Immigration Bill, Part 2

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me. A Republican president steadfastly sticking with this, insulting fellow Republicans, for a bill where the support came, basically, only from Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

This convinced me that Bush has gone round the bend. Yes, it took 6 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think he has recently gone round the bend, or did it take you six years to realize that hes got some serious cognition issues?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe so, but what about the notion of BOTH parties representing the will of the people (as they're generally supposed to, being, after all, representatives of the people)? I think most Republicans and Democrats (regular citizens, not Congressmen) favor enforcement of existing immigration laws and tougher controls on immigration.
If both parties' representatives would take a stance of representing the majority wishes of the American people, neither party would suffer relatively to the other party on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't agree with the notion that a "majority of the people" want tougher controls on immigration. If they did, I'm sure both parties would vote for tougher immigrations controls. But that's not what's happening, so I suspect your assumptions are wrong. Clearly, there are some people are perfectly fine with the status quo.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to bring up an ancillary point that disturbs and puzzles me a bit, too: if either party takes a stance against illegal (or legal) immigration, the claim is that it will drive Latino immigrants away from that party. Maybe so. But immigrants are supposed to become Americans, are they not, with their primary new loyalty and allegiance being to America, is that not correct? That's what the immigration process is all about, isn't it? Yet if Latino immigrants tend to place their own ethnicity as a higher allegiance than their allegiance to America, how does that fit in with the ideal of immigration?

Further, Anglos in the USA seem to be bending over backwards to not be racist on such matters, but are Latino immigrants typically more concerned about allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than they are with allegiance to America or becoming Americans? If they are not more concerned with that, then how does the WSJ argument hold any water, that they will be driven away from a party that wants to enforce immigration laws? If on the other hand they are more concerned with allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than with allegiance to America, then the WSJ argument is totally correct, and they will indeed be driven away from the party that is not pro-immigration.

Does becoming an American no longer means having one's primary allegiance switch to America? I'm not saying that is true of most new Latino immigrants (legal or illegal), rather, I'm asking. If it is true, then the WSJ argument succeeds strongly. If it is false, then the WSJ argument suffers from some holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was quite a long false dichotomy. Respecting your ethnicity != disloyalty to the US. So your "question" is flawed on its face.

Do Saint Patrick's Day parades with Irish flags flying high imply some kind of treachery too, or is it only when brown people feel defensive about to their ancestors and their history that it becomes traitorous?

[ QUOTE ]
Please everybody think this through a while before responding, and please try to respond analytically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of your posts contain a bunch of question begging, assumed conclusions, and downright silly logic. Asking people to "think for a while" and "try to be analytical" is a bit preposterous, IMO, because it assumes you were doing the same when you asked the question to begin with. It doesn't look like that's the case.

Your assumption that Hispanic people are alienated from the GOP invariably means that they aren't showing "allegiance" to the US (instead of conceding that, as even conservatives publications like the WSJ concedes, much of the right-wing rhetoric on this issue is littered with coded and subtle racism) prompts me to be a giant [censored] to you here. But I can't quite help feeling you deserve it though, if only a little bit. The entire narrative you put forth here ("red blooded Americans want tighter immigration controls, and any brown person who disagrees is some kind of traitor") strikes me as disgusting. I realize you dress it up in fancy euphemisms like "loyalty" and "allegiance", but that's essentially the message. Saying "thank you for reading" and being generally polite after you're done making non-sensical and xenophobic rants doesn't make it any less disgusting.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe so, but what about the notion of BOTH parties representing the will of the people (as they're generally supposed to, being, after all, representatives of the people)? I think most Republicans and Democrats (regular citizens, not Congressmen) favor enforcement of existing immigration laws and tougher controls on immigration.
If both parties' representatives would take a stance of representing the majority wishes of the American people, neither party would suffer relatively to the other party on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't agree with the notion that a "majority of the people" want tougher controls on immigration, but even if they do, I'm sure both parties would vote for tougher immigrations controls. But that's not what's happening, so I suspect your assumptions are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress is not representing the will of majority America on many issues, so why presume it would do so on this issue? Didn't someone post a poll in another thread showing that most Americans want better enforcement of existing immigration laws and fewer overall immigrants?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to bring up an ancillary point that disturbs and puzzles me a bit, too: if either party takes a stance against illegal (or legal) immigration, the claim is that it will drive Latino immigrants away from that party. Maybe so. But immigrants are supposed to become Americans, are they not, with their primary new loyalty and allegiance being to America, is that not correct? That's what the immigration process is all about, isn't it? Yet if Latino immigrants tend to place their own ethnicity as a higher allegiance than their allegiance to America, how does that fit in with the ideal of immigration?

