They are starting to make Kennedy look sane

Saturday, May 27, 2006
And that is no small feat. I want to see a solution to the illegal immigration issue myself, but that is going to require compromise, patience, and a certain amount of good faith.

Ranting, raving, attacking anyone who disagrees with you...even a little..engaging in reckless conspiracy theories and in general behaving in a way that reinforces every negative stereoype out there about the right will accomplish nothing...other than helping Hillary Clinton become the first woman President of the United States.

The Anchoress has a good post and is apparently taking heat for failing to toe the line as it were, read it all:

It’s all a plot and a conspiracy, you see…nothing could possibly simply be about stupid and lackluster career politicians trying to finally, finally, finally do something about an issue no one has wanted to touch for 30 years and doing it haphazardly, fearfully and imperfectly, and with the usual suspects trying to add their own flourishes, which must always be batted down, whether the issue is illegal immigration or almost anything else.

No, no. It’s a plot! It’s a conspiracy, meant to bring down America and put the conservatives in their place! To create a permanent underclass! To enlarge government, create more victims and raise our taxes! (what nonsense…we’re in a freaking war and spending more than ever, yet our revenues are growing thanks to the tax cuts…it’s funny how, when it suits a need, suddenly taxes will have to be raised…)


Maybe I should launch a conspiracy theory of my own…say…oh, something silly, like maybe this hysteria is just the conservatives doing everything they can to foment enough discord and discontent to create the “demand” for a third party candidate.

Which worked out so well for all of us in 1992. Hey, one conspiracy theory is as good as the next, isn’t it?

Now, I grant you, some of what is in this Senate immigration bill is objectionable and must be striken - it makes no sense at all for illegals to have better job-protection and benefits than American citizens. Social Security entitlements? I don’t think so. The idea of giving Mexico veto power over a fence or barrier idea is ludicrous.

But…for heaven’s sake, the thing is going to go to Congress, it’s going to get cleaned up and turned around - what has come out of the senate will not be the thing that (assuming anything actually gets passed) will be passed. There is some evidence that something workable may actually emerge from all of this ‘initial’ hoo-ha.

I know there are different opinions on the issue of these illegals, and everyone, on every side, “has a point” but I was extremely disheartened by what I heard on the radio, and by some of what I am seeing in blogs and in my email. I had to turn Rush off - there was something so insideous about the “ship them all back,” rhetoric flying between him and his callers that it was making my flesh feel crawly. “Round them up and ship them back, devote a whole law-enforcement team to it, we can get rid of all of them in 7 years, Rush!” Stunning. Appalling. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

This lady is smart and she has a good heart.

UPDATE:

Well... well... well, it seems the GOP is full of proamnesty traitors, via Big Lizards :

Matthew Dowd, GOP poller extraordinaire, writes that the ultra-hardline conservatives who insist that the American people demand "enforcement only" and hate the "amnesty" of the Senate bill have it exactly backwards. In fact:

Dowd's memo says that an internal RNC poll conducted by Jan Van Louhuzen finds that "overwhelming support exists for a temporary worker program. 80% of all voters, 83% of Republicans, and 79% of self-identified conservatives support a temporary worker program as long as immigrants pay taxes and obey the law."

More, from the RNC internal poll: "When voters are given the choice of other immigration proposals, strengthening enforcement with a tamper-proof identity card (89% among all voters, 93% among GOP), various wordings of a temporary worker program (the highest at 85% among all voters, 86% among GOP), and sending National Guard troops to the border (63% among all voters, 84% among GOP) score the highest among both all voters and Republican voters."

Also: "Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty."

78 comments:

charlotte said...

Good for the Anchoress, you, Knucklehead and others here. Lately, some formerly sane center-right blogs have commentary that make them look like official John Bircher sites. According to too many smart conservatives, illegal immigration is a Bush family plot in league with ultra wealthy Americans. BDS and class warfare rhetoric have now become hallmarks of the Right.

What's interesting to me is how most of the people complaining to the point of hysteria are NOT the people who will take the jobs that the illegals do now. Nor are their children. It will be those others somewhere around here who would be doing the work they do were it not for the supposed slave wages that the Mexicans accept. Clue: many Mexicans are paid pretty darn well for their sweaty hard labor and even skilled jobs, as in construction.

Yes, there are big problems attendant with illegal immigration. To me, Bush's plan came pretty close to addressing the worst ones. But what's really on the table is whether Americans want to eventually accept more Mexicans into our society or whether we believe they will degrade our social cohesion. (Am not going to even get into that bringing down our national IQ thing I've seen others discuss.) If our schools are a problem wrt assimilation, they're a huge problem for our kids and future electorate, too. Schools just need fixing irrespective of the Mexicans. Most Mexicans I've met and known are family and community loving people, apolitical to conservative, and definitely not flag-waving Commies.

Sorry for the long post, and I've got to run and cut the grass on a property. Good help is hard to find these days. Kids around here won't sweat. Yardmen use those damn blowers for hours on end, and landscape contractors would prune the gas lamp out front if you let them anywhere near it with shears.

Buddy Larsen said...

QAgree with Terrye, Anchoress, others, that the rhetoric from the Radio Right is dressing the whole conservative movement in the Left's favorite Klown Kostume. this started with Miers, gained steam with Ports, and is now a full scale rush toward the cliff. Just great. Hillary will be a nice wake-up. We best hope she will be a pure political animal, and allow us to turn her a tad moderate. Otherwise, we'll have to move to Mexico.

