Limbaugh guest host attacks Obama appointee as extremist for supporting comprehensive immigration reform, which Bush also supports
SUMMARY: On The Rush Limbaugh Show, Mark Davis accused President-elect Barack Obama of choosing an "amnesty fetishist" in his appointment of Cecilia Muñoz, of the National Council of La Raza. But contrary to Davis' suggestion, Muñoz and NCLR's position in support of comprehensive immigration reform is far from radical, and shared in principle by members of Congress from both parties and by President Bush.
During the December 3 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, guest host Mark Davis asserted that Cecilia Muñoz, senior vice president of the Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza, and others at NCLR "are amnesty fetishists" and said, "[T]hat is what you get" in an Obama administration -- "a fan of amnesty." In fact, the position taken by NCLR and Muñoz, who has been named by Obama to be the director of intergovernmental affairs in his administration, on immigration is far from radical, contrary to Davis' suggestion. NCLR strongly advocates passage of comprehensive immigration reform, a position that is shared in principle by members of Congress from both parties and by President Bush.
NCLR states on its website:
NCLR supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes the following principles: 1) a path to citizenship for the current undocumented population; 2) the creation of new legal channels for future immigrant workers; 3) a reduction of family immigration backlogs; and 4) the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. By legalizing immigrants who live, work, and contribute to life in the U.S., the U.S. could deal fairly with hardworking people who have responded to an economic reality ignored by the law. At the same time, the U.S. can become more secure by enforcing the new law and by allowing undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and participate fully in their communities.
Bush supported a bipartisan bill that would have "creat[ed] a temporary worker program" and given undocumented immigrants who passed criminal background checks and remained employed the opportunity to apply for a green card in the future, and ultimately citizenship. NCLR sharply criticized the "Senate's failure to move a comprehensive immigration reform bill forward" when a cloture motion to cut off debate on that bill failed. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) once sponsored a bill with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and several other Democrats and Republicans to create a temporary worker program and give illegal immigrants a path to apply for a green card and ultimately for citizenship. (As Media Matters for America has noted, during the presidential campaign, McCain abandoned his support for that bill, saying during CNN's January 30 Republican presidential primary debate that he would no longer vote for it if it came up for a vote in the Senate.)
From the December 3 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
DAVIS: One quick tidbit in transition news. I believe a president-elect is judged by those he brings into the fold. So, joining the White House staff in the Obama administration will be Cecilia Muñoz. She currently serves as senior vice president for the Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza. The National Council of La Raza makes LULAC look reasonable. These folks are amnesty fetishists. Cecilia Muñoz, in her post, [reading] "advocated for federal legislation to give the estimated 12 million" -- this from CNS News, Penny Starr has the byline -- and I guess the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants -- yeah, that's estimated by people who lowball that figure -- to give them [reading] "a path to citizenship." And she has been tapped for the job of director of Intergovernmental Affairs.
And again, it's funny -- I just offer this not to raise an eyebrow, I mean, hello, it's a fan of amnesty in the Obama administration. Whoa, that's shocking. This is what you get. I love the emails that I sometimes get. "Mark, I'm concerned that Janet Napolitano will not be, you know, strong enough on our borders." Really? Really? Well, if enough Americans had been concerned about that, they would not have voted for Senator Obama. Of course, no -- no Homeland Security chief under President Obama is going to be ardent enough about protecting our borders. It's only in the last 18 months that President Bush's Homeland Security chief has been ardent enough about our borders.
Obama is a leftist radical...that's their story and their sticking to it. Just keep repeating it... Obama is a leftist radical... Obama is a leftist radical...
Wait a minute...
Five minutes ago he was "Reaganesque."
Five minutes before that he was "center-right."
The right-wing professional liars' heads are spinning faster with every passing minute, and Obama isn't even president yet.
Yesterday I heard Sean Hannity posit whether we actually know who Barack Obama really is! Seriously...
Let's see, he's a Muslim, he's a Kenyan, he's an Indonesian, he's British, he's a Marxist, he's anti-capitalist, he's anti-free speech, he's the Messiah, he's the Anti-Christ, he's Paris Hilton, he's an illegitimate President....
Did I miss any?
