Buchanan: Illegal immigration is "an invasion of the United States of America" and "[t]he whole world is coming"
On MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States is "not immigration" but "an invasion" that is "coming not only from Mexico," but "from the whole world."
During a May 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC political analyst and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States is "not immigration" but "an invasion" that is "coming not only from Mexico," but "from the whole world."
Buchanan, who was also a speechwriter for President Nixon, appeared with former presidential adviser David Gergen, who served in the administrations of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the May 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: But what good is passing a -- David, what good is getting a bill through the Senate if it dies there in conference?
GERGEN: Well, that's the point. I mean, he [President Bush] was going to get this bill through the Senate regardless of whether he gave the speech. The question is -- is whether in providing the [National] Guard and whether he's making this effort to seal the borders, whether he's also going to be able to bring along the House conservatives to sign on to the rest of the program that McCain, Kennedy, and company have built up. That's the big issue now, and the leadership comes and whether he can bring -- having given the conservatives something which they really want, which is a much stronger border effort, can he bring them along to sign on to the bill? I don't know. Pat, do you think the House conservatives will come along with him on the guest-worker program?
BUCHANAN: I think it's -- the conservatives won't. I think he's going to go after [House Speaker J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] and [House Majority Leader John A.] Boehner [R-OH] and people like that. But I will say this, David. Look, what he's doing now is baby steps on the border. You're sending a few National Guard down there to do the administrative jobs and release the border patrol guys for the border. Chris, as you talked earlier, we have, the president is going to say tonight, over 6 million people have been caught. It's not immigration. There is an invasion of the United States of America. And until you put a security fence now along 2,000 miles of border, you are not going to stop this invasion. And it's coming not only from Mexico, it's coming from the whole world. The president himself conceded that 150,000 illegals who are other than Mexicans, three times as many as there were two years ago, were caught at the border. The whole world is coming. And a couple of National Guard guys sitting there doing administrative work ain't going to stop it.
'Chicken Little', with Pat as C. Little.
Watch it now!
(PG13)
When you have eleven million people who have illegally entered the country that can be considered an invasion. Not in the military sense but in general. Now let's see the MMFA crowd play that race card.
I don't care much for Buchanan's social views because he's anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. But watching him on "The McGlaughlin Group" I actually agree with his views on U.S. foreign policy. He was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning, he's against a military strike of Iran and he's for securing the border.
Almost as asanine as John Gibson's "make more babies." How transparent can this racist SOB possibly be?
we are a soverign nation with every right and a responsibility to control our borders, there is nothing remotely reacist about it. those that play that race card by suggesting decent people who want to see our borders enforced are racist is disguisting. those that engage in this sleazy attempt should be ashamed.
I think I agree, but they play the fear card.
i will give you how some use over the top rhetoric, but waking people up to the reality of the situation needs to be done. the issue is finally getting the attention it deserves, and that's a good thing. it is just very disheartening to hear people throw the race card out there and accuse those that want strong border enforcement racists.
The problem is that hiding amongst the people who reasonably desire a secure border are racist, xenophobes like Pat. They want white people to continue to dominate the country and see the immigration problem as one of racial dilution rather than the economic and social problem it really is. In times like this, the racists speak out and hope their thinly disguised race baiting is taken as reasonable discourse.
I want access control......but calling our problem an "invasion" is completly wrong. The implication is that illegal immigrants are coming here with the sole intent to harm us, which of course isnt true.
It's important for us all to remember that this is a distraction. Is illegal immigration a problem? Yes. But it's been a problem for decades. It's not that time-sensitive. The only reason it's on the front burner right now is that the admin has no game left and is getting desperate for something to get our collective eye off the more important issues (there's the terror risk of an open border, but if they cared about that they would have been all over this issue four years ago)
the reason this is a front burner issue now is that the people are finally raising their voices and demanding action. this administration would love nothing more than to see this issue go away, they don't want it. they have been asleep at the wheel totally and have done nothing to secure our borders. bush and co want to placate conservatives with this silly speech of his last night in hopes they will shutup, forget about it, and rally around him again. he's losing them (me included) fast on many fronts, this is just another - with iraq and spending as well.
