For now, note that he's engaging in the deportations false choice and at the end of his speech he even engages in what we call the Lazarus fallacy: reading part of Emma Lazarus' poem that was tacked on to the Statue of Liberty years after it was built.
And, if you don't want amnesty, please do see Will teaparty and rightwing bloggers stumble us into amnesty?
Obama asked stock question about immigration, gives stock, uneconomic reply (smears e-Verify; Orange County) - 03/18/09
Earlier today, Barack Obama held a townhall in Orange County, CA and the full transcript, including the audience questions and his answers, is here. Maybe some time before the decade's over someone will get around to actually taking my advice and asking him a tough question, but that didn't happen in this case.
As soon as I found out about the event, I posted here and at FreeRepublic urging people to go get tickets in an attempt to have someone ask him this question, without luck. Whether the questioners were hand-picked or not (and, since one of them was a union official, all or some of them might have been), you never know unless you try. And, if no one's willing to go out and confront Obama or his supporters, then they're going to keep on doing what they've been doing.
Reviewing the other questions and answers is left as an exercise; here's the extra-super-tough immigration question:
I'd like to ask you what are you planning to do on immigration, the broken system that we have? And when do you plan on doing this?
Obama has probably been asked questions similar to that dozens of times, and his reply was the same as it's always been, including the same old canards:
...ultimately, here's what I believe: We are a nation of immigrants, number one.
Number two, we do have to have control of our borders (see secure the border). Number three, that people who have been here for a long time and put down roots here have to have some mechanism over time to get out of the shadows (see living in the shadows), because if they stay in the shadows, in the underground economy, then they are oftentimes pitted against American workers.
Since they can't join a union, they can't complain about minimum wages, et cetera, they end up being abused, and that depresses the wages of everybody, all Americans.
I'm no economist, but I'm not so sure about that. Converting millions of illegal aliens into legal workers would put them on the same job footing as U.S. citizens, greatly increasing the competition for jobs that illegal aliens previously could not have applied for and lowering wages in those fields. Newly-legalized illegal aliens wouldn't make that much more than they'd been doing before, meaning they wouldn't greatly increase economic activity. So, we'd have a similiar amount of economic activity as before, with millions more legal workers. And, that's supposed to help U.S. workers?
Too bad there was no one there to point that out to him.
As a bonus, he also race-baited:
We have to make sure that there's a verification system to find out whether somebody is legally able to work here or not. But we have to make sure that that verification system does not discriminate just because you've got a Hispanic last name or your last name is Obama.
For those not familiar with this topic, Obama is smearing the EVerify system, pretending that it's designed to flag those with Hispanic names when in fact it uses Social Security numbers.
Comparing Obama's remarks to highly similar remarks made by George W Bush is left as an exercise; they'd be a very close match.
UPDATE: There's video of his remarks here.
John McCain is too corrupt to stand up to the far-left and those who support illegal immigration, prefering instead - like Bush - to court those who will never support him.
Barack Obama's Reconquista 101: "they didn't cross the border, the border crossed them", Indians aren't immigrants - 08/18/08
"We are a nation of immigrants," Obama answers.
"The only people can say that they aren't immigrants are the people sitting right here," the Presidential candidate says and points to the tribal leaders.
"There are some families who have been here for 4 or 500 years. They didn't cross the border, the border crossed them."
Barack Obama's prepared remarks for his speech at the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) convention include him taking pride in having marched in support of illegal immigration at the Chicago event on May 1, 2006. Unfortunately, no one has yet asked him why he'd be proud of marching at an event whose main organizers have links to the Mexican government.
Villaraigosa, Dellums, Nickels don't want ICE immigration raids of "responsible employers" - 06/20/08
If you want examples of political corruption, illegal immigration is where you should look. The latest example is a resolution proposed by three west coast mayors at this year's Conference of Mayors meeting: they don't want ICE to conduct immigration raids of "responsible employers". Instead, they want them to only raid those companies that are abusing employees and the like.