Well, he doesn't have a birth certificate either...and they aim to prove it even if they have to go to the Supreme Court. ;>)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/04/obama-birth-certificate-l_n_148432.html
And once again, we could have the 9 Grandparents deciding a US election ;)
And with Sam Alito still ticked off at Joe Biden...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/04/justice-alito-jabs-biden_n_148473.html
If you know neil diamond, you'll appreciate this! ;)
Muslim, Kenyan, Indonesian,
British, Marxist anti-capitalist and
Anti Christ and
illegitimate screw.
Elitist, no mandate
Paris Hilton and the Messiah
Anti free speech
Concentration camps!
Higher taxes, his recession,
Terrorist palling with Bill Ayers,
Hates America,
and all of you.
burn the churches, no more christmas,
Open the door to the muslim invasion,
take your house
And your first born too!
And Americans here
Have one thing to fear:
They will lose their white christian heritage,
They'll no longer be the leaders here,
And wept when it was all done
For bein' done too soon,
For bein' done too soon.
For bein' done.
Well Bush is an extremist so maybe he thinks anyone who agrees with him is one too? No. That's probably not it.
The numbers on the people crossing our southern border illegally in the last year or two is down by almost 50%. The fence can account for some of that, as incomplete and over buget as it is, secondly is the idea that we're not a good place for this population to suceed in life has their attention. The population pressure in many of these countries has eased as well.
ewe,
I hadn't heard your contention that the U.S. "is not a good place for this population to succeed in life." Any links?
You need some sort of confirming source to tell you that illegal immigrants aren't at the top of the ladder here?
No, I can't even remember where I read it. There are some articles on the subject at High Beam research. Most referrence the increased enforcement. Given the presses beating on them since the reform attempt, do you really believe they expect to be welcomed with open arms in this counrty? The Christian Science monitor, in article titled"Tide of illegal immigrants being reversed", found at that site, estimates the I.I. population will be halved in five years.
ewe,
My question revolved areound the notion that the "U.S. is not a good place...". Is it because it is harder to get in the U.S. for I.I.s or is it Mexicans don't think of the U.S. as a land of "milk and honey" anymore? From your response, I take it it is the former.
Good job, AA. If you've still got room up there, I'll tell you something you probably aren't hearing much of from your sources; Our economy is in a pretty sorry state, and unemployment among U.S. citizens is pretty high.I'll let you work out for yourself how that could influence illegal immigration.
Thanx Col.
Our economic meltdown's effect on this has yet to be accuratly acessed. Would anyone like to be caught in a bad decision here.
Don't see that either the enforcement or the economic situation can be disgarded as of little consequence in this.
NCLR supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes the following principles:
1) a path to citizenship for the current undocumented population...they're not only undocumented, they're illegal immigrants. No thank you to amnesty.
2) the creation of new legal channels for future immigrant workers...What the hell is that supposed to mean? Past, current, and future immigrants already have full legal protection under the constitution...if they're here legally.
3) a reduction of family immigration backlogs...Don't make me laugh. This is just code for allowing one family member to jump the border and then allowing his entire family entrance to the U.S after granting amnesty. Absurd!
4) the protection of civil rights and civil liberties...yeah, I get it. Bring the illegal aliens out of the shadows so they can benefit from their unearned rights. When they come out of the shadows what they should earn is a one-way ticket home or a little R&R with Sherrif Joe down in Arizona. He's already stated that he has plenty of room for more tents and has a ready supply of balonga and pink underwear.
The surest and quickest way for Obama to blow up his first 100 days in office is to promote the policies of La Raza and the other amnesty zealots.
i can tell you exactly what 2 means, although it's not made clear. you have to read the statement further where it says "...hardworking people who have responded to an economic reality ignored by the law". translation, and you can see this on their website: the american government refused to issue visas on demand for those "jobs americans won't do" or jobs that employers want to pay nothing for, so they are justified in crossing the border to "respond" to that "reality". supposedly americans will not do construction work, but when i was growing up, there were plenty of americans willing to fill those jobs at the decent rate of pay then in effect. and number 3 means we can never limit immigration because there is always going to be a family member left behind. your aunt wants to come here? ok, then her kids, her parents and so on. never ending. we have 300 million people, that's quite enough.
mefirst...very well said.
If there truely is a shortage of workers then post haste we should implement a guest worker program that works.
But I'm of the belief that there's no shortage of workers...but there is a shortage of ethical business owners...willingly looking the other way to hire illegals at subpar wages to benefit their bottom line.