I'm glad Bush is losing you. King George never had most of us. This War on Illegal Immigration was started as a distraction but will wind up dividing and weakening the Cons to the point of self destruction. Hooray! This will make it oh so much easier to take back the government in the Fall and start full-scale investigations and indictments as soon as possible. Thanks for your cooperation.
bush may be losing me, but i don't share anywhere near what your view is, believe me. i don't drink anyone's kool-aid, unlike you.
It's funny how the cons are jumping the sinking Bush ship now that he's a lame duck. In reality, it's the putrid conservative philosophy that's to blame for our troubles, not one imbecilic man.
I saw that assessment in this article:
Humpty-Dumpty Republicans, By William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Perspective,
Monday 15 May 2006
[link to www.truthout.org]
" Underneath the seamless facade, however, was the fault line of immigration. No other subject is as divisive, or as potentially destructive to the GOP coalition, as this. In 1992, Pat Buchanan forced George H. W. Bush to run a far more conservative campaign for president by hammering on the immigration issue, which ultimately contributed to Bush's defeat at the hands of Clinton. In 1996, Buchanan was at it again, beating Dole in New Hampshire and forcing him to spend far more than he could afford. Again, the immigration issue was central to Buchanan's message.
The divide here is straightforward: The movement conservatives want massive border security, want to deport every illegal immigrant in the country and want to make citizenship harder to obtain. The business conservatives, on the other hand, enjoy having a massive pool of illegal laborers to tap because they can pay those laborers slave wages, avoid having to offer them insurance and thus pad their profits. "
---------------------------------------
" Reading tea leaves is a dangerous hobby, and nobody knows for sure how all of this is going to shake out. But the malevolently divisive spirit of Pat Buchanan still stalks the highways and back roads of New Hampshire, and the immigration issue he used to snap the campaigns of two consecutive Republican presidential candidates remains as dangerous now as it was in 1992. Can Bush's speech tonight stuff this genie back into the bottle? "
---------------------------------
I'd say that Bush, as a mere mortal, cannot close Pandora's box and I question whether it is even his aim.
No matter if you love Pat or hate him, he has continually sucked the life out of Republican unity, so we can thank him for single-handedly derailing fascist one-party rule.
The Repubs dismissed the funding for 10,000 more border patrol, so now Bush wants to steal our Nat'l Guard resources for this duty that should have been instated years ago. Go figure. I'll be interested in seeing who will comprise the volunteers.
The prez only scheduled the speech last Friday afternoon.
Think of it...
As little as one year ago, how big was all this "immigration" stuff?
You can check the archives of MMFA if you like; go back a year, and see what were the items of the day, and of those days; I think you'll find so little about "immigration", as to maybe be nothing at all on the matter (perhaps there'll be a Lou Dobbs rant or two found sprinkled among last year's stories, like doo doo on the lawn; but that's always been his specialty).
Now what makes today, these past few months, so different from last year, or any other previous year, regarding "immigration"?
Has there been a recent influx of "illegals" crossing the border, hordes above the usual?
Has there been a recent "invasion of illegals"?
Is that the difference between last year (or any other year) and the first few months of this year, regarding "immigration"?
Or does it have to do with plummeting approval ratings, and Iraq, and Congressional Ethics, and the ever-widening stain of Republican Randall 'Duke' Cunningham, and all things Intelligence (most notably the Senate Intel Committee), and DeLay and Ney and Abramoff and Libby and Rove too, and warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens, and a back-breaking record federal deficit complete with tax breaks and unrestrained spending...
Does it have anything to do with the upcoming fall elections, and the issues that would otherwise dominate the political discourse that is so much a part of that upcoming election, as it is a part of all elections?
Does "immigration" as a sudden topic today, have anything to do with those other (dreadful) topics which seem to spell DOOM for the Grand Old Party in this fall's elections?