Buddy Larsen said...

That's not to say we don't have a huge challenge re assimilation and border control. It's just that bad presentation--whether serving lunch or debating policy--is all cost and no benefit.

Skookumchuk said...

blanc:

But what's really on the table is whether Americans want to eventually accept more Mexicans into our society or whether we believe they will degrade our social cohesion.

Yes. At a time when there seems to be precious little social cohesion, maybe less by the day. That may or may not be true in reality, but that is how it often appears. Politicians, single-issue pressure groups, "lifestyle" marketing, all tending toward social atomization. And I think people are tired of this in some as yet unexpressed way.

And many are scared about their retirements, their medical bills, and all the rest and don't know the impact of such massive numbers of unskilled and uneducated persons on our system of social services. And many of the amnesty provisions seem to violate our national sense of fairness - and that doesn't go down very well, either.

Add to this the fact that the Congress seems so irresponsible, corrupt and out of touch. We have reached a point where we can't predict what they might do, not just on this issue, but on anything. It is as if we have absolutely no connection with them and they none with us. As if, were we to ask the Estonian or Uruguayan parliaments to take up these issues, they might be more responsive to our desires and draft more responsible legislation than would the bozos in our own Capitol.

None of this is to excuse the behavior of the nativist carpet chewers, but I think it goes some way toward explaining the breadth of this sentiment, even if most people don't feel it with quite the same vehemence as do those on the talk radio shows and in the blogs.

Most Mexicans I've met and known are family and community loving people, apolitical to conservative, and definitely not flag-waving Commies.

Yes. And that could be a boon to Republicans - theoretically, anyway - and I think that is the image of them that Bush has in his mind. And he is correct, as far as it goes. And unless the GOP gets taken over by the nativists, I can't see Latins becoming a monolithic Democratic voting bloc in the manner of post-New Deal blacks.

That is the analogy that commentators often use, especially Democrats wanting to duplicate the allegiance they get from black voters, but it is false. There simply is no bloc to be formed. Latin cultures and experiences are just too disparate.

Plus we forget that in many ways, cultural ways, Latin America is becoming more like North America every day. Some 20% of Central America is now Protestant, for example. Thus culturally, a Presbyterian who is swimming the Rio Grande to become a carpenter in Dallas is not quite the same case as a young Middle Eastern guy in London fresh out of a madrassa in Rawilpindi. The cultural gulf is pretty small.

And will remain small, so long as we counteract the stridency of the carpet-chewers amongst us.

Buddy Larsen said...

It is clearer than ever that extremes--on both ends--see little wrong with selfish and hateful "acting-out".

OTOH, I don't think we can be selfish and hateful enough in trying to root the corrupt out of politics and business.

Luther McLeod said...

Nicely said Skookumchuk. That's a good point re the Congress. The Nation is looking for leadership in addressing these various issues and finding none. Stressful times.

Rick Ballard said...

The dog's breakfast Senate immigration bill reminds me of McCain-Feingold. It's very unsurprising to find Jackass McCain right in the middle of it again.

The theory (electoral politics theory, that is) on McCain-Feingold was to put the onus on Bush for vetoing it (which he should have done) and if he didn't, surely the Supremes would knock it down (which they didn't). This time the Senatorial buffoons passed a kludge of a bill in the sure and certain hope that the House will clean up their mess. I think the House propably will but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. The Congressional Clown Corps is in rare form these days.

Buddy,

I think there has been a misread on Hastert's actions. His position as Speaker requires him to pound the desk - how many times do you thinks he's heard 'you've gotta do something, coach, I could lose my seat over this'? The resignation talk from Justice is the same crap - cover for the President as the DoJ goes after that terrible 'culture of corruption' that the Dems have been braying about.

I'm with you in hoping that the DoJ does an even handed and thorough job in getting as many corrupt Conressmen and Senators behind bars as possible. It will have a salutary effect in the end and I could care less if thaey nail more Republicans than Democrats. I'll also wager that the reverse will turn out to be true. It's the 'safe seaters' who are most likely to be corrupted and there are more of them with the Dems than there are with the Reps.

Coisty said...

The Anchoress has a good post and is apparently taking heat for failing to tow [sic] the line as it were

The people who are refusing to toe the line are the conservatives. The Senate amnesty bill to radically change the country may be the worst single bill in American history. As far as I can tell it is supported by three types of Americans:

1) Leftists who believe the current American population are a barrier to their own ideological dreams

2) Business interests

3) Brainless Bushbots who think any criticism of the commander in chief is beyond the pale

These three are a small minority. Why should the majority of a democratic nation meekly accept the proposed national suicide?

I want to see a solution to the illegal immigration issue myself

Yeah, by giving the invaders a big fat amnesty.

Ranting, raving, attacking anyone who disagrees with you

You could be describing yourself there Terrye. You seem to hate anti-amnesty patriots even more than you hated those of us who opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation.

BTW it was Hagel, McCain and Bush who set the tone of this debate by playing the race card. I believe you Terrye recently made a reference to "white sheets". Not exactly conducive to reasoned debate and amicable disagreement.

Rick Ballard said...

The bill passed has very little to do with the Bush's initial proposal, Coisty.

Could you identify a specific business by name which will benefit from the legislation? 'Business interests' is typically shorthand for 'I haven't a clue as to what business might be involved but surely there must be one'.