Considering that US companies are outsourcing to foreign companies because they think there is a bigger market in india and china than in the US, perhaps 300 million isn't enough...
so let's have a billion plus people where 3/4 live in poverty and the environment goes completely down the toilet. and the real reason they are outsourcing is they can pay cheaper wages in those countries.
and the real reason they are outsourcing is they can pay cheaper wages in those countries
Nope, surprisingly, it's not all about cheaper wages. It's about transformation costs. You want your manufacturing as close to your market as possible to keep your shipping costs low and your delivery time fast which leads to less completed units sitting in storage. Labor costs are peanuts compared to that.
i didn't say it was all about cheaper wages. and in the case of something like cars, that is true. but if what you are saying is true, then clothing companies would not have stopped manufacturing in this country and moved to others. obviously, the transportation costs of something coming from china is more than something from this country. the difference is wages.
Hey, no problem, I'm speaking from a little experience here. Sure, there are some companies that have run out of other alternatives to lower the cost per box and wages end up being the last resort.
If I came off as obtuse, I apologize. I just take offense to some of the discussions about what constitutes legal. My wife went the legal route, it's full of red tape and bs opportunities to fee you to death, and then you watch corporations get a nice streamlined process to bring in foreign talent at no cost to the individual, it's frustrating. They could fix the whole process if they wanted to and make it easier and fairer for all involved. But I've seen a whole lot of posturing against that idea, and it almost always devolves into a discussion about losing "our white heritage". There's never gonna be a civil discussion about this issue until we overcome that cheap shot. (BTW, I am not accusing you of that.)
i really don't think wages are the last resort, though. when you go to wal mart and other stores and they're filled with products from overseas, products that obviously cost more to ship than something manufactured here, then the only real difference can be wages. i understand your wife immigrated here. i know and like many immigrants. but who is it easier and fairer for? is there some automatic right to come here? what country has that policy? i, for one, do not think a growing population is a good thing. it will only exacerbate our problems. and the problem is that you can't have a civil discussion without a lot of people calling you a bigot.
To answer your 1st question, this could get quite complicated, but I'm gonna give it a shot. When you're dealing with technology, like a PC, or heck, a car, you're not gonna spend money flying it, the fees are too outrageous for that. So you can either move your plant close to your market or ship. By rail or by road is the best option for that if you're located in the same country because you can pretty much get your load to the source within 24 hours barring boarder crossings. Shipping takes 30 days easily. If I have product that I pay retention fees on, I'm gonna choose rail or road. But this model only works if you have product that takes up lots of space.
Clothes or cloth doesn't take up as much space, you can cram 100x times the number of units into the same space of a car. So while I have the same retention fees I have way more potential revenue coming on line, so my bulk costs help reduce the effect of the wait time to get it to market.
So the point being volume helps determine why you would choose one option over the other. If I can spread my costs over a larger volume, I'm more likely to recoup them even if I'm taking longer to get my product to market. So moving my product overseas here makes more sense because my labor savings coupled with my cost per box retention fees is still more than I would get keeping my factory in the US. Only way to counter it and make it less attractive is to impose import tarriffs.
Make sense?
On your second point, what's fair to me is a uniform system that doesn't punish people who just want to work or makes it difficult for them to become americans should they wish to. We don't want criminals, I ain't got an issue with that. I can go to the airport, scan my ID and they can instantly tell me if I can or can't fly, and it's not just limited to americans, so why the extra long vetting process? Immigrants aren't applying for a security clearance with the CIA, OK? If they have a valid ID, and the scan says no, make that guy pay for a background search. If he doesn't have a valid ID, make that guy pay for a background search.
And the company sponsored process is just insulting. From personal experience I've watched two entirely different processes. One guy on my team, from vietnam, got one of those corporate sponsored B1 V's, but he had to wait 13 years for his family to get their citizenship. The company wasn't really interested in helping anyone but him get here. The other, from India, had all sorts of problems with his visa, but the company sent him to Ireland to work for a year while the corporate lawyers spent tens of thousands of dollars in fees to fix his issues, and all this guy was here to do was learn the processes so they could send him back to the new plant in India to work.
See where I'm going with this?
in case i didn't make it clear, i was already talking about that when i mentioned cars, because that is an expensive item to ship. and yes, it does make sense, because i had already mentioned clothes as an example.
so, what you want is a system that "doesn't punish people who just want to work or makes it difficult for them to become americans should they wish to". so i would say that you do see an automatic right to come here. let's take a hypothetical, but by no means extraordinary, situation. someone comes here from another country. within two years, his three siblings and parents wish to come here. the three siblings have spouses and two children each. that's fourteen people. and then the spouses have two or three siblings each and kids and a set of parents each. three times fourteen is forty two. and then each of them has... see where i'm going with this? is it unfair that any of them get denied entry here?
