Matthews baselessly suggested Latino voters "want more of an open border"
SUMMARY: Previewing the January 5 presidential debates, MSNBC's Chris Matthews discussed what he said would be "a good question" to ask candidates, such as one that would force the candidates to "choose between Latino voters who want more of an open border and the other voters ... who definitely don't want that kind of an open border." Yet, while Matthews did not offer any examples of "Latino voters who want more of an open border," in fact, a number of national and regional Latino groups have specifically rejected the idea of "open borders" while advocating for comprehensive immigration reform, as have members of Congress representing states and districts with large Latino constituencies.
On the January 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while previewing the upcoming January 5 presidential debates sponsored by ABC News, Facebook, and ABC New Hampshire affiliate WMUR, host Chris Matthews said: "[S]uppose [moderator and ABC World News host] Charlie Gibson asks her [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] a good question like Tim [Russert] did, a decision where you really have to choose between constituencies: You choose between Latino voters who want more of an open border and the other voters, the Lou Dobbs types, who definitely don't want that kind of an open border, right?" Yet, while Matthews did not offer any examples of "Latino voters who want more of an open border," in fact, a number of national and regional Latino groups have specifically rejected the idea of "open borders" while advocating for comprehensive immigration reform, as have members of Congress representing states and districts with large Latino constituencies.
Senators taking the lead in efforts to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 included: Ken Salazar (D-CO), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Mel Martinez (R-FL), and John McCain (R-AZ). The bill ultimately failed, but if passed, it would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, while including provisions to strengthen border security with increased surveillance, border personnel, checkpoints, border fencing, and barriers, among other measures. Moreover, numerous House members representing parts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas also sponsored a comprehensive immigration reform bill (the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 or "STRIVE Act") that included numerous provisions calling for increased border security. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly endorsed comprehensive immigration reform, with many of its members taking leadership roles in efforts to secure its passage.
On January 8, 2007, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) urging them "to make immigration reform one of your top priorities during the first 100 days of the new Congress." In the letter, the group rejected the notion that it supports "open borders," saying that "this is simply false":
The 110th Congress can find an immigration solution that keeps America's border safe, while dealing fairly with undocumented workers. Of course, the radical anti-immigrant forces will say that our objective is to open borders -- this is simply false. As proud and patriotic Americans, we value national security and we stand for strong borders that protect our families, our homes and our way of life. We also believe that as part of their earned legalization process, undocumented immigrants should learn English to be successful and productive members of society; pay any back taxes they may have accrued while undocumented; and hold no criminal record in the U.S. Undocumented immigrants should be subject to these requirements just like any other American or pay the consequences if they fail to do so. We are not asking for special privileges or hand-outs, just fair and humane treatment for people who have contributed so much to America.
Additionally, as part of its "OneMillionVoicesUnited" campaign, LULAC stated that proponents of comprehensive immigration reform "aren't for open borders or closed borders -- neither is realistic nor desirable" and that "reform would bring the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned immigrants through our legal system so that we can screen them and admit them if they would contribute to our nation, or bar them if they intend to harm us" (emphasis in original):
Are proponents of comprehensive reform advocating open borders?
No. The options aren't for open borders or closed borders -- neither is realistic nor desirable. Comprehensive reform would bring the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned immigrants through our legal system so that we can screen them and admit them if they would contribute to our nation, or bar them if they intend to harm us. The system we advocate has enforceable quotas and limits, in contrast to our current chaotic system in which unauthorized entry is a daily occurrence and enforcement resources do not distinguish between those who might try to harm us and those coming to work. By writing realistic immigration laws and enforcing them to the letter, we will finally achieve border control that is good for national security, our families, and our economy. We must replace random and ineffective enforcement with targeted and efficient enforcement.
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), an organization that claims to be "the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States" that "works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans," asserted on its website that it "does not and has never advocated open borders":
NCLR does not and has never advocated open borders. We believe that the U.S. is a sovereign country with the right to control its borders. We care a great deal about how our borders are enforced; NCLR has long argued that enforcement at the border and in the interior must be conducted in a way that maximizes effectiveness without undercutting our values as a nation. We are especially troubled that more than a decade of increased enforcement measures along the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in a steep increase in the number of border deaths without much impact in deterring migration. NCLR takes the position that any border enforcement policies must be both effective and humane.
The Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR) -- whose board and strategy council includes several members of various Latino interest groups -- states in its "campaign principles" that Americans who advocate for immigration reform "want neither open borders, nor closed borders, they want smart borders":
Immigration is a defining feature of America's history and of America's future. Unfortunately, America's current immigration system is broken. Instead of legal channels, legal immigration, and orderly, screened entry, the immigration system has fostered a black market characterized by a ballooning undocumented immigrant population, widespread use of fake documents, increasingly violent smuggling cartels, and widespread exploitation of undocumented workers. The American people are frustrated with their leaders on this issue and hunger for a solution that will work. They want neither open borders, nor closed borders, they want smart borders. The time has come for the President and Congress to work together to enact comprehensive legislation that rewards work, reunites families, restores the rule of law, reinforces our nation's security, respects the rights of U.S.-born and immigrant workers, and redeems the American Dream.
As part of its comprehensive immigration reform platform, the National Immigration Forum, which describes itself as "the nation's premier immigrant rights organization" that is "dedicated to embracing and upholding America's tradition as a nation of immigrants," has said that comprehensive immigration reform "will make our immigration laws more realistic, permitting an intelligent enforcement regime that should include smart inspections and screening practices, fair proceedings, efficient processing, and strategies that focus on detecting and deterring terrorists and cracking down on criminal smugglers and lawbreaking employers." The Forum added that "[s]uch a system will better enable the nation to know who is already here and who is coming in the future, and will bring our system back into line with our tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the January 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
JENNIFER DONAHUE (senior adviser for political affairs at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics): I think [NBC Political Director] Chuck [Todd] just hit on something because here's when Democrats in New Hampshire will make their minds up and independents: tomorrow, the debate. How will Hillary perform? She does well in debates. She's disciplined. She learned a lesson last night. So --
MATTHEWS: Except in Philly.
DONAHUE: Except in Philly. And she's been hemorrhaging ever since.
MATTHEWS: Where Tim took her -- Tim [Russert] took her head off in Philly.
DONAHUE: Well, you know she had Philly happen, and then she has been campaigning in a negative fashion ever since. Bad combination.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, because something fell through that night.
DONAHUE: Right.
MATTHEWS: Inevitability fell through.
DONAHUE: It did. And so she's been in a freefall. But I do think Iowa leveled her out. Despite the fact that she looked stunned last night, and she did --
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you, suppose Charlie Gibson asks her a good question like Tim did, a decision where you really have to choose between constituencies: You choose between Latino voters who want more of an open border and the other voters, the Lou Dobbs types, who definitely don't want that kind of an open border, right?
DONAHUE: Yep.
MATTHEWS: And you have to choose on the spot.
DONAHUE: Right.
MATTHEWS: You've got to make a big political call on the spot. Can she do it?
DONAHUE: Go to the middle. Go to the middle. Go to the middle. She can do it. She doesn't need --
MATTHEWS: Does she need a lifeline? Does she need a lifeline, Joe [Scarborough]? Does she have to call up Mark Penn [Clinton's chief strategist] or somebody?
DONAHUE: She's got to go centrist, not liberal because she already voted centrist and right on the war.
As soon as these regional Latino groups start calling it what it is, then perhaps there would be no need to "baselessly" claim they want open borders......"comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing but amnesty, while "undocumented workers" are illegal aliens.
Stop the word parsing then the open border accusations have no merit.
Tommy said: ......"comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing but amnesty
LULAC's letter to Pelosi:
We also believe that as part of their earned legalization process, undocumented immigrants should learn English to be successful and productive members of society; pay any back taxes they may have accrued while undocumented; and hold no criminal record in the U.S. Undocumented immigrants should be subject to these requirements just like any other American or pay the consequences if they fail to do so. We are not asking for special privileges or hand-outs, just fair and humane treatment for people who have contributed so much to America.
LULAC stated that proponents of comprehensive immigration reform "aren't for open borders or closed borders -- neither is realistic nor desirable" and that "reform would bring the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned immigrants through our legal system so that we can screen them and admit them if they would contribute to our nation, or bar them if they intend to harm us"
Tommy, I believe you are mischaracterizing them.
Snoop, You just proved my point, instead of illegal, they use undocumented. And you want me to take them seriously? Sorry.
Do you think they are actually going to admit to open borders? Of course they aren't.
I stand by my original post.
Sorry Tommy, that only lends credibility to half your argument. Paying back taxes and all that other stuff is clearly not amnesty. So I give you a half point for only being half right.
i will be agreeing with tommy on this one. if you look at the statement by la raza, they say they support the right of this country to enforce it's border. but then they blame increased enforcement for the deaths of those crossing the border. it's hard to think what we should be doing to prevent those deaths that we are already not doing, other than assist them along their way.
