24 Comments »

1. 1 abrisaham

   January 20, 2008 @ 3:25 pm CET

   We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up

   Everywhere you went in college either you were for the immigration bill being proposed last year or you were a bigot.  Period.  There was no middle ground.  There was no maybe, sorta, kinda, almosts.  There was only your with us or your against us.

   You were either a "Hip Black Man"  or in this case maybe a "Hip Hispanic Man" or you were a "Racial Bigot"

   Is this really what politics in the 21st century has turned into.  Fascism on both sides?  I see no hope for a big tent here.  I see none at all.  The left/Democrats see the chance for huge additions to their rolls while the GOP see the hope for continued cheap labor. 

   Neither see

   The country overwhelmingly said they wanted a solution to the current immigration fiasco and that what was being proposed was NOT the immigration solution they were likely to favor.  Whatever the reasons that this bill was defeated did not mean the people were bigots. It meant they did not like the current bill.

   Why must we constantly demonize each other if we don’t like your solution and want a better or different one?  This is why this nation is so polarized.  Why must we keep up this rhetoric?

   America is a grand nation.  When our politicians start bandying about terms like "Bigots" to describe opponents of an immigration bill.  When college professors begin using or implying those words in classes that I attended then I fear this nation is spiraling out of its grand tradition of individual acceptance of contrarian viewpoints.  That truly is a sad day for this country and does not bode well for whoever the next president is because you can be assured that the next president will receive in kind the same treatment meeted out to Bill Clinton and now George Bush.  The politics of hate will not change.  It will only change the target of the character assassination.

2. 2 C Stanley

   January 20, 2008 @ 3:47 pm CET

   I agree about the ‘bigotry’ rhetoric, it’s completely unproductive. I think some people who oppose a comprehensive immigration plan with path to citizenship really are bigots, but they’re not the majority of the opponents.

   I disagree though with Michael about it not being about trusting the government. I think a huge amount of opposition to the McCain/Kennedy bill was due to distrust, particularly since the LAST Kennedy immigration bill was what led to our current problem. You have to look at that historical context; immigration opponents were told to accept that bill on the basis that the borders would be closed after the fact, and then that never happened. So trust is a big factor- those who felt they had been burned before aren’t willing to compromise on anything other than a strict bill to deal with border security first before there’s any talk of guest worker programs or paths to citizenship.

3. 3 John McCain » Blog Archive » John McCain Didn’t Change Mind on Immigration - Graham Lashes Out

   January 20, 2008 @ 4:27 pm CET

   […] Michael Arrington wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt seems that John McCain hasn’t changed his views on (illegal) immigration. “Actually, I didn’t change my position…” McCain told Sean Hannity yesterday (video below the fold). McCain is, interestingly, constantly saying that … […]

4. 4 John Mccain » John McCain Didn’t Change Mind on Immigration - Graham Lashes Out

   January 20, 2008 @ 4:56 pm CET

   […] Michael van der Galien wrote an interesting post today on John McCain Didnâ

5. 5 George Chell

   January 20, 2008 @ 5:06 pm CET

   People of SC voted for amnesty yesterday. The choice was clear: Huckabee signed a pledge with the Americans for Better Immigration, that he will not legalize any illegals and would not guarantee their return once deported. He lost. People cant have it both ways. They cannot say that they want to deport illegals and then make John McCain the winner. This was the biggest defeat for the anti-immigration groups such as FAIR, CIS and ABI and worst defeat for restrictionists such as Steve Malanga and Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute. Period. End of story!