I'm pretty sure I put some limits up front, but if you have a problem with that, shouldn't you really be advocating a change in the constitution instead of relying on constant litigation to get the answer you want?
could i have that in plain english?
I couldn't find plain english...
Your Text, Dialectized (fudd)
I'm pwetty suwe I put some wimits up fwont, but if you have a pwobwem wif that, shouwdn't you weawwy be advocating a change in the constitution instead of wewying on constant witigation to get the answew you want?
since i will have to assume, i will assume that you are saying this is something that should be subject to a change in the constitution? first, i do not believe immigration is addressed in the consitution. the requirements of citizenship yes, but nothing about anyone having the automatic right to come here. second, congress makes the laws on immigration, and they should. those are hardly laws that should be subject to the lengthy process of an amendment approval. third, if you say there should be limits up front, then that sort of contradicts what you're saying about people who just want to work, or wish to become citizens.
Seems to me if Congress is responsible about making laws on immigration, and they cannot make a law that withstands the test of time, then perhaps a change to the constitution really is necessary unless you support constant reinterpretation of tha law by a supreme court that frequently changes positions almost as fast as the government changes political alignment. But don't assume my saying limits up front in any way suggests a contradiction about those who just want to work. I was pretty darn clear when I said if they weren't criminals they should be allowed to come here to work. My only condition was about how easily they can pass the "check", and I used the current method of homeland security and flying as an example.
but what exactly do you change in the constitution? as i said, there is nothing there on immigration. as far as reinterpretation of the law, what is being reinterpreted? does the supreme court make any rulings on the numbers of immigrants, over a million legally every year, allowed in. congress determines that. the supreme court has no jurisdiction on that. some things simply do not belong in the constitution. if you do set a limit on numbers of immigration in the constitution, then it could take years to change that, and you have to get 3/4 of the states to vote on it. i'm not really sure of what you're talking about.
ok, so then you do not put any limits on the amount of people who want to come here as long as they want to work. it's entirely up to them, and if five million or more people decide to move here every year and bring their families, no problem. one billion population is no big deal? you are saying no limits on numbers.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=dc60e1df53b2f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dc60e1df53b2f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD
I found this information to be helpful when trying to understand immigration policy in the United States. It lists all major legislative action regarding immigration broken down by a range of years. It is interesting to note that the first population limits on immigration did not occur until 1921. This statute:
Perhaps someone with more historical knowledge than I can explain the context of why, in this year, the US decided to add limits to the number of immigrants and why the majority of these immigrants were from Europe? It seems to me, that before this year, the United States did indeed have a policy that essentially allowed an unlimited number of people to immigrate to the US, provided that, among other critera they were not criminals or anarchists or
i think you answered one question with what you quoted. it was based on the number of that nationality that lived here in 1910. as for the limits, i think the answer is the same as now. the numbers were increasing every year. several years there were over a million before the number was reduced. that 350.000 was the norm for most of the 20th century. but the numbers coming now, legally and illegally, dwarf those numbers. and the population then was not much over 100 million. now it's 306 million and growing by millions more every year.
i really don't get why this is so hard to comprehend. i don't think an increasing population is a positive thing, but a negative. in 1972, the rockefeller commission on population growth said the stabilization of our population at the level of that year, 205 million, was a desirable thing. and immigration was not a big part of the issue then, because there simply were not the numbers in those years that we have now.
My assumption is that most don't intend to stay. I know at least through my wife that many just work the summer and then return to mexico because they get more for their dollar down there.
but your assumption is only about mexico. i'm talking about wordwide. most of the people who come here legally stay. and i don't think a figure of 5 or 10 million a year is anything out of the question. there are long lines for visas now, and if you say you can come as long as you want to work, you will have a lot of people here very quickly. so is half a billion population no problem? a billion? if you give people a choice, do i live in a cardboard box on the streets of calcutta, or a tin shack in caracas, or do i move to america, i think it's obvious what's going to happen. so my question remains. no limits?
as i said, the numbers i quoted are not out of the question, they are rather conservative. this link discusses a reader's digent poll that report 73 percent of people in india would want to immigrate here. that's one country.
http://volokh.com/posts/1223942080.shtml