I know, I know - they have a real plan, too, and they won't do amnesty, and they have a "better idea"... Yawn. Too many prominant democrats have used too much hyperbolic language against any attempt at immigration reform (such as Sen. Clinton's "police state" remarks) for this to be anything other than manna from heaven politically for the Republicans. At this point, it doesn't matter how good their ideas are. They've already defined themselves as "pro illegal immigration".
Once again - Democrats insist on hitting the Republicans where they are the strongest. Or worse, misunderstanding so badly WHY they're unpopular that they actually come out on a LESS popular side of an issue. It's like attacking a castle with only one wall by beating on the wall with your fists, instead of walking around to the other side. Wile E. Coyote would be proud.
5 comments:
If the apple industry has made themselves dependent on illegal labor, that's a risk they took, and a risk that the state was complicit in by not making the slightest attempt to enforce those laws. If anything, this state has gone out if its way to protect the illegals. My sympathy level is pretty low. I can live without apples.
But I think that risk can be mitigated, even with mass deportation, with (a) increased legal immigration quotas, and (b) a decent guest worker program that does not simply let people who are here illegally stay here.
We can address the problem now or later. It will cause pain now. But it won't get easier later.
I don't think it's morally wrong that they come here to feed their families. Hell, I'd try to get here too. That's completely beside the point.
If a Mexican can come in illegally, than so can an Iranian. Or a North Korean. Or a Columbian drug smuggler. And they in fact do. Several of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, and they knew specifically that our lax immigration laws would aid them in their mission. If your concern is merely local, consider that Port Angeles was very nearly the entry way for the Millenium Bomber. It was through sheer luck that the border agent caught him. Thankfully he didn't decide to cross a busier border crossing with less attendant agents!
The other problem is that there's no integration into our culture. They aren't waving US flags in LA, but Mexican ones. They're not learning English or sending their kids to school to learn (and when they do, the hippies cruelly don't insist they learn English). And I know this may sound a bit un-PC, but our culture is better than Mexico's, by any measure. At the very least, it is more free, more prosperous, and far, far less corrupt. When you have no ownership in the nation you inhabit, there's no impetus to make it a better place for yourself and your children. All of those things make life worse for us all. Ask the Europeans what happens to a country when illegal immigrants live on the edge of society and refuse to learn the language or integrate into the culture of their new land. There are real, proveable threats here.
And lest you think this is mere selfishness, think of the workers themselves who are exploited, paid poorly, live in slums, and hidden from health and safety inspectors. I don't understand how the liberal "champions of the worker" refuse to see that by letting them come in under the radar, they deny them the protections they claim as their agenda successes. And their children suffer profoundly, living in work camps, not going to school, and remaining hidden from CPS. The only part "morality" plays in this equation is the immorality of allowing the workers and their children to opperate under those conditions without any ability to seek redress when they are wronged.
Whatever short term gain eastern Washington and the rest of the nation are enjoying from illegal labor, the consequences to come will make cheap apples look awfully expensive. I agree with you that we should allow a great many more legal workers and legal immigrants into the country. But ignoring it is NOT the answer.
BTW, you obliterate your credibility by throwing words like "fascist" around so loosely. Words have meaning, and word choice matters. It's like saying libertarians are anarchists, or that liberal econ/liberal socially people are all Communists. As soon as Bush rounds up all the Japanese or Muslims, or passes a Sedition Act, or ups the tax structure to even half of what Carter did, then I'll buy your historical analysis of "most forceful." As soon as you mysteriously disapear for criticizing Bush, then I'll buy that he's a fascist. Last I checked, a crotchety old biddy is still allowed to wrongly accuse the President to his face of lying into war for oil, get an answer, and still have her White House Press Corps security badge honored the next day And her only punishment was her self-inflicted damage to her reputation.
"1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
This is the only useful definition here, because the others rely on the term "right-wing", which is even LESS well defined than fascist.
Note the use of the word "and" in that definition. Actual Fascism requires all of those elements. The only one that we can come close to laying claim to is "stringent socioeconomic controls," hardly something pioneered by Bush. In fact, those most likely to oppose Bush constantly attack his "tax cuts for the rich," which would mean they are in favor of MORE "stringnet socioeconomic controls."
The "loose" definitions are better described as slang. But we are training to be lawyers, and moreover, intend to have influence over policy. In those realms, words and word precision matter. When you use the same word to describe both Bush and Mussoulini, that word no longer has any actual meaning, hence the loss of credibility.
Because they're NOT reasonable interpretations. I'm no fan of Hillary, but she's not a communist, and it's dishonest to say she is, even for hyperbolic effect. Stalin was. If I were to simply refer to Stalin as "economically liberal", that would ALSO be dishonest because it does not accurately portray his economic policies.
The imprecision is even worse when you use such highly emotionally charged words as "Fascist" or "Communist", which implies mass murder, no free elections, and brutal oppression. Whatever Bush's faults are, they do not include that. And whatever your feelings on what Dick Cheney "would like," it does not accurately describe our government. It doesn't even come close. When you use a descriptive word most people immediately recognize as wrong or dishonest, the rest of your argument starts to look wrong as well.
Your knee jerk emotional reaction to Bush was to call him a fascist, because of his wiretap program and then for his immigration stance (which I don't think is tough enough). But if that were true, this country would have been far more Fascist than it is now during significant parts of our history. It wasn't then, and it's not now. And it's dishonest to imply otherwise. Sorry.
You are right to think there is too much government intrusion in our lives. You are right to think Bush has not done nearly enough as a "conservative" to change that. You may even be right that some of the War on Terror intel methods go too far. But you are wrong to think that any of those things have anything to do with fascism, which in fact, is the real enemy we're fighting these days. We need more people or smaller government, but it doesn't help that cause when small government proponents use dishonest hyperbole, in the same way that these immigration protesters hurt THEIR cause with their virulence.
I engage only because I hate to see known FedSoc members harm their credibility. I disagree with Cato on a lot of things, but we need as many believers in small government as possible. Believers who don't hurt their (and all of our) credibility by throwing around inaccurate and eye-rolling terms like "fascist".
The hippies continue to lose elections for the Dems because of their loose use of such methods. It matters.
Post a Comment