BTW - the babblers who have fallen for this hoax bear the responsibility for this bill - the Congressional buffoons are simply responding to the noise produced by the ignorant who believe the pap printed in the papers.

Stupidity reproducing stupidity isn't that surprising - except to the stupid.

Buddy Larsen said...

"Business interests", Rick, are the small, 300 million member, interest group engaged in the "economy". And when Terrye becomes a hypocrite, pigs will fly.

Coisty said...

Rick Ballard,

Meatpackers such as Tyson Foods and others who employ illegals at present will be happy with the legislation. Also many (most?) major U.S. companies give money to pro-illegal immigration groups.

I'm not a left wing anti-capitalist. I'm a conservative supporter of the free market system. But economics is not as important as other matters such as sovereignty, the law, and culture.

Buddy Larsen said...

Well, who but a scoundrel is against sovereignty, law, and culture?

Skookumchuk said...

The problem is the creation of a permanent, hereditary helot class in America. One that potentially anyway could someday feel more allegiance to the culture on the other side of the border than to this one. I don't know how realistic the second concern is, but I do feel that the first one is a realistic fear. As with the guest workers in Europe or the importation of unskilled workers from all over sub-Saharan Africa to South Africa, or of Asian indentured servants to the sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. All three of these examples have produced massive and unpredictable changes in their host societies. And not good ones.

And so our own collective fear is that since it is Beltway politicians who are defining how this will happen, the results won't be equitable or well thought out or responsive to our concerns and won't contribute to our long-term health as a nation. And given their track record, who can blame the electorate for feeling that way?

Rick Ballard said...

This Tyson Foods? You're positive you're not buying MSM horsehit by the ton?

You need to cite a pro-illegal immigration group so that I can look at it. Unless you're talking about giving by crpto leftist foundations with 'Ford' or another industrial name in the title. Those aren't companies though.

Buddy Larsen said...

Skook's post reminded me of RR's famous quote from his First Inaugural Address:
"...government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem...."

Coisty said...

Tyson and other meatpacking firms have a long history of hiring illegals. They even shut down for the May Day protest! Wonder why?!Check the VDare site for more on them. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Wall Street Journal and virtually every other media promoter of business interests (to the apparent exclusion of all others) are almost all hostile to border control? Are you suggesting that companies that donate to the political campaigns of politicians don't have any influence on them?

As with the guest workers in Europe or the importation of unskilled workers from all over sub-Saharan Africa to South Africa, or of Asian indentured servants to the sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. All three of these examples have produced massive and unpredictable changes in their host societies. And not good ones.


It's the same in the US. When Europe was bringing in guest workers people thought it was a good idea at the time. Why take the same chance in the US? The consequences of the worst case scenarios or even the moderately pessimistic ones ought to outweigh the so-called benefits. Allowing millions of people from a neighbouring country with an historic claim on your own territory would be reckless even if the country had confidence and wasn't being torn apart by multicultural political correctness. If you think these are the halcyon days of the radical multiculturalists you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait to Hispanics make up a much greater percentage of the US population.

The US is already built so there is no need for 19th cenury immigration policies.

loner said...

A guess and a suggestion...

The guess:

On the Hill, they're praying for another Katrina-type "event" in the Fall.

The suggestion:

The President might rid himself of a few of his problems (and still not fire anybody) by telling Justice to return the documents.

Syl said...

Coisty

I yawn at your hysterical exaggerations and fear mongering.

Sheesh, man, take a time out.

ex-democrat said...

syl - yawning is associated with sleeping, no? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385514727/ref=ase_satisfaction1-20/104-2333501-2332737?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=satisfaction1-20

scott at powerline has a terrific quote today from Montaigne: "We can grasp virtue in such a way that it will become vicious, if we embrace it with too sharp and violent a desire...."

Moderation can be immoderate too.

Skookumchuk said...

As I say, the cultural gap is a small one in comparison to some others on this planet. That is the good news. So assimilation is possible and further immigration from Mexico may be perfectly fine, but only if we have something akin to a - dare I say it - cultural revolution first. Somehow we have to radically change our system of public education so that patriotism isn't a dirty word and so the kids actually learn stuff, curtail the growth of entitlements, and discard all the destructive multiculti self-hating nonsense.

How we do all that in just a few years, I haven't a clue. Do we need to wait until the last latte-swilling crystal-worshipping boomer draws his last breath, then let the kids make these revolutionary changes, then re-allow Mexican immigration? Its a thought.

Rick Ballard said...

Coisty,

Have you ever heard of the the UFCW? Take a look at their website and then think about the probable source for all those articles about the nasty non-union companies - written and printed by union workers.

Are you suggesting that companies that donate to the political campaigns of politicians don't have any influence on them?"

Of course not. I'm suggesting that you will have a very difficult time finding a real company that both purchases pols and makes a practice of hiring illegals. Under the current law the risk/benefit ratio precludes a rational person from doing so - take a look at that Tyson case for evidence. You are making an argument without rational foundation using a supposed 'them' dumb enough to make it to big business status. That's union rhetoric straight out of 1933 - and it's pure horseshit - as is the hysterical suggestion that more "laws" are needed to deal with a situation where law is not lacking but enforcement is.

Juan Garcia isn't a danger to the fabric of the nation but Howard Zinn sure as hell is. Deport him and every leftist of his ilk, or fire them, or maybe set them adrift in a leaking boat ' cause that's where the problem is - it ain't Juan.