6. 6 zeezil

   January 20, 2008 @ 5:20 pm CET

   McCain’s Immigration InsanityMcCain has been campaigning in South Carolina with Lindsey "Shamnesty" Graham telling everyone that he never really supported amnesty. Previously, McCain and Lieberman were on a PR campaign together in NH and lying through their teeth on McCain’s immigration record. At a recent town hall meeting, McCain speaks for a while uttering his gibberish about illegal immigration and the illegal’s are god’s children (he obviously believes that they are a special type of god’s children and deserve some kind of extra compassion), etc. Lieberman takes the mike and says…"To say John McCain ever supported amnesty for illegal immigrants is a lie…" This is extremely disturbing that both of these Senators would try to deceive and directly lie to people for the express purpose of garnering votes. You can view this for yourself in this video:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er3gSPhNSEMMcCain is trying to run from his actions and record. He is intentionally distorting (I call it lying) the irrefutable fact that he was a supporter of amnesty by claiming he was never for amnesty. He was a main architect, contributor and proponent of the Comphrensive Immigration Reform bills (s. 1348 and s. 1639) of 2007 that were written in order to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. McCain was so deep into the content and language of these bills that they were often referred to as the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Reform bills.McCain has consistently supported amnesty for illegal aliens since at least 2003 as reported by hotair.com from a Tuscon Citizen article…"McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program," reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: "Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it." The newspaper also quoted McCain as saying: "I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country."http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/05/video-liebs-says-mccain-did-not-support-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens/http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/06/017540.phpAn in-depth interview in June 2007 conducted with WBT radio Charlotte, NC illustrates McCain’s lack of knowledge of the details in his own Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. His arrogance and condescending attitude to those who disagreed with him on the amnesty issue can also be heard: http://jeffkatz.wbt.com/audio.cfm;jsessionid=2e30fbce04aa6e53e62082817536929611f5TR?ID=7During the ABC News presidential debate on January 5, 2008 McCain said: "Let me just say I’ve never supported amnesty. A few nights ago, Joe Lieberman and I had a town hall meeting together. It was a rather unusual event. The issue came up. Joe Lieberman said John McCain has never supported amnesty, and anybody says he does is a liar, he’s lying." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-rdebate.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1199721737-2vqWJVFzkwWyQwnxeL9SewOne day later at the Fox News presidential forum, McCain said, "I have never, ever supported amnesty, and never will". During the Fox News presidential debate on January 10, 2008 McCain said: "I know how to secure the borders. I come from a border state where our borders are broken. More people come across our border illegally every year than most any other state. And I will secure the borders first…The remaining 12 million…we must then, in my view, address it in as humane and compassionate way as possible. The three GIs who were missing last year in action, one of them was still missing in action, his wife was about to be deported from this country. I’m not going to deport the wife of a fighting serviceman who’s missing in action. I’m going to handle it in a humane, compassionate fashion." EARTH to McMARS; if you know how to secure the borders, why is your home state’s border still unsecured (McCain has been in Congress for 26 years, the last 22 as a Senator), so much so that more illegals come across your border than anywhere else? What have you been waiting for? Amnesty (again)? Furthermore, what does a GI wife’s situation have to do with the 20 to 36 million illegal aliens here, many of which came across those borders you know how to secure but have done nothing to secure?http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/281821.htmlLest we forget or if anyone is unsure as to what the definition of amnesty is, I will provide it below:AMNESTY, in relation to immigration matters, is legislation to forgive the breaking of immigration laws and to make it possible for illegal aliens to live permanently in the United States. Amnesty represents a system of federal rewards and assistance for illegal aliens, and they entice an even greater number of foreign nationals to illegally enter a country.AMNESTY:A general pardon for offenses against a governmentAn act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a wholeForgetting or overlooking any past offenseNot only is McCain a supporter of amnesty, he is not fond of any fencing for immigration control or for security reasons. McCain said, "By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it."[Prisoner of Conscience - Vanity Fair, February 2007: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702 "We are not going to erect barriers and fences" (June 5, 2007 CNN Republican Presidential Candidates Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU )I suppose McCain has never heard of the 14-mile double-layer fence between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Its benefits in stopping illegal entry into the U.S. were immediate and long lasting. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report illegal alien apprehensions along the fence region dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 2004, a reduction greater than 95% ( http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200712/NAT20071219b.html ) Particularly galling is that December’s omnibus spending bill did not include the appropriations for construction of the double layer 700-mile border fence, which was passed into law just a few months earlier. Additionally, the requirement of a double-layer fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was removed, so if funding is ever restored, a truly effective fence being constructed is unlikely.I’m sure if McCain was somehow elected President; one of his first official acts would be to take down the fence surrounding the White House…right John?

7. 7 Jason Steck

   January 20, 2008 @ 5:29 pm CET

   I love how some people think that "amnesty" is a magical dirty word that replaces all need to actually make an argument.

   Let’s try this:  I am pro-amnesty.  What’s wrong with that?

   Maybe if I embrace the word, the anti-immigration types will have to actually articulate their position instead of just waving the word "amnesty" around like a necklace of garlic.

8. 8 Peter from Dover NH

   January 20, 2008 @ 6:44 pm CET

   I so agree with Jason. The argument has nothing to do with that word. That word is just used by those (read ‘elites") that want to inflame the masses who don’t want to think for themselves. The fact is that there is a real argument going on about immigration and its affect. Our ability to stop illegal immigration has always been here but state and fed government has not enforced it. Hence, all you need to do is look at how we got here to see that if the government says now they will stop it no one beleives. If you don’t beleive new illegal imigration wont stop, it is maddening to listen to someone talk about how to humanely deal with the 12M here. So trust in government is at the core, unless you are really talking about immigration in general. My opinion is that this issue is all contrived by the elite to skate out something that they can inflame the masses about in order to play out the power stuggle between the fractured party; radical right and the moderates. The recent track record of following the far right  leads to the country and our party being in rough shape especially in the credibility department. This is where the Mitt vs. McCain battle is. My hope is that honesty prevails. The polls (national and every state) seem to agree.