But, you already knew that. Barack Obama offers an editorial entitled "Enforce tighter border, employer verifications" (link):
While I understand the passions -- and legitimate differences -- on both sides of this difficult issue, we must restore civility and reason to the conversation.
Translation: "my opponents are gun-toting anti-immigrant racists". And, "as irrational as it seems, what I propose is the rational approach."
First, we must reinforce our borders to deter the more than 2,000 immigrants who cross them illegally each day. Most of these aspiring laborers risk death in the desert to come here illegally, and they are diverting our attention from those trying to enter to do us harm.
That's the same thing Bush and Chertoff have said at least a few times. The use of "aspiring laborers" is a minor variation of the Busboys Canard as used by Tamar Jacoby, David Brooks, the WSJ, and on down the line.
We also have to ensure that employers are hiring only legal workers. That's why I've worked with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Democratic Sen. Max Baucus to make it significantly more difficult -- if not impossible -- for employers to hire workers who are here illegally, including the more than 40 percent who came legally and overstayed their visa... This will require a mandatory electronic system that enables employers to verify the legal status of their employees within days of hiring them.
If that just uses SSNs, that might be acceptable. If however it involves a biometric national ID card, that probably wouldn't be. More on that later...
Second, we must require the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, including more than 300,000 in North Carolina, to step out of the shadows and onto a path that includes the ability to earn citizenship by demonstrating a sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.
Bolding added; see Possible Democratic Party immigration "reform" charade: "offer legalization" to become "require". At least he's got his talking points in order!
While it's unrealistic to deport them, illegal entry cannot go unpunished. That's why we must require them to pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line for citizenship behind those who came here legally.
Unfortunately, there's no "back of the line", since the line is constantly being replenished. Not only would granting amnesty greatly impact those now in the line or who want to get in the line in the normal fashion, it would either take five to ten years to do all the background checks or they'd be extremely sloppily done.
We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and we must reconcile those traditions. It's time to move beyond our broken politics and achieve real progress on immigration reform, not just for the sake of passing a bill, and not as a favor to immigrants, but so that we can finally address the concerns of the American people, and make real the hopes of all those who want nothing more than a chance at the American Dream.
Certainly, many want the "American Dream". Others just want to earn money. And, their leaders have shown time and again that they have other goals in mind.
Yet another Democratic debate was held yesterday on MSNBC, featuring Brian Williams and Tim Russert as moderators (transcript link). It was as ripped-from-the-Soviet-archives as we've come to expect from such debates, only this featured even more questions solely about process and horserace and even fewer about issues. It also featured three extremely lightweight questions about immigration, with the first not being necessary at all.
A documentary about the immigration situation in Northern Virginia from independent filmmakers Eric Byler, Annabel Park, and Jeff Man is currently being serialized on the web: youtube.com/9500Liberty. Nick Miroff of the Washington Post promotes it in "Raw Look at Immigration Crucible". Both he and a member of the local Minuteman Civil Defense Corps say they're balanced. However, a glance at the videos casts a great deal of doubt on that, and Miroff admits that both Byler and Park volunteered for the James Webb campaign. In fact:
"Watching George Allen look into the camera and point and say you are not the real Virginia, the real Virginia is the people who are laughing with me at you, reminded me of this whole thing that was never resolved," Byler said.
What a creative retelling of events. Whatever the issue with Macaca, the "real" statement wasn't directed at the cameraman: it was meant to draw a contrast between where Allen was and where Webb was at that moment, namely in Hollywood. Since Byler can't get that right, don't expect the videos to be much better.
A sample video is at: youtube.com/watch?v=k_Dw1ioGPGY Someone who might be refered to as an old coot objects to people speaking Spanish and has other old cootish concerns. For this the commentors on the video call him a racist. The overall impact of this segment is to portray Hispanics as oppressed victims of people like him.