There is no prohibition on any locality passing laws to deny services to illegals. Much of this farce relates to LA giving handouts that are now in the process of bankrupting the city. I hope it does and I wouldn't volunteer a nickel to help those idiots out - nor would I support any Federal bailout whatsoever.

terrye said...

Coisty:

If I remember correctly you are not an American aren't you?

Anti-amnesty patriots my ass.

Two things here:

I don't consider this amnesty in the sense of the bill passed by Saint Ronald Reagan and for another I don't like your tone. Not one little bit.

As for Bush, he did not write the Senate bill and he is not reponsible for decades of neglect on this issue. He is not the King, he can not force mayors, Governors, and everyone in America to do his bidding. All he can do is try to confront the issue in a way that pressures the legislature to pass a bill both sides can live with.

If you call me a Bushbot for not succumbing to this silly mindless hatred of a conservative president by raving loons I will remove your posts. Right now. I don't intend to tolerate it.

As for Tyson, what has that got to do with anything? That border was open and people were crossing it long before there was anything such thing as Tyson.

I know that there is a meat packing plant [not Tyson] in a small town not too far from me. It is said that about 1 in 3 of the employees are Mexican. I don't know their status. If the management are forced to fire them all, they will shut down and consolidate the plant with another because in a small town like that there are not enough people willing to do the jobs, which means the 2 out of 3 who are locals will lose their jobs. I am sure they appreciate the efforts of all those people out there trying to take their jobs away from them. Because that is the reality.

We have about 5% of the workforce here that is undocumented and our unemployment rate is less than 5%. I realize that to the rabid nativist who think it ought to be a law to shoot a wetback every day that is a small concern, but in the larger picture it does matter.

So yes, I want to see the border secure and I want to see a guest worker program. I have no problem with a wall, but I doubt it will be enough...but I don't think that mass deportation is realistic. I guess to the antiamnesty patriot that makes me a traitor. Screw them.

terrye said...

exdemocrat:

When is moderate immoderate?

It seems to me that the right has not stopped screaming long enough to come up with real life solutions.

The only thing I know for sure is that they hate and or distrust most Mexicans, think Vincente Fox is the enemy, want a wall, hate anything remotely like amnesty and....

what else? I mean really, what is their plan? Enforce the laws? Well, who is stopping them? Who was stopping them in the 70's and 80's and 90's? They say that bill in 86 did not work, well what have they done since then to fix anything?

This is hysterical, it is hurting the right, and they need to take a deep breath and get down to serious negotiations and come up with a bill both sides can sign whether everyone loves or even likes it.

So far all I know is they are pissed and out of control and so busy screaming at everyone else that they can not hear anything, including how strange they are beginning to sound to a lot of the rest of us.

I think this is why so many people don't give a damn about politics, they want no part of this kind of display.

terrye said...

BTW, Pierre Legrand has been out there peddling the Tyson angle. I for one thing it is a crock. After all if they want, Tyson can always move the plants to Mexico and ship the stuff back in. We can add that to the trade deficit.

Coisty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Buddy Larsen said...

o, tell me, Cloisty--what's illegit about Terrye's take on "Sovereignty, the Law, and Culture"?

There's a whole lotta right-sounding sentiment over there in the Anchoress' post (Terrye's post-link, only half of which is quoted) and you'll see why the word "tone" keeps popping up. Remember, people whose cooperation we desire, are *also* listening to us. I for one do not want to hand the commies any grist for their most insidious case against America--the case they use around the world, the "white people hate you" case. You can say that Nativism has no such tonal quality, and you may be right concerning your own ears. I'll tell you it's not right here in Texas, where the latino families are half the population and antedate the caucasion by a few hundred years. This state has always had the finest relations among the races, and I hate to see a bunch of provencials from the upper 49 wrap themselves in Old Glory and crap all over us.

Let's compromise among all parties, and do it without the sneers. And yes I know I just sneered in the previous paragraph's last sentence. But it was a counter-sneer.
:-)

Skookumchuk said...

And then again, speaking of Tyson chicken plants, Mom made the very best arroz con pollo in the Solar System, possibly within our Local Cluster, something which my bride has thankfully pretty much gotten down and - and - the Modelo Especial Pilsner sitting in the refrigerator there in the back corner on the top shelf would be a pretty good way to wash it all down.

I'm just on the verge of suggesting a possible Saturday lunch menu, that's all.

What were we talking about?

Buddy Larsen said...

Ah, shoot, Skook, I was just sitting down to a nice steamin' bowl of nails.

terrye said...

Coisty:

I warned you.

I took some hell from some folks when I said that the difference between the far right and far left was getting harder and harder to find. You are living breathing evidence of what I was talking about.

I am not steamed, my friend, I am disgusted. Big difference.

Now if you think that you can have a conversation without attacking people on a pesonal level then fine, have had it.

I really do not think that asking people to refrain from name calling, racist comments and urging them to think before they speak while they try to reach a bipartisan consensus to be invective.

If you do, I pity you.

truepeers said...

the Modelo Especial Pilsner sitting in the refrigerator there in the back corner on the top shelf would be a pretty good way to was

-yeah, and Budweiser used to be a Pilsener too. There can be a downside to American assimilation...

David Thomson said...

"I have no problem with a wall, but I doubt it will be enough."

Probably nothing else is important as assisting employers to reasonably verify a job applicant’s ID. What about those illegals already working? The heck with them. We must simply focus our attention on keeping new illegals from arriving on our shores.