Distraction...
...delivered on your doorstep in a steaming paper bag.
Some of us know better, but there'll always be others who will go immediately to stomping on the danged thing; and the joke winds up being on them.
I'll have to consider them. But I do have to say that when I'm in doubt, I wonder what they're trying to hide before anything else.
After all, these are the kind of people who might respond to questions about the downing street memos with "yall aint gonna let them queers get married are ya?!?"
In my mind, any issue that they actively engage might be a distraction.
The right ring racist rhetoric is in a frenzied state now, no holds barred. It's going to hurt conservatives-Republicans Buchanan was on Scarborough Country last night and he said the same thing although he added that the US was being INVADED BY THIRD WORLDERS. As I said before when you turn this into a discussion about the "unworthiness" of MEXICANS and away from the real issue of uncontrolled immigration, you put a lot of people off. The RNC Hispanic outreach is probably dead in the water now. Who is going to vote for a party when the members continually deride your ethnicity? You know the RNC was so happy with the increased Hispanic support during the last presidential election, because they made huge in-roads. But I posted before that I thought it would only be temporary. The Hispanic population hadn't had the African American experience with the Republican Party. They're getting a taste of that now. Between elections these people speak contemptuosly of you and then have the nerve to come to you and ask for you to vote. Now you always say that the Democrats panders to minorities well at least they don't treat us with outright contempt. You know Right Wing I am in agreement with you now on allowing the right wing noisemakers to keep making their racist opinions known. Every time they say this crap it’s another step toward pushing the wing nuts back to the margins where they should forever remain.
Right On: I'm pretty far left on most issues and have read this board often enough to know that we disagree 90% of the time. That said, I am in agreement with you that border security is a problem that needs to be addressed and I am in favor of a rigorous (but also fair and humane) patrol of the borders. I do so for reasons of national security, sovereignty and because -- like many people, both liberal and conservative -- I believe that illegal immigration diminishes the rule of law in this country.
Nevertheless, there is a racist component to many of those who are pushing this issue. For example, undeniably racist groups such as the National Alliance have been active on the border. For that matter, Pat Buchanan is pretty suspect on such matters, so denying this aspect of the debate is simply not credible.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
[link to www.workingforchange.com]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
i never said there were no racists in this debate - of course there are, i specifically said decent people who want our borders enforced. i am not interested in discussing this issue with those who are blantant racists, or those who play the race card instead of substantive discussions. there are bad people in every debate, i can't control that. but to act like race is behind those that are serious about this issue is just wrong.
Pat is one of them, and he's the subject of the thread.
I site your above quote where you say "there is nothing remotely racist about it." Quite clearly there is, as you have now tacitly admitted. I agree that there are "decent people" with legitimate concerns about this issue, and some of them might even be conservatives. :-)
Pat Buchanan, however, is the subject of this thread and he is (at best) damaged goods on matters of race.
You and I possibly share some common ground on this issue, but denying the reality of this portion of the debate will not make it go away. I certainly do not accuse you of this, but racism (open and covert) is a part of this issue.
In addition to the above links I gave you, I will add that I work in a supervisory capacity for a company where we employ many (legal) Hispanic employees. They are hard and resourceful workers, but the level of contempt that I hear exuded by many white business types toward "the Mexicans" in this company is palpable. Dismiss this story as anecdotal if you wish, but the same business people who profit off recent immigrant labor are also swift to decry the "browning" of this country.
to Illegal Immigration is to forget about jailing or deporting the Illegals, and to Put the Employers of Illegals in Jail. It is Simple, No Jobs = No Illegal Immigrants.
...of the Right. So, the whole world is coming? Cool! Then I'm going to Australia. I'll have it to myself. Or perhaps Paris. Just Paris and my pals and me. Or maybe Prague. I'll be the Queen of Prague and Buchanan can be the Drama Queen of Rhetoric.
back again. We missed you. Were you writing on your book?
I've been finishing my second novel and my publisher offered me a contract for its sequel, which I declined. I still have to rewrite my first novel and finish the second, thus, my absence, but I've missed you guys.
