ebrown
It would seem that even though you claim I am in the minority the figures Hokie bird posted put you in the minority. I am not against immigration, my grandparents came here from Italy, legally, and waited their turn. I don't think its right to let the people who cross the border illegally be given amnesty even though they broke the law. How does that teach respect for the law.
Well, let's see what happens. All I know is that all Democratic Presidential candidates support a compromise that includes a path to citizenship as well as half of the Republicans (including all of the front runners). And, of course, the Right wing Republicans touted immigration as a key issue... and we all know how that went.
I have the feeling that no matter what happens... you will persist in your fiction that you represent the American mainstream.
I accept the fact that the American mainstream is in between our two sides. This is why I am trying to take the compromise. Anyone with any sense of reality knows that any political feasible compromise involves both a path to citizenship and greater enforment.
This bill may not be the best, but it clearly is a step in the right direction.
A compromise is clearly what is best for the US. If either your side, our ours stubbornly refuses to work toward the inevitable compromise, it will mean more time passes without any resolution.
I am not so foolish as to think that I will get everything I want out of the immigration solution. I am going to work figure out how to get what I consider to be the best solution for my country.
Most voters don't trust the politicians on this issue. With good reason. And the politicians aren't listening to us. If they were, they'd have scrapped this bill immediately and gone right to work sealing the southern border.
Once that's done, we'll talk.
HokieBird wrote:Most voters don't trust the politicians on this issue. With good reason. And the politicians aren't listening to us.
Funny thing is that we don't feel like the politicians are listening to us either.
Actually, they are trying to steer a path in the middle... which for a politician isn't always the worst place to be.
ebrown_p wrote:HokieBird wrote:Most voters don't trust the politicians on this issue. With good reason. And the politicians aren't listening to us.
Funny thing is that we don't feel like the politicians are listening to us either.
Actually, they are trying to steer a path in the middle... which for a politician isn't always the worst place to be.
By "us" I meant Americans in general. This isn't a partisan issue, as the polls show. Just as many Democrats as Republicans are against this newest version of "amnesty" because the last amnesty is what got us into this mess.
If this bill passes, it will be the same thing all over again.
HokieBird wrote:ebrown_p wrote:HokieBird wrote:Most voters don't trust the politicians on this issue. With good reason. And the politicians aren't listening to us.
Funny thing is that we don't feel like the politicians are listening to us either.
Actually, they are trying to steer a path in the middle... which for a politician isn't always the worst place to be.
By "us" I meant Americans in general. This isn't a partisan issue, as the polls show. Just as many Democrats as Republicans are against this newest version of "amnesty" because the last amnesty is what got us into this mess.
If this bill passes, it will be the same thing all over again.
There you are wrong-- after all I am an American in general.
Polls consistantly say that two thirds of Americans favor a compromise position that includes a path to citizenship. Americans also clearly favor enforcement.
Of course, Americans are a spectrum from those who want open borders to those who think America should be reserved for white Christians only. Americans in general are in the middle-- sadly for both you and I polls are also saying that Americans in general don't see this as one of the most pressing issues right now (what with the war and all).
I still hope we can reach a compromise.
ebrown_p wrote:HokieBird wrote:ebrown_p wrote:HokieBird wrote:Most voters don't trust the politicians on this issue. With good reason. And the politicians aren't listening to us.
Funny thing is that we don't feel like the politicians are listening to us either.
Actually, they are trying to steer a path in the middle... which for a politician isn't always the worst place to be.
By "us" I meant Americans in general. This isn't a partisan issue, as the polls show. Just as many Democrats as Republicans are against this newest version of "amnesty" because the last amnesty is what got us into this mess.
If this bill passes, it will be the same thing all over again.
There you are wrong-- after all I am an American in general.
Polls consistantly say that two thirds of Americans favor a compromise position that includes a path to citizenship. Americans also clearly favor enforcement.
Of course, Americans are a spectrum from those who want open borders to those who think America should be reserved for white Christians only. Americans in general are in the middle-- sadly for both you and I polls are also saying that Americans in general don't see this as one of the most pressing issues right now (what with the war and all).
I still hope we can reach a compromise.
Yes, you are an American in general, and you're in the minority on this issue.
Yes, and I have accepted that. But you too are in the minority.
The majority is in the middle, somewhere between you and I, and wants a compromise.. and that is why a compromise is the only thing that is going to work.