Coisty said...

Buddy:o, tell me, Cloisty--what's illegit about Terrye's take on "Sovereignty, the Law, and Culture"?

I wasn't referring to her when I made that remark. I was merely stating that such things are of more importance to some conservatives than economics. Many conservatives in the English-speaking countries tend to put laissez faire capitalism ahead of everything else. There's a difference between my criticisms of business and the Moonbat-It's all about oil-Halliburton nonsense.

I for one do not want to hand the commies any grist for their most insidious case against America--the case they use around the world, the "white people hate you" case.

Those commies aren't much of a threat as long as they are not undermining the US from within. Importing millions of people from parts of Mexico (not the border area) who are likely to vote the way their kin in Chiapas do, and for that matter Venezuela (the (divide there is more racial than anything else), will pull the US way to the Left.

The Mexican workers the US is getting are at the bottom of Mexican society and there are increasing signs that the only integration the younger ones are experiencing is into a kind of urban African-American culture - gangs, dependency, anger at white society. The children of those entering today ain't going to be cutting some white dude's grass.

The problem here is the sheer numbers of Mexicans arriving. If they came in small numbers I have no doubt they could integrate into US society.

Buddy Larsen said...

Look, Mexico is our permanent neighbor. Mexico needs help. The drug biz is killing her, the oligarchs are killing her. The commies could win the next presidential election. We're building a wall.

In the future, which direction--up or down--do we want our influence to go? Wax or wane?

Everyone agrees the long-term solution is internal reform in Mexico. Believe it or not, this sort of reform has to reach crisis before it takes root. We are now at that crisis--as so much of the world is on so many issues at this millennial dawn.

So, our new policy--currently in formation-- should address these human realities, or *not*? Our underlying message should be--what? What do we want our neighbors to hear?

All the security measures we need to take, can be taken without adding another layer--a gratuitous layer of the humiliation Mexicans have felt ever since the treaty of Guadalupe/Hidalgo ended the Mexican War. What is in our interest is not to take the "superior gringo" (AKA Ugly American) tone. Too many conservatives seem to've suddenly awakened to the issue, and appear to've gleefully let it open a permissable route to rub others' noses in the dirt. And I hate the sound of it.

David Thomson said...

“It's the same in the US. When Europe was bringing in guest workers people thought it was a good idea at the time.”

Europe’s trouble is almost entirely due to the lack of interest in assimilating its guest workers. In Germany, for instance, there are third and fourth generation Turkish immigrants who still feel alienated---and are not citizens. The United States is a melting pot. We encourage our immigrants to become Americans.

Skookumchuk said...

truepeers:

yeah, and Budweiser used to be a Pilsener too. There can be a downside to American assimilation...

Speaking of which, in lovely downtown Idaho Falls, which you should all visit, Anheuser Busch and Grupo Modelo have malting plants side by side.

Time to visit the fridge. I'll be right back.

It's chicken salad sandwiches, I'm told. Some recipe from Sunset Magazine. I'm sure it will be fine. It will go better with the Modelo Especial, though.

Buddy Larsen said...

Oddly--here goes the BushBot--the leader of our country has been trying to demonstrate the proper tone--respect, but with a serious request to our neighbor to take a stronger hand with the endemic problem. But, nobody seems to be listening anymore. I guess if he were a real president, we would listen to him. (*sigh*)

terrye said...

This ain't Europe. Thank God.

How about the natitivists ragging on Canada for awhile? So far that is where most of the terrorists who are crossing borders have crossed from and unless the Conservatives can turn it around, they will end up looking a lot more like Euorope than this country ever could.

Sorry truepeers.

terrye said...

Buddy:

They are not listening to anyone but each other.

Now if Bush threatened to bomb Mexico City, that might make him one of them. Or something.

It is a sad day when the president asks that the debate take place with respect for all concerned and people find that something to bitch about.

But I think most folks just tune out a lot of this. Note the update.

terrye said...

truepeers:

That reminds me, I saw a story on Fox last night about the new Canadian PM and the press. It seems they are not speaking.

Coisty said...

Buddy,

It's one thing to want to help Mexico and to have influence but wrecking your own country is a strange way to go about it. Don't those oligarchs you spoke of want more emigration to the US? I believe that is because they want rid of unemployed unhappy young males in particular. I can imagine why a mostly white minority ruling over tens of millions of poor non-whites would want rid of as many of the latter as possible. The US is not a safety valve for Mexico; it is a safety valve for the oligarchs.

Terrye:Coisty:

If I remember correctly you are not an American aren't you?


Correct. I don't see why that would bother those who support mass immigration. Don't you want more of us to come to your country and change it so it is more like our native lands? If you don't put your own citizens ahead of foreigners then it shouldn't bother you when we foreigners stick our noses into your affairs.

Besides, I'm pretty damn close to the US. We want our neighbour to be strong and stable. Not a Greater Yugoslavia waiting to explode.

You've got a decent country down there; why do you want to change it so much?

Skookumchuk said...

I've also read - and I was too lazy to bookmark it - that the Mexican media has begun to ask fundamental questions in light of the American reaction. Along the lines of "why can't we do any better than this?" I'm sure some diligent Googling would dredge up these articles. The impact of this mood on the upcoming elections may be interesting.