Welcome back. Good luck with the novel.
You're royal to me.
Is originally from from Utah. He THINKS you might be---Holly Mullins the "loopy liberal" [HIS words--NOT mine] columnist from the Salt Lake Tribune ...so is he right?
I've been called many names, but rarely anything as loopy as "the loopy liberal." I'd share some of those names, but MM's editing device wouldn't let me. Just think of certains words that rhyme with: squat, bunt, gore, and switch.
So, no, I'm not that Holly.
The Mexicans are coming! The Mexicans are coming! To arms, to arms!
I got your back on what you just posted. I long ago predicted that Ann Coulter would be her own undoing, as her rhetoric became ever more outrageous and vitriolic. I foretold that she couldn't temper her tongue and it seems that my prognostication should have been applied to many of these Right Wing Pundits.
would have us cower in a corner. The world is coming one way or another time to strap the gloves and come out into the international ring swing.
Also there is this
“The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. “"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!"” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
I am betting that the Statue of Liberty is more American than Buchanan. And to answer one of his "points", they have most often come to this country poor and with only the clothes on their backs, as far as I can tell they have only made the USA stronger.
Still no real talk of accountability and increased enforcement or legal consequences to the employer/enablers. So this is just another Rove driven stunt. In short, it’s obvious that neither party wants to honestly address the situation. At least Pat is true to his school, although the invasion thing is overtly dramatic and a bit alarmist in a 50’s B sifi movie way. He’s been hitting on this topic for years and now finally people are listening. Until the elections are over, then it’s business as usual and the “Do Not Disturb” sign gets hung back on the Senate and House doors.
it's all smoke and mirrors, throw them a bone, whatever. sadly, i fear it will take another attack that's traced to someone entering our country illegally to wake people up. let's hope not.
Don't forget that the 9/11 attackers were in our country legally. Most of the discussion about illegal immigration is focused on people coming here to work, not commit terrorism.
It appears most left-wingers will never understand the entirety of this issue, because they are all too busy knee-jerking at any chance they get. It's trendy to label anybody that considers this issue a dire concern, as racist. It's all about absolute emotional reasoning with these types. Nobody can look past the superficiality of "race."
Listen, illegal immigration is a BIG problem. For left-wingers, you sure are doing a bad job at realizing the economic effects it has on the working class. Oblivious to how this increases the gap between the rich and the poor. How can you condone this extortion? And who really benefits from this? I'll tell you: the economic elite. And who suffers? The average working american. You are all being played by corporate supremacy. Why do you think the neocons push for this anyway?
So in a nutshell, what are some major consequences of illegal immigration?
Significantly increased crime rates, lower acedemic standards, drug trafficking, aforementioned poor-rich divide increase, financial deficits (tax money spent on illegals > illegal economic output), cultural usurpation, etc.
Buchanan understands these issues, and anyone claiming he's a racist for seeing this as what it is and wanting to to put an end of it seriously needs a sanity check.
I don't blame the illegal immigrants, after all, they're virtually *allowed* to come, by the basic lack of anything stopping them.
Please, I ask you to stop claiming this is an issue of race. Read into this issue. The facts are out there, the numbers are out there, the consequences are being felt, and the projections are accurate. Please, next time you get the impulse to call a person like Buchanan a racist, instead, actually consider what he's saying for just a second.
Ethnicity is not the issue here; for some it may be, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue for the american people. Fact is, when these illegals are coming from a demographic with such a gap in comparison to the average american, the void is extremely damaging to the country's integrity and standards. This can apply to any ethnic group. Mexicans are the focus here, because it's the mexicans that have this problem currently.
Being "a nation of immigrants" doesn't mean we can just open the floodgates to the third world. We have a legal way of becoming a citizen, a rational way. It's ridiculous to believe any country can healthily continue to perpetually take on this amount of .