Further, Anglos in the USA seem to be bending over backwards to not be racist on such matters, but are Latino immigrants typically more concerned about allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than they are with allegiance to America or becoming Americans? If they are not more concerned with that, then how does the WSJ argument hold any water, that they will be driven away from a party that wants to enforce immigration laws? If on the other hand they are more concerned with allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than with allegiance to America, then the WSJ argument is totally correct, and they will indeed be driven away from the party that is not pro-immigration.

Does becoming an American no longer means having one's primary allegiance switch to America? I'm not saying that is true of most new Latino immigrants (legal or illegal), rather, I'm asking. If it is true, then the WSJ argument succeeds strongly. If it is false, then the WSJ argument suffers from some holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was quite a long false dichotomy. Respecting your ethnicity != disloyalty to the US. So your "question" is flawed on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never mentioned "respecting" and I have no problem with that. Respecting your ethnicity does not equal disloyalty. Placing allegiance to your ethnicity above allegiance to America does equal disloyalty to America.

If German-Americans or Italian-Americans during WWII had placed loyalty to their ethnicity or country of origin above their allegiance to America, they wouldn't have fought on our side in WWII, would they? So of course it is vital that immigrants gain a new primary allegiance. That says nothing about respect.

[ QUOTE ]
Do Saint Patrick's Day parades with Irish flags flying high imply some kind of treachery too, or is it only when brown people feel defensive about to their ancestors and their history that it becomes traitorous?

[/ QUOTE ]

If America had ever warred with Ireland, Irish-American immigrants such as my grandfather would have proudly (albeit sadly) fought for America against Ireland. Just as German-Americans fought against Nazi Germany in WWII, and Italian-Americans fought against Italy in WWII.

The point I was trying to make is that IF Latino immigrants will be turned against a party that is trying to enforce America's laws, merely because of ethnicity, that would show that their primary allegiance is to their ethnicity (or perhaps to Mexico) rather than to America. That's not fitting for a Latino immigrant nor is it fitting for a German immigrant nor an Irish immigrant. That's not fitting for an AMERICAN. That's not fitting for an immigrant to ANY country in the world. If you are to immigrate to America, it is to become an American (first and foremost). That's what the darn word "immigration" MEANS, that's why immigrants swear allegiance.

On the other hand, if Latino immigrants do not place allegiance to their ethnicity above being an American, then they ought not to turn against any political party which advocates enforcing America's laws.Changing one's citizenship is not just an expediency like getting a passport or Visa.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please everybody think this through a while before responding, and please try to respond analytically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of your posts contain a bunch of question begging, assumed conclusions, and downright silly logic. Asking people to "think for a while" and "try to be analytical" is a bit preposterous, IMO, because it assumes you were doing the same when you asked the question to begin with. It doesn't look like that's the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

To you.

To me, it's rather amazing that you seem to have such
great difficulty with my reasoning in virtually every thread whereas many others usually do not. The clearest example is the thread I cited wherein "She" stepped in and deflated your reasoning stance with a quote from American Jurisprudence. You apparently just never got it. Practically everyone in the original thread disagreed with your reasoning, so just maybe the problem is the mote in one's own eye, sometimes?