Well, criminey. On the English-language Modelo bottle it says here in eight point Helvetica that it may impair my ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems. I like the Mexican warning on the Modelo website better - Todo Con Medida. Moderation in All Things. I would rather be lectured by an ancient Roman dramatist like Terence than by some anonymous cubicle-dwelling bureaucrat.

Coisty said...

david thomson - The United States is a melting pot. We encourage our immigrants to become Americans.

Not so much anymore. The Left will use millions more Mexicans to further undermine the majority culture and fracture the nation.

terrye: So far that is where most of the terrorists who are crossing borders have crossed from

Millions of Canadians aren't flooding into your country - except during spring break. Just for the record none of the 9/11 terrorists went across from the Canadian side of the border. That story was dispelled a couple of weeks after 9/11 but a lot of Americans still think some came from Canada.

That said, I would like us to do more to help you in terms of border security. The problem is that each new planeload of immigrants provides more voters for the PC-loving Liberal Party so it's difficult for the government to target Muslims without accusations of bigotry - or "nativism".

Terrye:They are not listening to anyone but each other.

Now if Bush threatened to bomb Mexico City


A perfect example of the kind of language I was talking about earlier. Thanks.

Buddy Larsen said...

The Tower of Babel lesson is that arrogance makes people able to hear but unable to understand each other (and subject to getting everyone scattered to the winds by a power they failed to heed until it went out of control).

Skookumchuk said...

One minor disappointment is that you seemingly can't get Leon in American supermarkets.

terrye said...

coisty:

Have you been listening to these people? I have been on sites where people are comparing Vincente Fox to Osama and where cute little sayings like "Operation Wetback" just flow off the keyboards. On one well known site a guy suggested that we send a million armed men down to the border and start shooting the illegal invaders. I guess that is the kind of respect for sovereignty you are talking about.And some of the stuff on the call in radio is every bit as bad.

So yes, if people like me who support a wall, tougher border security and assimilation have to defend ourselves from people who seem to think they run the damn country all by themselves, then it is kind of silly if they whine when they get back just a taste of what we hear all the time.

When certain of these "antiamnesty patriots" are suggesting that physical violence might be the answer and they are doing it loud and clear then it goes without saying that a lot of us are beginning to think that nothing short of threats of war against our neighbor are going to satisfy their mindless hatred.

They need to listen to themselves instead of attacking the rest of us. Maybe then they would actually hear themselves. I know the hispanics are hearing them and if they do not cool the rhetoric they could end up being a minority party for a generation. How does that help conservative causes? Because I can promise you, people like Russ Feingold will not be to their liking.

BTW, maybe I should get all nativist and propose an American only posting policy here. I guess that would leave you out, but then again I would just be protecting my sovereignty.

truepeers said...

Terrye, Coisty is right about the 9/11 terrorists not coming from Canada. That story was invented because of the chap who previously got caught at the border on his way to blow up LAX. There are, I am sure, terrorists biding time in Canada. But so far, most America-targetting terrorists have not had trouble moving directly into the States without need of landing first in Canada.

As for Harper and the media, he is at war with the Ottawa parliamentary press gallery who he rightly thinks are a bunch of anti-conservatives who think it is their job to brow beat him at press conferences and in the scrums our politicians have a tradition of allowing when they leave the parliamentary chambers. He is trying to control who gets to ask questions, and they are rebelling. He is not at war with all the media; in fact he is making an effort to give interviews to explain his side of the war with the Ottawa press gallery.

truepeers said...

Well, I'm being a bit one-sided. Harper is a bit of a control type. But he has a minority government and has to keep a tight ship in preparation for the next election which could come any time. Anyway, this is OT and I have to run off for the rest of the day. Enjoy your brew, Skookumchuck.

Buddy Larsen said...

WSJ's Dan Henninger tells today of friends in California who are hearing from latino parents that the Reconquista groupos are admonishing them not to speak English at school functions, because it is the "language of the enemy". There's your worry, Cloisty--and please twell me how to discredit that movement via white nativist rhetoric?

Could be we will have to go Roman one of these days, but I vote we first ponder on how little energy--up until now--the nation as a whole has put into assimilation. The field has been ceded to the latin separatists, who are now being joined in a strange bed by the "felonize-and-deport" crowd.

Rick Ballard said...

That's odd, it ranks so close to Dos Equis Ambar which is readily available here.

terrye said...

truepeers:

I was not talking about the 9/11 terrorists, who by the way, entered our counry legally. I was talking about the millenium bomber and a few other terrorists floating around Canada.

Obviously Canada is not Mexico, that was not my point. But then again, America is not Europe, that was my point.

Coisty said...

Speaking of Stephen Harper's government - it's been deporting thousands of illegal aliens with little fanfare. Some lefty types and crybaby members of the ethnic groups getting deported have been complaining but so far they've got very little traction. Generally we get a higher class of immigrant (yours truly for example!) than the US because we have a points system that means well educated people have a better chance of getting accepted. (Though the points system has been whittled down due to the promotion of family reunification). Of course, it also helps that we don't share a border with a Third World country...yet.

As for Mexican seasonal agricultural workers I believe there are restrictions on where they can go. I don't think they are allowed to leave the farms they work on but I could be wrong. truepeers, living in British Columbia where most Mexicans go, probably knows a bit more about this than I do.

Buddy Larsen said...

Jim Cramer's show a couple days ago noted a 5% Q1 increase in beer sales, and recommended buying ticker symbol (FMX), I think Grupo Modelo, the makers of Corona. Wot a way to drink for free--in an up mkt, anyway--

Skookumchuk said...