So ask yourself: “should I be a tool of corporate america and special interests, buying into all of the emotional and inconstant rhetoric, or should I look into this rationally, learning the *real* issues behind illegal immigration, and what the consequences are now, and what they will be in the future?”
but don't look for many far left liberals here to throw away that coveted race card they haul out whenever they are losing an argument. for without it, their deck is empty. just read some of the posts on this topic.
It seems like your every utterance today is mean-spirited and over-generalized.
Talking like that, you're not allowed to bitch about us being mean to you.
Relax! :)
read how many of your fellow far lefties have been hauling out their racist charge on this thread alone. that's their problem, not mine. i feel sorry that's all they've got.
I don't buy the racist thing either, necessarily. It's just that saying things like "that's all they've got" and "without that their deck is empty" fills me (and probably everyone else) with the urge to argue that conservative policies have all failed, republicans have squandered away twenty years of progress, etc. Things that might piss you off.
So if you don't want US to be dicks....don't be a dick. That's all I'm sayin'. :)
Oh yeah, Buchanan. Does he have a history of racist comments and views? YES, is THIS comment reasonably considered racist? YES, but for SOME reason YOU want to make that an off limits point of discussion as IF it had no relevance. Yet even YOU admitted, when shown undeniable evidence, that is IS part of the dynamic. It is YOU being unreasonable here. YOU do NOT get to frame the debate or decide what is off limits. Buchanan has earned the scorn he is getting for the racist cast of his arguments. THAT is the topic when we REASONABLY point that out you want to go into a snit. Get over yourself. There is reason to talk about racism in THIS THREAD. I dont blame you for not wanting to address this, I dont believe for a second your take on this issue is formed by racism and you dont like being associated with it. THAT is reasonable. A better way to handle this is ADMIT the racist component of the Buchanans and address YOUR reasoning which I think most everyone here accepts are NOT racist. No one I have seen is calling YOU racist nor saying that racism is the ONLY component. We SHOULD however call those for whom it IS the motivation on their bigotry and Buchanan qualifies. YOU seem to want to put that out of bounds snivelling that the racism card should NEVER be brought up at ALL. Buchanan deserves it, this quote deserves it. Accept that some of your fellow travellers on this issue (I am not that far from you on this issue) ARE being racists and that we have a legitimate reason for saying so. Otherwise you are leaving reality far behind
i, unlike many here, do not throw the term racist around with such ease. it is an ugly, inflammatory and highly offensive word when used inappropriately or without proof. i don't deny that racism exists, i am not a fool. but many of you seem to know what's in a person's heart and accuse them of being a racist when you have no proof other than your vocal disagreement with a position someone holds on an issue. i think very carefully before i use the term "racist" towards anyone. we use many terms here which are not nearly as toxic - cons, liberals, lefties, righties. i have no problem with them because they go towards one's political views. but the term racist is far beyond that, it is much deeper and it's meaning is evil, in my opinion. this accusation should not be leveled at anyone unless there is undeniable proof, beyond some postings or references on this website. buchanan may have his faults, as we all do. but i have seen no definitive proof the man is a "racist". if i am wrong, then prove me so.
He is a racist. A sincere one though. I kind of admire him for at least having the balls to put his sick beliefs out there for people all to see. He's said many racist things in the past. I'll leave to my more research savvy brethren to shove the proof into your arrogant face. Sick 'em guys.
[link to www.mtsu.edu]
On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)
Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and court decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin Luther King Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s. "We were among Hoover's conduits to the American people," he boasted (Right from the Beginning, p. 283).
White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)
In a memo to President Nixon, Buchanan suggested that "integration of blacks and whites -- but even more so, poor and well-to-do -- is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable." (Washington Post, 1/5/92)
In a column sympathetic to ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan chided the Republican Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi "costume": "Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks." (syndicated column, 2/25/89)
Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column, 9/17/89)
In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."
"If we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them up in Virginia, what group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?" ("This Week With David Brinkley," 1/8/91)
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory." (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)
Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction.
Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests -- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were "Americans first" -- and repeatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)
Although the ears that need to hear this will not. Evidently aknowledging a person's racist beliefs is by the definition of some who post here 'race baiting". We're the race baiters but the RACIST that spew their RACIST views every chance they get aren't. Strange logic indeed. And as expected there is stone cold silence from the ones who continually defend these RACISTS and who continually charge Liberals of falsely accusing EVERONE who disagrees with them as being RACISTS. That's a lie and they know it.
Right On is mean spirited.
I'm sitting here applauding YOU.
Excellent post. The ONLY thing I'd ADD is that along with securing our SOUTHERN border I'd like to see is our NORTHERN border sealed/secured as well.
did anyone catch Colbert come up with a new adjective to replace America's formerly kindly "melting pot" and "salad bowl" to the hermetically sealed "lunchables"? haw haw, I got a kick out of that. We are a nation of sealed compartmentalized foodstuffs like the inhabitants of gated communities
we understand it completely. We totally agree that newcomers should not be criminals. We disagree that there needs to be a 2+ year waiting period, or quota's by race. Meaningful legislation absolutely needs to include a comprehensive study into why this process takes so long and demands exhorbitant fees from those who want to come here. But you won't here us complaining about demanding that the current laws against employers be enforced.
"Significantly increased crime rates, lower acedemic standards, drug trafficking, aforementioned poor-rich divide increase, financial deficits (tax money spent on illegals > illegal economic output), cultural usurpation, etc. "
Some of this needs backing up. Where do you get significantly increased crime rates, or financial deficits from? Deficits in particular, are you claiming they get more benefits than they pay out in state and local taxes? Prove it.
Johannes,
Your argument might be convincing if you weren't so blinded by the corporations yourself. While I agree that allowing unchecked immigration across the borders is an affront to the rule of law in this country, a bigger affront to our rule of law is the unchecked hiring done by large corporations who want cheap labor. Here's an example:
As a college student in the mid-west, I worked for a meat packing plant (to remain unnamed). I can say with experience to back me up that the majority of those working in the plant were immigrants: hispanic and south-east asian. Looking at the management structure of the company, I saw only ONE African-American manager and only ONE Hispanic manager. Further, this plant had a system in place to warn workers when "la migra" was around. It was nothing for a new crop of hispanic workers to be picked up at the border and actually brought, in a van, to our city, to our plant, to cut meat. If illegal immigration is SO damned important, why aren't these companies being punished for hiring illegals? You see NOTHING on the right about punishing companies...only punishing people.
If you righties are so concerned with immigration, why not advocate the two pronged approach: tougher border controls and extremely tough punishments for companies who violate the law? But, the thing is, you conservatives live and worship the corporation; the very entity you claim liberals are controlled by. Get a grip.
CSL
Also the meatpacking industry USED to be heavily unionized and paid fairly good wages. Illegal immigrants were used to break that partly because they are easily exploited. This is a complicated dynamic. I agree with what seems like the huge majority here something needs be done to address the issue. The only real difference seems to be do we need to demonize the immigrants to do so?
nobody is saying demonize the immigrants, you sound just like bush on this issue. it's about securing our borders and punishing employers who employ them. no demonization from me, the illegals who come here just want a better life for themselves and their families. but we are a country, not a department store.
Rereading Pat's comments, it seems that they are more hysterical and xenophobic than racist. So, in this case we can label him a lunatic xenophobe and reserve the racist label for some of his previous comments. Good catch.
Never thought for a moment there WOULD be but give me a break telling me NO ONE is demonizing immigrants, what is calling this an INVASION? And that is one of the milder ones. YES, some ARE demonizing immigrants and we NEED to call them on it or the whole point can be discredited. There are good reasons to demand immigration reform, if we let the issue be highjacked by xenophobes the issue itself WILL suffer
"If illegal immigration is SO damned important, why aren't these companies being punished for hiring illegals? You see NOTHING on the right about punishing companies...only punishing people. "
Have you ever heard of the show "Lou Dobbs Tonight"? Because he has been railing against corporations that exploit illegal immigrants and callling for stiff fines and penalties for those companies for months/years now...