I disagree. I went through the "legal" process with my wife. Can't stress enough about the red tape. It shouldn't take years to get vetted. Heck, I had a security clearance back in the 80's, it took weeks to clear me. When any hispanic groups talk about making the system better, this is what they are referring to. Improve the entry process so people aren't forced to wait years - to the point of being willing to break a few laws to get around such an archaic system. If you aren't seeing that, then you ain't getting it.
what you aren't getting is there is no right to enter this country just because you want to. you are mixing two things, getting legal papers for your wife, and crossing the border illegally because you want a job.
No, I get it. I understand that the process everyone talks to today has only been in place since the 50's. Slaves and Chinese had no choice when they were brought here. Where are the government apologies for illegal immigration? Yeah, I know, technicalities. Point is the process sucks, it costs too much and takes too long. That is what the hispanic groups want to adress. If you are content to ignore that by couching the argument about "illegal" then you just ain't getting it.
good non answer.
What BS. You are the one avoiding a discussion. Is the border issue about color or about terrorists? Cause the country has way too many examples of ignoring the color because they favored the diversity...
you're the one talking bs. i said there is no right to come to this country. you're saying the choice is either give us papers to come here legally anytime we want , or we will come illegally. i don't accept that.
Nope, never said that. I said make the entry process better. I also said the law you use to make your claim was a recent law. Try reading if you want to debate.
"make the entry process better" that is exactly what you are saying. you are saying there is a right to come to this country, so give us papers. it that is not what you mean, then "entry" means what?
Again, word parsing and assuming. What did I complain about? That's right - the cost to apply and the time it takes. Now if you disagree that certain races should not ever be allowed to come here, then take down that statue in New York or change the plate. Show me where the constitution specifically says the government has a right to turn away anyone based on religion, race, screed or sex.
you are ridiculous. you said all that hispanic groups want is the entry system made better. that still does not answer the question of what if this country says no. there is no right in the constitution to immigrate here. so if this country says no, then what?
Actually, for a long time, the country wanted immigration to build up it's numbers. You can parse all day long about today, but rest assured, the discussion is about when vs. when not. You think it's about numbers, but that isn't the national debate, it's the extremist debate. The national debate has always been about security.
again, this item is here because these groups claim they do not advocate open borders. whatever happened in the past is just that. again, if it is a matter of papers only, then if this country says no, what then? answer the question.
Since the argument is about "illegal" to you, in your context the answer is simple. If all you are worried about is "illegal" people coming here in large numbers, then the solution is to reduce the number of "illegals".
Now you are down to a few choices. Do we reduce immigration altogether? Since the issue in question is the Mexican border, sounds racist on the surface.
Is the issue terrorists? Shouldn't matter what border we are talking about now. Heck, if russia wanted to get involved, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any problem porting someone from Kamchatka to Alaska.
Do we make the entry process better? Well, I can go to an airport and find out instantly if I am on a no fly list, I got a security clearance in a matter of weeks, how hard can it be to determine if someone can come to America "legally"?
Bottom line, I've never advocated ignoring today's laws, but I'm all for changing them to make them more efficient.
and if this country says no, what then? answer the question.
Rhetorical assumption demanding an answer? No, forget it. If we are still fighting the legality of abortion in the courts, my answer is simply fight on. Apparently in this system no decision is final, get it?
we're not talking some legal issue like abortion. that's absurd. it's a direct question. someone wants to enter here and this country say no. what does that person do? do they have the right to cross the border illegally? these are simple questions.
So, what you are saying is you can't address the complexities of an issue. Got it. Black and White to you. Got it. Except when it's not. Got it. Take your argument to the pro life crowd and tell me how they respond, I'm sure they will be much more receptive to your unyeilding view.
P.S. knew you couldn't discuss this if race was part of the equation. Right wingers never can.
so now i'm a right winger. this just proves how intellectually dishonest you are. it's fine when i'm bashin bush or the media, but when i disagree with you i'm a right winger and a racsist. the fact is you don't have it in you to answer the question. it's a simple question, but you run away.
I answered it many times. If you want a black and white, today or never answer, then sure, you can call them illegal. I keep arguing for reform based on the idea that it doesn't take 7 or more years to determine if someone is fit to be our next immigrant american. I don't like the current process, I think the process is so full of red tape that it's crap, I want it improved. You have yet to address any of my concerns, instead focusing on your numbers issue. Perhaps it's time for you to tell us why the numbers are an issue. Is it because many are poor? Didn't crush us in the past (see slavery, irish immigration for examples). Why are issues we've dealt with time and again all of a sudden a concern? Can you somehow prove that it's worse now than in the past? Show me so I can understand...
no you didn't answer it "many times". you tried to flail your way out of it. ok, if you come here anyway without papers of permission, then you are here illegally. suppose, in the next year, 200 million people wanted to come here. this country says no. do they have the right to cross the border illegally? no problem?