Rick:

Hmm. We don't get the top end FEMSA stuff shown in your table. Is it available to you guys down in Alta California?

Those mission supply ships, you know, they never venture north of Bodega Bay . . .

terrye said...

Coisty:

And Bush has deported more than 6 million.

terrye said...

buddy:

That reminds me of the whole Black Panther thing from years ago. All that eff de man stuff.

I heard Homeland Security has been rounding up M6-13. How did they ever get that name?

Rick Ballard said...

"Those mission supply ships, you know, they never venture north of Bodega Bay . . . "

Sé, que nos otros californianos no son estúpido.

Buddy Larsen said...

Bodega Bay--site of film "Da Boids" by Alfredo Hitchcock.

Terrye--the MS is best translated--in their own jargon--as "Bad-asses from El Salvador", and the 13 is the 13 rules of the gang. What those rules are I can only guess, but probably stuff like
1) A gentleman stands when a lady enters the room.
2) Invitations to social events are always sent at least ten days prior to the event.
3) Always return borrowed books promptly.
--And so forth.

Skookumchuk said...

Well, another mission is the obvious answer: Nuestra Señora de Seattle.

If that fails, we ask the Tsars for Letters of Marque and go a-rovin'.

terrye said...

Oh well, they sound like nice young men.

But in truth I wonder if there was some fear of the gangs being infiltrated. I don't know of any other gangs that Homeland Security has made a point of going after.

Of course it might just be we have not heard about others in the media. It seems the media is pretty mum on gang stuff. I wonder why.

Buddy Larsen said...

Terrye--becuz the gangs pre-date the 2000 elections?

Buddy Larsen said...

Or becuz the gangs run on judicial liberalism?

Rick Ballard said...

Nuestra Señora de la Santa Cerveza de Seattle would have a better chance.

Terrye - thank Los Angeles for the spread of the gangbangers. Without the help of the LA City Council they couldn't make it. One of many reasons that we of Alta Califoria have a less than fond view of those to our south - and I don't mean Mexico.

I'm emigrating north on mission work. Not Seattle, though, too blue.

terrye said...

Rick:

I remember not long after 9/11, maybe it was in 2002...I saw a report on some news show on TV about Los Angeles and an almost sanctuary policy towards illegals. In fact if I remember correctly the city had told the police not to cooperate with INS.

I think that is one thing a lot of people inside and outside of the US do not understand, the authority of local and state government when it comes to what happens within their jurisdiction can be quite impressive.

For instance, a friend of mine was asking me the other day why the president had to have permission of a Governor to send the Guard to the border. While I think a lot of the debate here is about who will pay for it, the truth is the Governors could stop it if they wanted.

In fact I have always wondered why some of the Governors did not take greater steps some time ago to deal with some of the problems themselves. I am not saying the feds have no responsibility, but I also know that Governors [like Blanco] can really screw up the feds if they want.

terrye said...

buddy:

Ah yes, remember that whole cocaine for votes thing in the last election?

Skookumchuk said...

rick:

You are always welcome here in the foggy fastnesses of the soggy North.

Buddy Larsen said...

Why, y'all be the Soggy Bottom Boys !

ex-democrat said...

isn't that you on the left, Bud?

Buddy Larsen said...

Naw, that's cousin Pete, from the Hogwallop side.

Coisty said...

thank Los Angeles for the spread of the gangbangers. Without the help of the LA City Council they couldn't make it.

As goes California so goes the nation. Many an American city will soon have a council like LA's.

Cutler said...

It seems to me that those who are supporting the head of their party are 'toeing the line.'

"Look, Mexico is our permanent neighbor. Mexico needs help. The drug biz is killing her, the oligarchs are killing her. The commies could win the next presidential election. We're building a wall."

5 years ago I read a letter to Times in response to a piece essentially asking for international say in the American electoral process, since it affects them so much. The letter appropriately said that when we wanted their opinion, we'd give it to them.

In a similar vein, a few years ago, we were laughing at Guardian letter writers interfering in American elections.

Now, suddenly sane rightists are implying that irrational Mexican voters should have a say on American domestic policy. After all, if we piss them off, they might just screw themselves over even more by voting for Communists. Yet, at the same time, these same people are just Americans inside? What? Their side of the border they are in danger of voting in Communists? Here they are natural Republicans?

I speak in generalities because, as someone said, it is pro-amnesty Republicans who have insisted that Mexicans are natural Republicans. Family loving, Religious, tradition of military service.

Well, up until the 1960s and the Great Society, so too were American blacks. Indeed, they still are religious and they still serve in the military honorably. Yet, they give in to Democratic race pandering, with the help of their pals in the MSM.

A few posts ago I corrected Terry on his incorrect summarization of Jewish leftism. The lesson of Democratic and leftist leanings among Jewish immigrants (including my own family) is that not only do countries change their immigrants, immigrants also change their countries. And I have no hesitation in saying that American Jews have contributed en total to American leftism well out of porportion to their numbers.

Now, I admit my Mexican history is shakey, yet I know that the country was ruled for a century by a Revolutionary Party. It's school system, it's unions, its state media all reflect this. The idea that they are completely malleable Americans in waiting seems to me completely ridiculous, if anything, they will in large numbers (especially among the poor) reflect the country they come from. Socialist and corrupt as it is.

Now, I speak in electoral tones only because my opponents do so. Personally, the complete delegitimization of American law is enough. But if you want to speak politics, I'll gladly do so.