And he's about the only one. Dobbs is the rare non-RNC shill on cable news. So, you've found the exception that proved the rule.
the Rightys look at all the purported causes of Illegal Immigration, except the Major Cause, the availability of Illegal Employment. I wonder why they always miss this?
but why is there no mention of the Real Cause of Illegal Immigration, the vast availability of Illegal Employment with no fear of punishment. Put the Employers in Jail, stop the jobs and the Illegals will go away.
It started in 1620.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm just about tired of hearing the words "illegal immigration", "immigrants", "mexican immigrants", etc. This started becoming news what, about three or four months ago? Did all 11 million {or however many} illegal immigrants just suddenly appear in this country three or four months ago? If not, then why ALL OF A SUDDEN is this an issue that causes King Gorge to have to make a speech from his cubicle, talking heads to opine on the issue ad nauseum, and people {most of them citizens} to take to the streets and get criticized for waving a flag other than the USA's?
This wouldn't be a problem if the gov't did its job enforcing laws that already exist, such as punishing employers who hire illegals . . . or hiring more BP agents instead of calling in the already overextended Nat'l Guard . . . or ensuring ALL borders - not just the southern one - are secure {ports, etc.}
But I have a feeling this is just a smokescreen to distract us from a war we shouldn't be in . . . or another war we may possibly soon be in . . . and the sad thing is, we'd likely have enough money to accomplish the above with regard to security if we didn't continue to pour money into a bottomless pit in the middle east . . .
{rant off}
A-FREAKIN'-MEN!
Solon, I'm not trying to FRAME this debate. The topic of this thread is pat's comment. I'm just offering why calling pat a racist for this particular comment is moot. I think a lot of you need to relearn the definition of "racist." Pat and many others have explained in detail numerous times, why illegal immigration is bad for this nation. Pat, by definition of the word, and it's connotations, has every right to call this "an invasion." Considering the damage it's causing, and the certain many influences pushing for it. Namely, the Mexican government, corporate America, and racist interest groups such as la raza, MECHa, etc. Also, the word as obviously stated by him emphasizes the rate at which it's happening. Usurpation is an understatement.
He's not there to "demonize" the poor immigrants. He knows exactly what's going on, and who the real "demons" of this issue are. Don't believe me? Actually read (or watch) some of his material on the matter. You'll probably learn something, and also importantly understand pat's position on this. Perhaps then, you may not make the mistake of demonizing *him* by accusations of irrelevant nonsense.
About the "evidence" of pat being racist that you cited...well, none of that suggests he is racist. Some of that may be considered "ethnocentric" at best, but the rest is just his opinions on social systems and what not. There's nothing wrong with having ethnocentric tendencies; we are all guilty of it at some level. It's natural for people simply prefer their own culture, and their own way of doing things. In fact, I agree with a lot of what he's quoted to have said. There are many, but I'm not about to explain every single quote on there, but for instance, affirmative action is unfair, Zulus would be more difficult to assimilate, Washington is too highly influenced by Israel, Hitler was quite courageous and genius despite his evil, and so on. Also note that quotes can be very misleading if the context is not understood, or seen for one's self. Not that it proves anything, but also note that pat's running mate was an African-American. Look, whatever pat has said, it doesn't make a difference in the validity of this particular anti illegal immigration argument. The facts still stand, and the argument is still very strong. Let's keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum.
Alright, CSL, perhaps you should re-read my fist post. I'm quite surprised, you could after reading my post assume that I worship the corporation. Always assuming and making incorrect generalizations. Not only was what I said enough for you to infer that I am anti-extortion and anti corporate supremacy, but I’ll agree with you directly; yes, I strongly believe business should be held accountable, punished, and prevented from hiring them in the first place. After all, as I've stated, business is the reason illegals are in demand in the first place. Businesses and greedy CEOs would like to not pay a decent wage, but rather pay an underclass a dismal wage, with no benefits, so that they themselves make more profit. "Jobs americans won't do?" - No, the proper phrase is "jobs businesses won't pay a decent wage for." It's all about greed, and proponents of illegal immigration are their tools. Now are we seeing why people like pat and I recognize this as a problem?