I believe I've addressed you respectfully and rationally at every turn. I'll mention now that I don't feel that that has been reciprocated. Well, the best I can do for you from this point forward will be to genuinely pray for you, and that I promise to do.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Congress is not representing the will of majority America on many issues, so why presume it would do so on this issue? Didn't someone post a poll in another thread showing that most Americans want better enforcement of existing immigration laws and fewer overall immigrants?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't comment on "majorities", but the thought that support for tougher immigration standards in the US is universally held sounds downright false to me. I don't particularly care if 50%+1 (or 50% plus millions) have concluded immigration standards need to be stricter, but my preferences aren't really relevant.

Neither are the preferences of the majority of Americans really relevant, either. My Congressman doesn't work for all three-hundred million Americans, he works for the 600,000 or so that are in his district. And even then, he probably only works for those who he thinks will vote. And even then, he probably works harder for those who he thinks will vote for him.

So the question of what kind of political implications that GOP immigration policy will have in future elections aren't answered by "well, 60% of people want border patrols rounding up Mexicans and deporting them, ergo it would be good politics to do this". Of course, as noted, cited current polling is useless anyway; the Tom Tancredos of the world are problematic for the GOP because demographic changes will ensure that current polling data will be irrelevant a decade from now.

So getting back to what you said earlier:

"Maybe so, but what about the notion of BOTH parties representing the will of the people"

1) I think it's false to assume "the people" have a unified will here.

2) Political parties expressly and candidly don't support the will "of all the people". When I cut a check to the DNC (which I don't really do, but let's pretend anyway) -- I don't want Democratic candidates to represent the will of Rush Limbaugh or the editors of the National Review. Political parties represent the will of their members. And there are significant factions of people in both parties who *don't* want tougher immigration standards, hence why this is a battle in the first place. If everyone (or even most everyone) agreed on what kind of immigration policy we should follow, as you claim, we wouldn't even be having this debate. But such that it exists, rest assured there are actually two sides to this debate.

So claiming that Congress is failing to meet "the will of the people" is fallacious at best. I'm a person, and I don't want tougher immigration standards, so they're respecting my wishes when they don't pass tougher immigration standards. Claims about "the will of the people" are usually nothing more than a hand-waving attempt to pretend everyone agrees and the policy should be obvious.

This clearly isn't the case here, so feel confused no longer: when you scratch your head wondering why Congress isn't doing what you want, otherwise euphemistically referred to as "the will of the people", you should consider that people (like me) probably don't want the same things you want, that "the will of the people" isn't clear or obvious despite the best (or worst) efforts of pollsters, and that in many cases, it doesn't matter anyway, because there are alot of legitimate reasons for elected representatives not to act on every whim and flight of fancy that grabs a hold of the electorate.

[ QUOTE ]
Placing allegiance to your ethnicity above allegiance to America does equal disloyalty to America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your standard for judging whether or not someone is "loyal to America" is whether or not they support tougher immigration standards and/or enforcement of the current laws. How is this nothing more than a repulsive "agree with me, or I will label you a traitorous unAmerican outsider!"

I don't support America's drug laws; am I traitor? If black people in the South at the turn of the twentieth century disfavor Jim Crows laws, are they putting their ethnicity ahead of their allegiance to the country?

Again, your "reasoning" is moronic at best and disgustingly bigoted at worst. I don't see why I should demand that Hispanic immigrants should support American immigration standards if they find them to be racist and immoral, anymore than I don't think I should have to support American drug laws, or the Patriot Act, or a whole host of other laws I disagree with. I don't doubt there's a whole host of American law that you find to be in poor taste; are you a traitor because of it?

So if Hispanic immigrants, be they legal or otherwise, want to jump ship on the GOP because they find their immigration policies to be racist or just stupid, that sounds justifiable to me. Why are they held to a different standard than I? The only reason I can think of is "they're brown and I'm not", or "they're new here, and I was born here". Sure sounds either bigoted or xenophobic to me.

[ QUOTE ]
The point I was trying to make is that IF Latino immigrants will be turned against a party that is trying to enforce America's laws, merely because of ethnicity, that would show that their primary allegiance is to their ethnicity (or perhaps to Mexico) rather than to America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is ridiculous. Since when did we concede "enforcing laws" is our highest moral priority -- or a moral priority at all? Since when does opposing the enforcement of poorly thought out laws make someone a treacherous non-American?