I did, but to answer a rhetorical? Overpopulation and poverty is global. It requires a world response. I forget what the guy's name was, but when asked how many yards he'd do in football this year, he said 1000+. The sportcasters said "how's that?" and he said, "hey, it's fantasy football!"
we're not talking some legal issue like abortion. that's absurd.
That's right, we are talking about some legal issue like immigration. Legal is legal, what's the diff?
so if someone is not allowed to come here legally, then what? answer.
So you can't control the debate. This ain't the o'reilly factor, you can't cut off my mike if you disagree. Time for you to admit you can't handle an overall discussion of the border issue.
i'm cutting off your mike? you can't answer a simple question?
Trying to change the overall discussion to a simple yes/no? I asked first.
see question above. 200 million people [actually a rather conservative estimate] want to come here. they should all be allowed to?
rhetorical question. Where did you get that number from?
maybe because there are about three billion deperately poor people in the world? what's so hard to think 200 million people might want to come here? gee, do i live in a box on the streets of calcutta, or do i go to the united states? you really find that rhetorical?
Might being the operative word. No basis in fact, just an assumption...
based on the fact that polls show that 40 percent of mexicans, over 40 million people right there alone, would come here. so i'm being conservative. a reasonable question. your answer?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050816-1435-cnsimmigration.html
It's not a reasonable question, it's a rhetorical question. It's like me asking you what if the laws changed and all of a sudden mass immigration was legal? I could just as easily say "of course I would support the laws" as you could. Parsing and nitpicking ain't the argument unless that is where you want to go. I want better systems in place and shorter waiting periods for people who deserve to come here regardless of race, creed or religion. What are you in favor of?
you accuse me of not explaining what i mean about numbers, i offer them to you, and then you want to change the subject again. and change it back to something we already covered. i'm off to bed. go ahead and invent some more lies about what a right winger i am.
Whatever. If it walks like a tancredo, and quacks like a tancredo, it must be a tancredo.
thanks for proving my point. you asked me where my figures came from, and i showed you a poll saying that 40 million plus people in mexico alone would come here. and your answer is whatever, you must be a racist. so who is the one not providing an opinion based in reality?
M - It took close to 6 years for my BF to get into the country legally. He has 2 degrees... Something isn't right with the process if it takes that long for a person to get into the country when they have many things to offer and they’re trying to do it the correct way. And of course he got called to jury duty 6 weeks prior to his swearing in ceremony, go figure.
I agree that isn’t a reason to break the law, but I get what Snoopy is trying to say. Someone in a desperate situation might break the rules if they felt like they didn’t another choice. Sometimes I think it’s easy to say “don’t break the rules” if you aren’t in the same situation.
Is there a full moon? Everyone seems to be on edge.
and i clearly made a distinction between someone coming here as a spouse/significant other whatever. i said they were two issues. and if you agree that there is no right to come here illegally, then we agree. apparently he does not since he refuses to answer the question.
I'm gay so there really isn't any distinction in the eyes of US law.
i understand that. and if you wanted to sponsor someone, i am allowing for that. an i not making things clear here? i'm talking about coming here illegally for no other reason that you want to come here. there is no right to do that, yes or no?
M - The process isn't that simple if you don't have a greencard /residency you cannot become a citizen. In order to meet the green card requirements you have to be sponsored through marriage, relatives, employment, investment or sign up for the green card lottery. Once you actually have your green card/residency, you typically have to wait 5 years or more (unless you’re married to a resident or a citizen and then the time frame shrinks, but even with that it's still 3 years or more for most) , during which time they limit the amount of travel you can do out of the country. Do you know how hard that can be when you have family abroad? I can only imagine what would happen if you had a family crisis during your citizenship process.
You’re correct M they have no right. I'm just pointing out that making this issue just a matter of breaking US law isn't easy to answer depending on your individual circumstances... Given the ridiculous hurdles they place in front of you I cannot say what I would do.
That's why I'm saying I can understand Snoopy's point and your point.The last part reads that I get both of your points....
Thanks for bringing that to the table. I appreciate you for helping bring understanding to both of us on the complexities of this issue.
Thanks. I hate this system. One of my cubemates is from Vietnam, fer cyrin out loud, why is it taking 36 years for him to bring his family over? This is the preferred system of choice?