I agree that this issue does need to be looked at holistically and comprehensively, but that doesn't automatically mean legalization or a guest worker program. As long as the pressure valves are released in the form of waves of illegal immigration, Fox and his ilk will continue creating the problem, while corporate big wigs profit, and Mexico will never change; all at the expense of the United States and the Mexican people.
Many things must be done to fix this problem. Before any reform can be done, we must first enforce current laws, specifically the one's aimed at businesses that hire illegals, and the border must be secured. Further, in a broader scope, Mexico needs revolution, and we can help by abolishing NAFTA. Viva la Revolution!
Just because there are reasonable and sometimes humane reasons for supporting tight immigration enforcement, doesn't mean that everyone on that side supports it for the same reasons. People like Pat, through their xenophobic utterances, show their hand. Their big problem with immigration is due to race.
It's like being pro-choice. You can be pro-choice out of respect for a woman's body and right to choose. You can also be pro-choice because you a believer in eugenics. Same stance, wildly divergent reasons. Racists who are against immigration out of a fear of racial decay don't get a free pass simply because they align themselves with thoughtful people who are advocating the same end result.
So this isn’t racist?
"There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
This?
he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column,
This?
Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests -- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were "Americans first" -- and repeatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."
You are raising the bar for what is a racist statement to impossible heights. There is a soft sort of racism YOU are displaying. Attacking any ACTUAL calling of those like Buchanan on their racist rantings as itself being race baiting. Its ludicrous these examples are CLEARLY racist. Trying to deny it is shameless.
I'm racist. You're racist. He's racist. We're all racist! ZOMG!
Puleeaase, it's you that is lowering the bar for what is racist to very insulting levels. Now I'm a racist for defending Pat's statement as "not inherently racist?" Ridiculous. I implore you to relearn the definition of racist.
It'd be wrong if this thread deteriorated into an argument of whether or not Pat is a "racist," as it's irrelevant to his statement at hand, as the statement alone is certainly not. However, I suggest you read into the context of those 15 year old quotes before making such wild claims. Know that the people that consolidated those quotes had/has an agenda, and they'll do whatever it takes to make someone like pat look as bad as possible.
There, that was me entertaining you, but since you've shown that you won't respond accordingly, I'll stop responding to you. There, done.
Now, i know that liberals love to ignore the truth, but nobody can tell me where he said anything wrong on this one, but i am sure the utterly insane left will try!
It's a liberal nation. Love it or leave it.
"but nobody can tell me where he said anything wrong on this one"
Easy. It's not an invasion. The use of such inapt bombast is the issue.
Next!
Man, "utterly insane" is heaping drama atop Buchanan's drama. Have you had any luck persuading ideologically divergent folks with that kind of hysterical rhetoric? It seems like you've never met anyone that's "utterly insane" if you're so sloppy with that descriptor.
Take a soma and when you're chilled, come back and chat.
Mexicans and other Latinos are not a race of people; they are an ethnic group of caucasian. The term "Hispanic" which the U.S. census INVENTED, is an "ethnic" designation. It says "Hispanics may be of any race."
The US census office made the decision to classify them as such. I'm not sure why since actually most Mexicans are either of Native American origin or a mixture of Native American and European ancestry, I think the term for that combination is Metizo. Genrally speaking The Mexican power elite are descendants of the conquering Spaniards . In my work we collect Hispanic ethnicity and it is a separate category from race. Ironically we are instructed if for some reason we only have a report of a person’s Hispanic ethnicity that we should probably record the race as White. That's ridiculous and I don't do that. I live in a region that has a fair share of Hispanics of Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Central America decent. The Puerto Ricans can be White or Black, although most appear to be a mixture of both races. Additionally the Mexicans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans that I see are not White. They look Native American. They are generally about my color a honey brown.