However, the issues on that segment go much deeper, and both the filmmakers and Miroff appear to be too steeped in leftwing ideology to recognize those issues. Here's his first paragraph, refering to this video:
In one video, a man furious about hearing Spanish at a hardware store berates a group of Latino families with a lecture on American history, telling them "my ancestors were here before the Constitution." A little girl shyly reminds him: "The Indians were here before the Americans."
And, someone else says that the Europeans came here illegally. What Miroff and Byler don't pick up on is that we're importing people who think they have a race-based claim on our land. And, they're expressing that claim and using it as justification for coming here contrary to our laws.
That theme is also included in a clip called "Hispanic Children Will One Day Rise" (youtube.com/watch?v=HyzMOcjITvI); that's a quote from a black high school teacher (Patrick Garland) who spoke at a meeting of the Prince William County board after which they passed a Proposition 200-style ordinance (link). He spoke against the ordinance, and, on the video, he also says that, because we're a nation of immigrants, we're "in no position to say that this is our country."
Obviously, if we can't say who can come here, then we've not only got open borders we have no control over our country and in fact we no longer have a country.
Bearing in mind that YT is pretty much at the AOL level when it comes to political debate, the comments left on the videos show the dangers inherent in allowing mass immigration by those who can pretend to have some race-based right to come here at will. A few examples from different people are in the extended entry.
UPDATE: They've re-edited the old coot's episode here: youtube.com/watch?v=29WTKbpYhag
With that, they've revealed their hand: their goal is engaging in base racial demagoguery, not fostering debate.
3/2/10 UPDATE: Due to the switch to a new CMS, the formatting in the following got mixed up, confusing me in the other recent update that was here. In any case, the following are the Youtube video comments left by others referred to three paragraphs up, delimited by dashes; whether some of these should be run together is lost to the sands of time:
"America is the land of immigrants" who has the right to say "this is our country" the Native Americans are the one who should be able to say it, not Anglo-American.
coming from an half african and mexican male.i love my people and this land was ours and don't tell me my people had nothing to do with building this country.we built this country.
by-the-way. that old man has no more claim to live here than any of thoseb legal hispanics, his people came to America and persecuted my ancestors [the filmmakers posted a reply saying they wanted to interview that poster]
That old white guy needs to go to school. Every race here except for the Natives shouldn't be here. It was rightfully their land before the white people.
BTW I am not hispanic but I feel for them.some parts of Mexico was forcefully taken in violence hence California,Colorado,Texas now U.S.A..
you said it, this land is stolen... so, Mexicans are just recovering it
the fact that europeans have been illegal in this country since 1492 doesnt seem to cross anyone's mind
They think they own the land that they are on right now, and think it always belonged to them. When in all actuality it belonged\belongs to the Indians.
The Native Americans were in the country first until a pack of people from another country decide to take it over. Some Hispanics (primarily Mexicans) are mixed of European and Native American blood, so technically his "we were here first" argument is completely invalidated by that fact alone.
When each group(Irish, German, Italian) came to this stolen country they had their languages they spoke and if you were in a deli or store you heard it. We slaughtered the Native Americans and as far as this side of the world Natives of South America were here first. We shot and killed and stole land from them. I dare you to find me a spoiled white kid who is willing to leave their ipod or X box to work when their parents hand them everything.
If that american guy actually studied HIS history he would know that the americans as we know it today KILLED all the natives and claimed this land as theirs.
On Monday, October 8 (Columbus Day), Diane Sawyer from Good Morning America (newsbusters.org/node/14050) will be "reporting" from Mexico on immigration. Why, the segment practically writes itself. While I don't watch the show and won't be tuning in, I expect it will basically be a "nation of immigrants" propaganda piece and she won't be featuring anything remotely approaching real reporting, such as Mexico's role in encouraging emigration in order to profit from the money that illegal aliens in the U.S.
Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia were booed at their respective state party conventions Sunday for supporting a compromise immigration bill.