Then we've got 'guest worker programs.' A few months ago I saw schadenfreude at the stupidity of Europeans and their guest worker programs. Importing slave classes, not considering them Americans, not allowing them to be Americans, and then completely unable to get rid of them.

Cutler said...

Sorry Buddy, I took your post to note an irony about foreign influence. Notably, that it is Republicans that usually insist that it is our duty to keep our own house in order first and foremost, and despising foreign attempts at interfering with our domestic policy (which the Mexican government does with impunity.)

And I went with there with a much longer post. No offense intended, it wasn't meant to you specifically and I did not mean to imply that you hold all of the views in question.

A part of the reason that this debate is so tense is that it is bringing people against each other that do not expect to be.

"If you get the war, why can't you get this."

Just my opinion.

Cutler said...

"Europe’s trouble is almost entirely due to the lack of interest in assimilating its guest workers. In Germany, for instance, there are third and fourth generation Turkish immigrants who still feel alienated---and are not citizens. The United States is a melting pot. We encourage our immigrants to become Americans."

So is this a guest worker program? Or an easier way to create anchor babies?

What's the point of calling it a guest worker program if the long term goal is that they're going to become Americans? And why should our immigration policy be so focused on Mexico?

terrye said...

cutler:

The majority of the American people want a compromise bill we can live with. No one is going to be happy with all of it, but the longer we kick this down the road the worse it will be.

The Senate has a filibuster rule which requires more bipartisanship for passage, the House only requires majority. But it was the Right who made this issue the big issue and now it is the Right who are threatening to kill any compromise bill and leave us with nothing. That is a sign of a lack of ability to govern.

I do support guest workers because we do need some of these workers, more sometimes than others. That need is not going to disappear just because some people do not like the idea of Mexicans here in the US.

BTW, it is not just a question of sticking with my leader, I really do find some of the rhetoric I hear from the Right to be offensive.

terrye said...

BTW, Cutler I am a she.

And the blacks did not give into the race pandering, they were turned off by Barry Goldwater refusing to support the Civil Rights Act. And Jews were not all commies for heaven's sake. I have read some of the debate on the floor back then and there were people who were saying that Jews could not be assimilated and that Catholics wanted to install a papist government. So, it is not fair to say that blacks gave into pandering and jews are commies, etc.It is that kind of thinking that made Republicans a minority and it will do it again if they do not tone down the rhetoric.

Now no one is saying that Mexicans get to vote in our elections, but believe it or not a sizable part of the population of the southwest has always been hispanic and whether the antiimmigrants like it or not they are not going to just go away.

Cutler said...

"And the blacks did not give into the race pandering, they were turned off by Barry Goldwater refusing to support the Civil Rights Act. And Jews were not all commies for heaven's sake. I have read some of the debate on the floor back then and there were people who were saying that Jews could not be assimilated and that Catholics wanted to install a papist government. So, it is not fair to say that blacks gave into pandering and jews are commies, etc.It is that kind of thinking that made Republicans a minority and it will do it again if they do not tone down the rhetoric.

Now no one is saying that Mexicans get to vote in our elections, but believe it or not a sizable part of the population of the southwest has always been hispanic and whether the antiimmigrants like it or not they are not going to just go away."


I didn't say that all Jews were commies. But it is clear that Jewish American leadership brought their socialism with them, they did not adopt it here.

It is no coincidence that you can find the only working (so far as I know) version of socialism in teh world in Israel, particularly in the Kibbutz system. Nor that Israel has spent the last 50 years moving away from a heavily socialized economy established after 1948.

It is not "that kind of thinking," it is objectivite thinking. Expecting Mexican poor to be natural Republicans is wishful thinking. If you want to see what happens when nations that are educated in socialism are brought into a capitalist Western country, take a look at the voting patterns of former East Germany.

And I did not say that Mexicans would "vote" in our elections, I said that it is ridiculous to run our country according to what may or may not happen in Mexico. Furthermore, that direct inteference in the United States by a corrupt Mexican government that cannot even run its own country is dangerous.

Cutler said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cutler said...

And oh yeah, I apologize for the 'he.'

Cutler said...

"The majority of the American people want a compromise bill we can live with. No one is going to be happy with all of it, but the longer we kick this down the road the worse it will be."

The worse our government manages this, the worse it will be. A bad bill, amounting to amnesty would be a disaster. It is the administration that has fought against argument that the border should be secured first and foremost before we even deal with other issues. That is fixing a problem before it gets worse.

"The Senate has a filibuster rule which requires more bipartisanship for passage, the House only requires majority. But it was the Right who made this issue the big issue and now it is the Right who are threatening to kill any compromise bill and leave us with nothing. That is a sign of a lack of ability to govern."

It is President Bush that is going against years of mainstream Conservative thought. The idea that Republicans are to blame for refusing to go against their longheld convictions is laughable. President Bush could have enforced border security immediately after 9-11, and he could have done it at any time since. The Democrats would not have said boo. It would have been universally applauded. This is a wedge issue in the Republican party that he created.

He and the rest of the government chose not to. This is a wedge issue in the Republican party that he created.

"BTW, it is not just a question of sticking with my leader, I really do find some of the rhetoric I hear from the Right to be offensive."

It was you that implied that your opposition was sticking with its leadership, aka "toeing the line." In fact, that opposition is bucking its leadership, and sticking to its own convictions.