And what about that right wing hoopla about Elian Gonzalez? Either they are concerned about the system in whole, or they are looking for targets of choice while they like the red tape. What gives?
The question did cross my mind that based on the country of origin if your wait time might be shorter.I have another friend from Australia and I'm fairly certain that he only waited about 3 years, plus he was living here the entire time.
Thank you for that. My wife lived here too, the only reason she had to go through the process was because she was 1st born. Back in the 60's, the law in Mexico was your 1st born couldn't inherit your land if you became a foreign citizen. So naturally, her parents (who had legal green cards) went back across the border to ensure they had an heir to their property. You see where I'm coming from? This system is a load of crap. I don't really want to throw the race canard at you, Mefirst, but I have reservations about whether or not you really understand the complexities of the current system. How about we reset and start from that point of view?
and exactly how many times have i said i understand the difference between a spouse/significant other issue? how far back in this thread did i say that. and thanks for your condescending view that i don't understand the complexities here. like i said, when i bash bush, and do research and post links, that's all fine. but if i disagree with you, i'm a racist and a right winger. i give my opinion and i will continue to do so. if you want to react that way, then you made that decision.
Gee, I tried to go back to civil, guess you ain't interested. Guess I have to leave this conversation thinking you hate minorities because you never proved why numbers mattered...
I'm think your both closer in your view on this then either of you can see at the moment. I get that people shouldn't break the law and shouldn't use the crappy process we have in place as a justification for doing so.... I'm saying that with the luxury of having just eaten dinner, a steady pay check, and no children to feed....
I'm calling it a night.... My suggestion is that you two do the same. :P
taking your advice. g'night...
you're a joke, snoopy. you "tried to be civil" but now you go back to i must hate minorities. pathetic.
which is why you can't debate. You should have been able to make your argument regardless of race, creed or color. You couldn't.
all you had was numbers of the current immigrant influx. No proof why they are a bigger burden than the past, just the same ol tired arguments of why you fear them.
you are the one who brought racism into this. it's all you have.
Well, let me see. We have race which is an issue in America, and we have a suggestion that 200 million poor people might want to come here. Since you want to keep playing fantasy football, I say let em come because they are all educated and speak english so they can instantly contribute to the system.
P.S. I never called you a racist, I asked you if that was your problem with the influx of hispanics. You made the leap in logic...
i made a "leap in logic"? according to you, there is no other explanation but racism for my statements because i haven't shown you any other reasonable explanation. talk about word parsing.
I hear you on keeping ties to your home country... A number of people I know struggle with wanting more opportunity so they come to the US, but they still want to be connected with their country of origin. It really makes me wish that we could focus some of this debate on how our government interacts with countries like Mexico. It really seems like we could do more to try and encourage their government to change in a positive way instead of viewing them as a cheap source of labor and a nice place to do business i.e. fewer regulations. If you’ve been to Mexico it’s a beautiful country with hard working people that want the same things we want, a better life and better things for their families. If we want to stop the tide of immigration another possible solution could be helping other countries up to our standard of living. Who wants to live or raise a family in poverty? I agree that we should have some type of 'gate' in place, but given how our current system works one has to wonder what steps you might be willing to take looking from the outside in.
Ya know, some ideas I believe works consists of first getting rid of that overall "illegal" lexicon. Most are only illegal because the process takes so long they are willing to pay a coyote $1000 bucks to cross the desert to bypass the system. We actually had a decent process in place during the dust bowl era - and we can improve upon that. I've said many times here how about a similar process that we have in air travel - if they can't board a plane, they can't come in - if they feel they've been wronged, let them pay a fee to prove they deserve entry, and if they just want to be guest workers, follow tha same process in europe - get your card, check in at the local police station where you will work, and if you are delinquent you will get arrested. Not perfect, but better than we have now.
Interesting suggestions, unfortunately I don't have faith in our fellow American's to go along with a plan like the one you've outlined. It doesn't surprise me that Europe has a simplified system, given the proximity and number of border countries. Can you imagine if people in the US needed a residency card and a 5 plus year process to move from CA to OR? The process would be changed tomorrow. I think that too many people in the US are too far removed from the immigration process. It's something quaint that their great grandparent's did and they hear stories about. For some odd reason we want blood, sweat and tears in order to get a part of Americana...
snoopy, legal immigration has been restricted in this country since the 1920s. the numbers for most of that time have been low. next time be a little more honest and we can actually have a debate. that's why i asked what happened if someone wants to come here but has been denied entry. after many attempts to get you to say it, you said they would be illegal. but here you are saying that you want to get rid of "that overall 'illegal' lexicon" and "most are only illegal because the process takes so long..." that they pay a coyote. so you are justifying coming here illegally. that is what i said you were doing. be honest next time.