Again, you do nothing but question begging -- you just assume irrational canards to be prima facie true, then ask silly questions where you assume your canards are true.

So let's make this perfectly clear for you: just because the GOP is trying to "enforce America's laws" does not make those laws moral; opposing the enforcement of stupid laws does not make one a traitor, and it says nothing about where someone's allegiances lie.

If the Democratic majority in Congress decided tomorrow to propose laws that rounded up recent Japanese immigrants and put them into camps, I certainly wouldn't fault Americans of Japanese decent from abandoning the Democratic party en masse, even if their concern was MERELY BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY.

[ QUOTE ]
That's not fitting for a Latino immigrant nor is it fitting for a German immigrant nor an Irish immigrant. That's not fitting for an AMERICAN. That's not fitting for an immigrant to ANY country in the world. If you are to immigrate to America, it is to become an American (first and foremost). That's what the darn word "immigration" MEANS, that's why immigrants swear allegiance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when did "swearing allegiance" entail "supporting every stupid law some jackasses create"? I ostensibly "swear allegiance" to this country, but I certainly don't like immigration laws. I don't want them enforced. I would gladly give an illegal immigrant a job. Is that NOT FITTING FOR AN AMERICAN, or do I still get to keep my label because I'm white and I was born here? Why do Latinos get held to a different standard?

[ QUOTE ]
To me, it's rather amazing that you seem to have such
great difficulty with my reasoning in virtually every thread whereas many others usually do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for others, so I won't comment on how others judge "your reasoning", but yes, it's true, I find you to be generally moronic in most instances. So you need no longer be amazed when I have great difficult with your reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
The clearest example is the thread I cited wherein "She" stepped in and deflated your reasoning stance with a quote from American Jurisprudence. You apparently just never got it. Practically everyone in the original thread disagreed with your reasoning, so just maybe the problem is the mote in one's own eye, sometimes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that you still don't understand that Article III of the Constitution exists, and that judicial review is an empirical reality in American jurisprudence is somewhat surprising to me, but merely because two other guys in the thread were as ignorant as you isn't all that compelling.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the best I can do for you from this point forward will be to genuinely pray for you, and that I promise to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM, try as you might, your transparent condescension-in-the-form-of-faux-politeness never ceases to amuse me.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Congress is not representing the will of majority America on many issues, so why presume it would do so on this issue? Didn't someone post a poll in another thread showing that most Americans want better enforcement of existing immigration laws and fewer overall immigrants?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't comment on "majorities", but the thought that support for tougher immigration standards in the US is universally held sounds downright false to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about "universally held"? Only you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Placing allegiance to your ethnicity above allegiance to America does equal disloyalty to America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your standard for judging whether or not someone is "loyal to America" is whether or not they support tougher immigration standards and/or enforcement of the current laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite, but maybe I should rethink my standard.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, it's rather amazing that you seem to have such great difficulty with my reasoning in virtually every thread whereas many others usually do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for others, so I won't comment on how others judge "your reasoning", but yes, it's true, I find you to be generally moronic in most instances. So you need no longer be amazed when I have great difficult with your reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the bolded what is considered a personal attack?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe I've addressed you respectfully and rationally at every turn. I'll mention now that I don't feel that that has been reciprocated. Well, the best I can do for you from this point forward will be to genuinely pray for you, and that I promise to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM, try as you might, your transparent condescension-in-the-form-of-faux-politeness never ceases to amuse me.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the third time, I am not some other poster. I'm also not trying to be condescending in the least (and incidentally, you called me moronic, not the other way around. Is that condescending?)

I once thought you were a new poster who came out of nowhere and seemed to have the odd urge to argue with me at every turn. It seems you've been here longer than I have, though. Frankly, I am a bit surprised they let posters attack one another and act sarcastically and whatnot to such an extent. But no matter, really.