9. 9 Tap

   January 20, 2008 @ 9:40 pm CET

   But what do you mean by anti-immigration types?

   I seldom find the word "anti-immigration" to be used in good faith. That’s not an implication that you use it in bad faith. That is a question.

   Most of those against continued sanctioned illegal immigration are not against immigration. They are against turning this country into a borderless country. They are, in fact, against what they say they are against: illegal immigration.

   Those implying that all such opinion emminates from bigots against immigration are the ones muddying the waters in an attempt to avoid the actual issue.

10. 10 Jason Steck

    January 20, 2008 @ 9:58 pm CET

    I use the term "anti-immmigration" to describe those people who oppose any immigration reform short of somehow rounding up 12-20 million people and deporting them. This group is clearly differentiated from others by their propensity to use the term "amnesty" to describe ALL different types of proposed immigration reform regardless of the differences between the different proposals. Even though the pretense of "secure the border first" is sometimes put forward as a rhetorical fig leaf, if the standard for "securing the border" that must be met before other measures can be discussed is 100% perfection, then in effect they are "anti-immigration" anyway.

    Also, there are some writers who make this explicit. For example, the otherwise esteemed scholar Samuel Huntington argues that Hispanic immigrants generally are incapable of assimilation with American culture and, therefore, are an existential threat to American cultural identity. Politicians such as Pat Buchanan have said things indicating that they agree with this view. I don’t see any way to interpret such views except as “anti-immigration” generally. (Huntington seems oddly unaware that the exact same accusations of “impossible to assimilate” were made in previous generations against the Irish and against Asians. Huh. They seem to have assimilated pretty well, Prof. Huntington….)

    I am aware that there are some who genuinely want to enact reasonable increases on border security first and are willing to consider some form of "amnesty" afterward, but this group is definitely not in control of the debate in the Republican party or on conservative talk radio. They are shouted down with the word "amnesty" as soon as the fall short of full orthodoxy on the deport-them-all front.

    I’ve also heard some references on, for example, the Laura Ingraham show indicating that immigrants generally are diseased and criminal, indicating not only a general anti-immigration orientation among such people, but also no small degree of racism. There was also a commenter on a site that I used to write for who made this explicit, claiming that the crowds of “criminals” that he saw at a local 7/11 were “illegal immigrants” based on no more evidence than that “they look like illegal immigrants”. How else to interpret someone who sees a Hispanic and automatically concludes “illegal immigrant”?

    But overall, the "red flag" that I am dealing with someone who is truly "anti-immigration" rather than merely wanting to increase border security is when the scare-word of "amnesty" is misused to describe all moderate immigration reform proposals. Personally, I think there is middle ground on the immigration issue, such as by reasonably increasing border security (knowing that nothing is ever 100%), increasing employer enforcement and offering green cards contingent upon payment of a fine and an otherwise clean criminal record. But even that is called (gasp!) “amnesty” and waved away by the anti-immigration extremists.

11. 11 Tap

    January 20, 2008 @ 11:52 pm CET

    Well, I must say that there appears to be a communication gap here. After reading your first sentence, I take it that you are saying that someone who agrees that we should continue to have legal immigration but also thinks that we should not give illegal immigrants legal status is "anti-immigration".

    I can’t say I agree with your use of the term. I’d define anti-immigration as being against immigration. Call me crazy…..

    I agree with much of what you write on this blog, but on this issue I think you are impeding a good faith discussion.

    In addition to your somewhat odd definition of anti-immigration, I’d like to point out that your assignation of the basest of motives to those you disagree with is a severe impediment to debate.

    You talk about "the pretense of "secure the border first" as a "rhetorical fig leaf", you suggest that 100% perfection is the standard demanded. You name someone whom I don’t know as being against immigration based on racist reasoning, suggest that some people agree with him and then move forward to suggest that all or at least most Republicans and right wing radio therefore also fall into the category of racists against "immigration".

    Have you ever considered the possibility that those who demand that we secure the border first mean just that? Have you taken into consideration the historical justification for that line of reasoning (if I may be so bold as to suggest that it is reasoning and not mere bigoted racism)? There is more than enough historical justification for this attitude, and it is possible that many of us really mean exactly what we are saying .

    What person gave the standard for 100% perfection in securing the border that you are holding against all who are in disagreement with you? While your definition of successfully securing the border and mine may differ, you seem to be the one who is creating an artificial barrier to the discussion and to any possible compromise by stating categorically that your opponents standards are both insincere and unreachable, and yet you are the one who has assigned that standard to your opponent.

    Finally, I’d like to return to what we started with. The definition of immigration. It is impossible to debate issues when we don’t even know what issue we are debating. The modern tendency to use the language to muddy the waters and make it impossible to have meaningful discussion is deplorable.