You are incorrect. The current process was instituted under the Eisenhower administration. It was developed to be self supporting on purpose but the fees imposed cannot keep up with the rising costs required to vett someone. This one issue is what has pitted democrats against republicans - the republicans say "raise the entry fee" which rightly brings the charge they are purposely excluding poorer people. I do not recognize the "illegal" lexicon because the whole system is patently dishonest. So sorry, I never admitted anything, and we could have had an honest discussion regardless, you wanted to couch the argument to one issue when the whole issue is far more complex than just numbers.
i am not incorrect. when i said that immigration has been restricted since the 1920s that is absolutely true. and i notice you had no answer to my link that showed democratic governor bill richardson of new mexico declaring a border emergency in 2005. the democratic governor of arizona did the same thing. and i'm not talking about the procedure to get a visa. the fact is that you are justifying coming here illegally. your claim is that people should get papers if they want them, and if they don't , then they can cross the border illegally and stay.
Working overtime tonigt Tom?
This seems to confirm that balding, blond, and almost mullet-having pundits stuff their pants with rainbow trout.
Now let me be the first to admonish you for veering off topic and not addressing the substance of the thread.......oops, wait, sorry, gratuitous swipes at the conservative media person in question is fine, no need to address the thread topic......my bad.
You might have noticed that I used EXACTLY the same amount of time backing up my "he's-a-rainbow-trout-stuffed-panted-one!" assertion as Mr. Matthews did making his "I-know-how-latinos-vote-so-there!"
...But you did not.
Don't you know the difference between a rainbow trout and a smelt?
Since we went there. how bout that Ron Paul?
I cannot wait to share this tidbit with my dirty earth muffin friend loves Ron Paul.
We're been arguing about him for the last 6 months.
MHK, read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and then show them this. Hope that helps your argument...
Thanks I will have to look it over...
So there... PssssT!
I'm a Latino, and I'm for open borders, just like they were when the ancestors of the majority of this country arrived. And by the way, we already made it clear that if any politician comes across as a 'closed-borders advocate' they WILL NOT HAVE the Latino support. And if you don't believe me look at the 2006 congressional election, anti-open border republicans lost the Latino vote for ever, just like LBJ made the Democrats lose the south for ever for his civil rights act.
you are aware that mexico has a law that illegal immigrants can be fined, or jailed for multiple attempts to enter the country illegally? and that they regularly deport citizens of the countries on their southern border? the point being every country in the world claims a right to control it's borders.
and any guesses on who made this statement in october of 2005: "our nation has a limited capacity to absorb excessive immigration."
Cocolo while agreeing with your call for open borders I find your defence o f it quite puzzilng. Historicly people have crossed the line between Mexico and the US to satisfy US cheap US labor demands only in times of crisis to be scapegoated for the myriad of US social problems and banished back across the border. The fact is that between Mexico and the US there is no border as we are connected together as Siamese Twins! What happens here in the US effects Mexico and vice versa. We are tied together by history like it or not. The question is to develop policies and programs that are mutually beneficial. NAFTA has not worked as cheap subsidized US corn a staple of the Mexican diet has caused the dislocation of unsubsidized Mexican farmers who have no alternative other than to immigrate to feed their families. We would do the same if the condition was reversed. The solution is not to become more inhuman but to be humane. Politicians are playing on many historical aspects of this condition , most of them revolving around scapegoating the undocumented as the cause of all our social ills. As more US workers are denied access to the American Dream by social economic policies of this administration the finger is pointed away from them and at those who like us are just trying to make a living, we fight for the scraps at the bottom while the corporations just play the game. The history of the border allows them to vilify the "Mexican" invasion with the knee jerk response of a border fence. No one stops to ask why no fence on our Northern border,or will fences really answer our problems of hunger and hmelessness, lack of medical care and education for our children. Will it solve the trillions were are spending on a phony war on terror, and weapons system to fight an enemy that doesn't even have an organized force. Tell me what weapon does the Taliban have that we need a Raptor for? Come on people wake up to the BS we are being fed, your enemy is not your brother but corporate greed. The vampire sucks the blood of us all and is demanding more sacrifice from us the solution is not to blame those that have the same aspirations as we do just because their skin color is different.
there really is no comparison between the northern and sourthern borders. most canadians are not interested in entering the united states illegally. and yes nafta, which i opposed, has been bad for mexican corn farmers, but it has also been bad for auto parts workers in michigan. this is an agreement between the countries. if mexicans do not like it, they can withdraw, as can we. it's not pick the parts you like.