Not only does it make no sense, it's dangerous. One of the provisions involves a national ID card for we citizens:
Initial implementation of secure identification tools for all Americans and aliens seeking employment... Legal U.S. residents seeking work will use a high-security proof of identity and citizenship... To avoid fraud, racial profiling, and failure of EEVS system, it will also be necessary for Americans seeking work in the future to use secure IDsIt also has a vague indentured servitude flavor to it:
Seasonal workers would contract with their employers, guaranteeing that the laborer will be available for the duration of the seasonAnd, it contains provisions oddly similar to remarks Mitt Romney has made, such as the "probationary registration of aliens" and "universe of illegals seeking adjustment will be known".
- A seasonal worker may leave a contracted job, but if so he will have to leave the country and go through a one-year cooling off period out of the U.S.
And, I was right in my assumption that its "triggers" for the amnesty would be based on spending and planning and such rather than a reduction in the number of illegal aliens; see the end of this post.
There are two visas involved: the "Y Visa" for a new "guest" worker scheme, and the "Z Visa" for current illegal aliens, giving them legal working permission.
* The Y Visa is further broken down into a "main program" ("In U.S. 2 years, then 6 months at home, 2 renewals") and a "seasonal program" ("9 months in U.S./3 months at home, indefinitely renewable").
* The Z Visa (which I'll call the "legal permanent underclass" visa) is indefinitely renewable, and requires a fine of $2000 at every three-year renewal mark, together with a payment of $1500 for a total of $3500 every three years.
From the U.S. News report:
[U.S. News reporter Angie C. Marek] says the new plan has made a lot of the White House's former allies in the immigrant-advocacy community mighty unhappy. Temporary guest workers in this plan would have a tough time getting any sort of citizenship. Under the visa program outlined by the White House, workers can stay in the United States for two years, at which point they'll have to return home for six months, a process that can be repeated two times.And, from this:
The fee to gain citizenship for immigrants currently in the country illegally would also jump from a proposed $2,000 to about $10,000.
Tom Snyder, national political director of the union UNITE Here, compared the measure with a "21st-century version of the Bracero program" in a conference call with reporters today. And Laura Reiff, cochair of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a business group that worked with the White House last year on the guest-worker proposals, called the measure "entirely unworkable."
"For us it's a no go," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the advocacy group National Immigration Forum...I guess the people the White House was trying to impress don't want to reciprocate the Bush administration's affection.
"President Bush said family values don't stop at the Rio Grande. Evidently they do," said Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops...
Family unification, said [Teddy Kennedy], "has been an essential aspect of immigration policy since the history of this country" and letting immigrants work their way toward legalization is a framework for previous immigration bills that has received substantial support.
"You don't compromise on the morality of these issues," Kennedy said. "We're not going to."
UPDATE: More unhappy campers don't reciprocate their affection (seiu.org/media/pressreleases.cfm?pr_id=1384):
"SEIU is alarmed by the White House's proposed immigration reform plan which fails to address any of the key elements needed to pass practical, humane solutions to the current broken system. Taking a major step away from our nation's values and our history as a nation of immigrants, the White House plan would make inequality – rather than opportunity – the centerpiece of our immigration system and deny basic rights to our hardest workers."
STRIVEing for amnesty: the Flake/Guitierrez "Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy" Act - 03/22/07
The far-lefties have anticipated the bill, with the Asian American Justice Center "encouraged" and, not to be outdone, the American Immigration Lawyers Association "enthusiastically welcomes" it.
Turning to the "news":
Millions of undocumented immigrants could get legal permission to stay in the U.S. by paying fines and symbolically re-entering the country, under an immigration reform bill introduced in the House Thursday.Well, at least they're being honest about it. After "symbolically" re-entering, they'd be put on a non-symbolic "path to citizenship".
The bill also would allow up to 400,000 foreign workers to come to the U.S. legally every year.Presumably that's refering to the "guest" worker program, which in an earlier bill was capped at 200,000. And, for those of you who think Jeff Flake isn't a liar, consider this quote from Flake:
"This bill will end illegal immigration"It'll do that in about the same way as the 1986 amnesty did. Any "tough" provisions would eventually be ignored or watered down. The forces that would do that would include the racial power groups, industry groups, corrupt banks, foreign governments, and such that have been pushing "reform". They currently support illegal immigration, and this bill will give them even more political power from which to continue their support for illegal immigration. Flake is simply a liar.