Do you actually think it's "condescending" when someone offers to pray for you? Someone offered to pray for me last night (indeed he already had) and it warmed my heart. Are you really, really that deeply cynical, always? I'll take any and all prayers I can get, seriously. Do you never feel an urge to talk with God? It's not possible to write this on the internet without it sounding trite, I guess, but cynicism must hurt the possessor most of all.

What does it take to bring out the best in you? I've genuinely tried in multiple posts to reach your good side but apparently in vain.

Thanks for reading.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for others, so I won't comment on how others judge "your reasoning", but yes, it's true, I find you to be generally moronic in most instances. So you need no longer be amazed when I have great difficult with your reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the bolded what is considered a personal attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you were wondering aloud why I have "great difficulty with your reasoning". It's not that I don't understand it, or that I have difficulty with it; it's just that I think it's mostly mindless. So you no longer need to assume I don't understand you: we're speaking the same language, and I think I understand all the words quite fine. I was just being honest in my assessment of you. If that's a personal attack, so be it. I don't see it as such, but whatever, it all seems pretty subjective to me. If the language was a little harsh, I'm sure I could have spent a little more time and crafted some euphemism for 'moronic' but I guess it's too late now.

Either way, I'm just some random internet guy to you, and vice versa -- we don't know each other, I haven't really given all that much time dissecting your views, and I'm sure you think I'm as dumb as I think you are; so I wouldn't really worrying too much about it. If you're wasting your time praying for anonymous internet posters to be nicer to you, maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard for a while.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for others, so I won't comment on how others judge "your reasoning", but yes, it's true, I find you to be generally moronic in most instances. So you need no longer be amazed when I have great difficult with your reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the bolded what is considered a personal attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you were wondering aloud why I have "great difficulty with your reasoning". It's not that I don't understand it, or that I have difficulty with it; it's just that I think it's mostly mindless. So you no longer need to assume I don't understand you: we're speaking the same language, and I think I understand all the words quite fine. I was just being honest in my assessment of you. If that's a personal attack, so be it. I don't see it as such, but whatever, it all seems pretty subjective to me. If the language was a little harsh, I'm sure I could have spent a little more time and crafted some euphemism for 'moronic' but I guess it's too late now.

Either way, I'm just some random internet guy to you, and vice versa -- we don't know each other, I haven't really given all that much time dissecting your views, and I'm sure you think I'm as dumb as I think you are; so I wouldn't really worrying too much about it. If you're wasting your time praying for anonymous internet posters to be nicer to you, maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm definitely not praying for anonymous internet posters to be nicer to me.

I'm praying for YOU, because you appear to me to be consistently cynical, aggressive, vindictive, combative, distortive, and to be walking around with an ideological chip on one shoulder and a personal chip on the other shoulder.

If that's the way you want to go through life, it's your choice, but it's my choice to pray for people I think could use a little help. God doesn't seem to answer my own personal prayers when I pray for myself but He does sometimes seem to answer when I pray for others. Funny how that works I guess. So like it or not, you get some freebie prayers [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Go in peace now and be well and God bless.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Brownback changed his vote on cloture within an 11 minute span.
First voting to end cloture he changed his mind when it became clear that cloture would be defeated. Being on the wrong side of the cloture vote would have hurt his presidential ambitions. I expect these types of weasel moves from the Dems but it is very disappointing to see a Repub do this. As much as I hate Lyndsey Gramm...at least he had the courage to vote as he talked....

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Brownback changed his vote on cloture within an 11 minute span.
First voting to end cloture he changed his mind when it became clear that cloture would be defeated. Being on the wrong side of the cloture vote would have hurt his presidential ambitions. I expect these types of weasel moves from the Dems but it is very disappointing to see a Repub do this. As much as I hate Lyndsey Gramm...at least he had the courage to vote as he talked....

[/ QUOTE ]

No shortage of weasels in DC.

I don't know if I'm being represented anywhere.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself a little real world color. Find out how browm illegal aliens are treated after a DUI arrest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Illegal immigrants compose 4% of our prison population but 3% of our overall population. Link