But the argument about controlled borders isn't about canadians vs mexicans, it's about terrorists exploiting the border entry process. If it's about nationalities, one has to wonder if it isn't tainted by racism.
i wasn't making the argument about terrorists crossing the borders. and any terrorist coming from canada probably came through their entry system, which means they could in all likelihood get through ours. i really don't think it is that big of a problem, although i do not dismiss it. i was simply talking about numbers. there is no comparison to the numbers crossing the respective borders.
Well, you just answered the question then. You don't like the influx of different people, even though it was standard practice up until the 1950's to do just that. What is it you don't like, is it the color of their skin? Can't be religion, because hispanics are mostly catholics (unless you don't like catholics). Can't be the language barrier, cause that has always been an issue. Can't be the absorption factor, cause 100 years later we still have a st. paddy's day parade. So what is it?
did i say anywhere that it had anything to do with skin color? i said it was "numbers". there are simply not anywhere near the numbers coming across the canadian border. if there were, then i would say we need to do more there also. the fact is all you can do is charge racism. try making an argument without it and see how far you get.
No problem. The christian churches push numbers all the time. If there are more christians, then there are less muslims. Ergo, the christian faith is stronger.
Translate that to Tancredo's whine, if there are more brown people, then there are less white people. Ergo, the whites are minoritized.
Too easy. Try something harder.
i just said try making an argument without bringing racism into it. and you respond with an argument about racism. are you serious?
Of course you tried to do that. That's how right wingers try to control debates - put limits around what can be discussed. If you have an iron clad argument, you should be able to handle a discussion about race in immigration. Only weak kneed right wingers put limits around what they are capable of discussing.
Snoopy, I can't wait for MeFirst's reaction to that!
first of all, i am no right winger. and i said try making an argument without making it about race, and you said "no problem". try a little intellectual honesty.
My argument was total honesty. I couched it in numbers like you wanted. More christians = less muslims is like more brown people = less whites. If you want to say that argument can't be made because it interjects race, then you can't really defend your view, can you?
i said there are nowhere near the numbers coming across the canadian border. i said if there were, then we would need to do more there. that clearly says that if the flow of people from mexico were the same as canada, it would not be that big a deal. that is nothing to do with racism. except what you can turn it into because that is what your argument is. i'm not saying come on in white people. that's only in your mind.
Not surprised you can't seperate the two arguments. Eddy, you win! Mefirst is all about him first!
Snoopy, I can't win till I get a fight here!
BTW, the national debate isn't about numbers, it's about security from terrorists. Doesn't matter what border they come across. If you are concerned about numbers more than you are concerned about terrorists, I have to suspect your racial tendancies...
then how about this declaration of a border emergency by bill richardson, who last time i checked was hispanic. it's not terrorism he's concerned about. it's "human smuggling". bill richardson, racist?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/newmexico/index.html
What happens here in the US effects MexicoMexico and the US there is no border as we are connected together as Siamese Twins! and vice versa. We are tied together by history like it or not.The fact is that between ”---Congero
There is a border. The fact that there are many legal crossings doesn’t make the illegal ones less illegal.
“The question is to develop policies and programs that are mutually beneficial”--Congero
This can be done in addition to building the fence.
“As more US workers are denied access to the American Dream by social economic policies of this administration the finger is pointed away from them and at those who like us are just trying to make a living, we fight for the scraps at the bottom while the corporations just play the game”---Congero
I agree with that generally.
“No one stops to ask why no fence on our Northern border,…”---Congero
There haven’t been millions streaming across the northern border.
“will fences really answer our problems of hunger and homelessness, lack of medical care and education for our children.”---Congero
Not completely of course, but it will make it easier for legal citizens to get work and others to be able to demand higher wages.
“Will it solve the trillions were are spending on a phony war on terror, and weapons system to fight an enemy that doesn't even have an organized force. Tell me what weapon does the Taliban have that we need a Raptor for? Come on people wake up to the BS we are being fed, your enemy is not your brother but corporate greed.”---Congero
I agree up to where you refer to illegals as our brother. That’s misleading as the question isn’t whether he’s a human or a Christian, but whether he/she is legally here.
“The vampire sucks the blood of us all and is demanding more sacrifice from us the solution is not to blame those that have the same aspirations as we do just because their skin color is different.”o---Congero
It’s about the color green and the rule of law.
Don't see an equivilency in LBJ's action and the GOPPER's border positions. I understand that the decisions alienated a large block of voters. LBJ did not turn his back on the southern white voter. Though many acts besides the border open vs closed position, the GOP has turned its back on the latino voter.