The legislation would require Homeland Security officials to certify that border security and worksite enforcement measures are in place before allowing foreign workers to apply for new visas. It would force undocumented immigrants to leave the country and then re-enter before they could apply for conditional legal status that would eventually lead to citizenship.If they're looking for cover, that means they know they're doing something deeply unpopular. And, as indicated above, the certification would be watered down, and, while I don't know exactly what it entails in past proposals the certification only dealt with the money being spent, not on the overall success of various programs.
Those mandates were added to the proposed legislation during careful negotiations aimed at giving cover to Republican supporters of the bill in hopes of avoiding the partisan standoff that killed similar legislation last year.
UPDATE: From this:
"What is reform? What Congressman Flake and I have presented, and we're supporting today, this is reform," Gutierrez, speaking in Spanish, told a reporter at a Capitol Hill press conference...And, from this:
[In a written statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:] "Our first responsibility to the American people is their safety... We must enact immigration reform that is humane and honors our American tradition of being a nation of immigrants and a land of opportunity for all... It provides an excellent framework for Congress and the president to begin work on the vital task of immigration reform...
Despite their optimism and good cheer, the group was not joined by the relevant subcommittee or committee chairs or ranking Republicans, nor any of the elected Democratic leadership of the House.Meanwhile in Detroit, the Metropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength (MOSES) came out in support of the scheme. Those quoted were: Noel Saleh, "president of the board at the Dearborn-based Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services", Father Tom Sepulveda, "pastor of Saint Anne de Detroit Catholic Church, where the majority of worshippers are immigrants", and Dawud Walid, "head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations."
UPDATE: Ralph G. Neas - president of the People For the American Way issues his support for the bill, launching a flock of canards:
"In several states where anti-immigrant measures have caused worker shortages, growers are being forced to leave their products to rot. In small towns across the country, immigrants are being accosted by ordinances that purport to root out lawlessness but in reality foment hate and distrust – and are draining the life out of some communities that had been invigorated by immigrants... In November, Americans rejected many proponents of anti-immigrant extremism. Now this Democratic-led Congress has the perfect opportunity to prove that it not only received the message, but is prepared to act in a responsible way to address a serious national problem..."
A small group of illegal immigration supporters walked the 42 to 50 miles (reports vary) from Chicago's Chinatown (meant to symbolize that we're a nation of immigrants) to Dennis Hastert's office in Batavia, Illinois. It took them four days, starting [[September 1, 2006]] and finishing [[September 4, 2006]]. Only "around 3000" showed up for the final rally. AKA the "Immigrant Workers Justice Walk".
Andres Martinez is the editor of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, and I believe he is the author of the unsigned editorial "Left out in '08: Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for president because the founding fathers didn't want a foreign king." While there's no real burning need to allow naturalized citizens to serve as president, the LAT wants to tinker with the Constitution and make it happen anyway.
They inform us that past fears no longer apply:
Yesterday ICE conducted the latest in a series of what are most likely show immigration raids, this time of Swift & Co.'s meatpacking plants in various cities. A roundup is here.
As with other immigration reform marches in the metro area this year, Friday's [9/1/06] featured plenty of Mexican flags and signs with slogans written in Spanish. But there also were flags from the Philippines and people like Sally Chung holding signs in Korean...
The Democrats have various plans for different races: "A New Direction for __African-American____ Families", "A New Direction for ____Asian-Pacific Islander-American__ Families", "A New Direction for ___European-American__ Families", er, scratch the last one.
Their latest race-based plan is called "Compromiso Democrata con el Pueblo Latino: A New Direction for Latino Families".
In keeping with that obscurity, here it is from two obscure sources.
England's "Cambs Times" offers a "satir
Hazelton PA has passed a local ordinance that tries to prevent illegal immigration flourishing in their city.