Browne
The majority are willing to accept a compromise only on the issue of disposition of those illegals now residing in the states. And that only because there is no other workable option. However, poll after poll has shown by an overwhelming majority they are in favor of controlling our borders and the stopping of the Mexican invasion.
Can you show me a poll that suggests that any more than a small number of extremists think that there is a "Mexican Invasion".
Most Americans put the immigration issue pretty low compared to the war on Iraq-- this would hardly be the case if America were really being invaded.
My parents were very involved in the civil rights movement, and from my fathers words of wisdom is this saying:
"It always helps when your opponents are uglier than you are."
This, of course, was how the civil rights movement succeeded. The anti civil rights side, and then the anti-integration side were shown screaming (and bombing) as the American public move away from their position.
In the immigration debate, as we get closer to compromise, the same thing is happening.
First, it is the anti-immigration side that is opposing any compromise. They are very visibly getting more and more hardline in their position as the Congress and the American public move toward agreeing on a compromise.
Second, the anti immigration side is publically getting angrier and angrier. You have attacks on public figures (including presidential hopefuls) that include name-calling; like "traitor" and "sell-out" by people who are shown screaming and foaming at the mouth. The number of people who make their points in all capital letters here are a good example of this.
Of course the angrier and more radical the anti-immigration people get, the better it is for the side of compassion.
Third, as the compromise approaches, the uglier parts of the anti-immigration side are becoming more and more visible. You have anti-immigration KKK marches, you have swastikas and violent threats.
These images are rightfully connected by the public at large with the rhetoric of "invasion" (which is a constant neo-nazi theme) and the veiled, or not so veiled calls for violence against immigrants and politicians.
It is the anti-immigration side that is acting like extremists. This, of course will not help your position with the American public.
Immigration bill fails key test, is withdrawn
link
Brownie, the problem with you is that, while you have terrific compassion for the illegals, you have none for those they are damaging. As I mentioned, the Carolinas have a disproportionate number of blue-collar workers. They always worked in agriculture, construction, chicken processing, etc., and they are being displaced by the illegals. Further, the illegals are driving down wages and benefits for such citizens.
Advocate,
You are pitting worker against worker. This is a strategy that is simply wrong.
If you think the problem is that "evil corporations" are pitting worker against worker to drive down wages, then the obvious answer is to make sure that workers have the ability to bind together (key word is together) to ensure rights for all.
Thi s is a historically progressive idea that has been very successful. The labor movement was based on joining workers together in "unions" (the very word implies joining workers together) which raised working conditions for all. Unions always stood up for the rights of the most vulnerable workers which often included recent immigrants. Ironically the anti-union forces of history made the same arguments your side is making today.
There is no logical argument that taking rights away from one group of workers is going to help anyone except for "evil corporations" since by dividing workers-- and playing one against the other, they can drive down wages and conditions for all.
Anyone working here should have a path to citizenship (and the rights that this entails).
You are attacking what is a very pro-labor stance.
The bill will pass in the future.
I think a better bill will pass-- quite possibly without the odious "temporary guest workers" plan which I would guess even Advocate doesn't like.
I am only a bit sad that the status quo, and the resulting continuing public shouting match it will entail, is bad for the country. It would be better to resolve this now.
Brownie, you are a lot like O'Bill, suggesting that some utopian solutions will solve all problems. Additional unions, worker rights, desalination, etc., are not about to happen in the foreseeable future. Thus, under today's circumstances, poor citizens, who should come first, are getting screwed in the name of cheap labor for business.
Thanks for the compliment Advocate.
I think you are using "illegal" immigrants as a convenient scapegoat. I don't see you talking about much else, and there are a lot of issues that really affect the American working class.
It is a shame, because perhaps your side and my side could do some good if we were to work together on common goals.
ebrown_p wrote:Thanks for the compliment Advocate.
I think you are using "illegal" immigrants as a convenient scapegoat. I don't see you talking about much else, and there are a lot of issues that really affect the American working class.
It is a shame, because perhaps your side and my side could do some good if we were to work together on common goals.
Revel in your ignorance. If you looked, you will see that I am all over A2K on a multitude of subjects.
BTW, I think your hero, Tancredo, is a bit of a nut. In the last Rep debate, he said that Bush ran as a conservative, but governs as a liberal. Bush, governing as a liberal? Pleeze!!!!
Quote:I think your hero, Tancredo, is a bit of a nut.
That's kind of a low blow... isn't it? You should listen to what Tancredo is saying. You may find you agree with him more than you think.