The border blather is just smoke and noise to me. An impermeable border is oxymoronic in any historic sense.
so do not try to enforce the border? it's useless?
It seems to me that since the American people have let it be known that they very much want the fence, it should be built. To not build it would further delegitimize the United States government in the minds of many. The good-will lost might be sorely missed when and if an economic calamity afflicts this country. In other words, I’m saying you should want it whether or not you think it will work. (And the cost argument has lost it’s power after the all the dough that’s been spent overseas lately.)
Good point, but we are already in a recession. Do we need a depression to say it's too late?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
Sorry I ignored this, I was having fun with myfist. I'm sorta getting what you said about doing it anyways, my question is more about when is that not an option anymore. If a recession in the US drags down the world economy does it matter anymore if we build a fence? I am not sure what you were implying, what I said is what I think you implied.
My point is that if it's not built before the crash, the people will have less respect for the government and their efforts to keep order after the crash, when their will be lots of disorder.
(I should direct you to my response to Congero 6 posts up in case you missed it, so you know where I'm coming from.)
So, can we use that same logic and bring the troops home from Iraq, and get rid of hand guns?
Sorry, this post is to Eddy who said we should build the fence because the citizens want it.
Therick, you would improve the peoples good-will towards the government by bringing home the troops. As to hand guns, there are laws currently on the books which makes changing handgun laws a noncomparable situation to building a fence.
Eddy, the good-will lost? you mean if we don't build a fence we will lose good-will around the world? I think it's too late for that...
Have a rational border crossing these's plenty of good examples out there.
The issue of a shift of populations from the south is not one which can be mediated by the permeablity of that border. Its solution comes in a change of conditions which spark that population movement. We can do things to change those conditions. We helped create those conditions.
As a imaginary senario. Consider a supposed 99% effective border, its cost, its maintence by a well paid company.
Now somone offers Haliburton a quarter of a million to sucessfully smuggle in some people. If sucessful more lucrative business is promised.
How much do you think it would acually cost Haliburton per person?
Do you really see an advantage to anybody, excluding the companies making money, on this border?
who is offering them a quarter million dollars?
OK nitpicker, it was an imaginary scenario. Who cares, other than the idea that the person offering was someone who wanted cheap labor? You can't think that far?
nitpicker? i thought the argument was a total stretch.
Of course you did. It was more than could fit on a bumper sticker.
is that more of the "debate" and "discussion" you claim you want.
Might be corporate headhunters, native based organisation, resources could easily come from both sides of the border, for a variety reasons. The folks who organize and transport latinos today could go a little upscale. What is the budget today in this underground economy? Got a feeling a quarter of a million is not that impressive in this economy.
You did read"imagiary senario" in the above post. I don't know that anyone is offering HBton anything along these lines. Why would they refuse to do it. You can't think that morality or ethics would interfear with the pursuit of profit in their or many other's operations.
first of all, you are assuming halliburton would be in charge of border control. i don't think anyone is proposing that now, or if they are, how much support it would have. not mine. and i really don't think corporate headhunters need to be sneaking anyone across the border.
They don't have to be attached to the border in anyway official or even under the table. Money can subvert the borders security. Engenutiy can find ways though or arround the border.
HBton is used merely for an example. Your point on who controls the border is good though as if you can subvert them, then you can also blackmail them. One way of going about it. There are many ways of approaching this as a solvable problem. An engineering approach sounds a vaible as any.
And we can go round and round on this and make no progress of any note. Decreasing the pressure on the southern border is the thing. I don't see a theoretically secure and expensive border as being anywhere near the solution.
no jail is ever escape proof and no border is ever totally secure. but that does not lead to the conclusion that you cannot stop the vast amount of illegal crossings.
A tentative ok,the term vast seems provocative.
I resubmit there are viable actions which could do good things about this problem which have nothing to do with whos coming accross the border. I'd like to see more discussion of these options.
Yeah, all of those demonstrations in the streets of LA were all about closing the borders.
This morning Chris Matthews suggested on Morning Joe that New Hampshire voters were "secret" racists that voted against Barak Obama because he is black, while lying to the pollsters about their true position on race. This was classic Matthews idiocy that I hope media matters posts.
Baselessly!? If that's a joke, it isn't funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk&search=minutemen%20illegal%20immigration%20ucla%20MEChA%20alien%20murder%20crime%20killer%20death%20train%20marcos%20aguilar%20antonio%20villaraigosa
If you sensor my last comment, you will have told me all I need to know about Media Matters. (Feel free to delete this one.)