    We aren’t debating immigration here, are we? I think we are talking about something else entirely. You say we demand border security before we’ll entertain immigration reform. But it isn’t actually about reforming immigration laws, is it? You aren’t suggesting we change how many applicants we will allow to legally immigrate so much as you are suggesting we do something to legalize those who are already here, right? That is the main issue.

    I’d say that is yet another reason it is disengenuous to call your opponents "anti-immigration".

    I’m not sure what your definition of amnesty is, either. Are there any circumstances where it would be correct to name a immigration policy as amnesty? How do they differ from what you want?

12. 12 Tully

    January 21, 2008 @ 12:32 am CET

    Maybe if I embrace the word, the anti-immigration types will have to actually articulate their position instead of just waving the word “amnesty” around like a necklace of garlic.

    It’s the stakes you have to watch out for.

13. 13 abrisaham

    January 21, 2008 @ 4:28 am CET

    I think I must fall in the group that I am against immigration if it cannot be done with a high degree of quality assurance.

    The last immigration bill was supposed to fix everything.  Then suddenly we need a new immigration bill when I never could figure out what was wrong with the last one other then we were simply not enforcing the law.

    So then they want to pass a new immigration bill which makes it even more likely that we will not enforce the law and be stuck with an even more problematic nightmare.

    This is as I stated above precisely what Ronald Reagan seemed to be implying in his message that gave the GOP hope.  The government cant fix everything but every time we have a problem it seems both the Democrats and yes and the GOP want to turn to the government to solve the problems.

    I for one simply am against an immigration bill that only makes promises we cant keep.  That was what we were faced with last year.  A bill that was not going to be enforced anymore stringently then the one that is broken now.

14. 14 George Chell

    January 21, 2008 @ 5:16 am CET

    Anti-immigration forces lost in SC. Get over it!

15. 15 Tap

    January 21, 2008 @ 5:25 am CET

    Oh, well I suppose it’s a done-deal then. S.C. after all…wow.

16. 16 Tap

    January 21, 2008 @ 3:43 pm CET

    No response? What if I promise not to use the A-word?

17. 17 George Chell

    January 21, 2008 @ 4:24 pm CET

    Tap:

    This is my opinion. If it comes down between saving the economy and enforcing the law, to hell with the law!

18. 18 Tap

    January 21, 2008 @ 4:30 pm CET

    George Chell: You be sure to let me know when that happens then!

19. 19 Cohen

    January 21, 2008 @ 6:16 pm CET

    South Carolina’s GOP primary was a stunning defeat for the KKK right wing of the Republican party. Let me say it out loud: a comprehensive immigration reform is a matter of when, not if. Billy Bobb will yete again lose. Why? Because he is on the wrong side of both history and demographics! Wake up, time for reality check!

20. 20 Tap

    January 21, 2008 @ 7:21 pm CET

    Okay, okay, I give. Nobody here who is capable of discussing this issue with reason is interested. Nobody who is interested is capable of reasoned discussion. I get it. Just be aware that demonizing those with opposing viewpoints will only get you so far, no matter how good it makes you feel personally.

21. 21 Jay_C

    February 16, 2008 @ 4:41 am CET

    Interesting video on immigration in the US and how it is and will continue to grow to an out of control rate, unless we cut back to immigration rates drastically..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

22. 22 Jules Crittenden » Horse Race

    March 3, 2008 @ 3:58 am CET

    […] Poligazette with some Obama Nevada spin and McCain immigration spin. […]

23. 23 Southern Hoosier

    April 1, 2008 @ 2:30 am CEST

    C Stanley January 20, 2008 @ 3:47 pm CET ?I agree about the ‘bigotry’ rhetoric, it’s completely unproductive. I think some people who oppose a comprehensive immigration plan with path to citizenship really are bigots, but they’re not the majority of the opponents.?
     What a joke, first you say that "bigotry? rhetoric, it’s completely unproductive," then in the same sentence you call people bigots who "oppose a comprehensive immigration plan with path to citizenship."

24. 24 Southern Hoosier

    April 1, 2008 @ 2:43 am CEST

    I for one am opposed to immigration both legal and illegal. We don’t need a million illegal immigrants entering this country every year. We don’t need a million legal immigrants entering this country every year. We don’t need have 1/2 billion people living in this country by the middle of the century.
    California is building a school a day to take care of its population growth. What is that doing to the environment? How many trees have to be cut down to make that many more school books? How much fossil fuel do we burn busing these kids? How much fossil fuel do we burn heating and cooling all these schools? How much more water and sewage treatment is need?
    If you want your children or grandchildren to in like they do in India or China, fine, send them there, but don’t ruin America.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.