# Immigration: How was Reagan able to sell his amnesty plan, when Bush can't sell his? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2007, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628 "2007-06-11T22:23:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/21 "2007-06-16T01:04:24Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] No, a news article stating that an Administration lackey tasked with selling the amnesty claimed there was no link, but that border patrol agents (who actually, like, you know work on the border) thought there was a link, and so did the illegals themselves. But sure, let’s take the word of a GWB flunky over that. Your adjectives are just adjectives and not worth addressing. [/QUOTE] They adjectives are true however. A union representative pales in comparison to the head duck IMO. “Amnesty” is now and not 2004 (the articles date) anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/22 "2007-06-16T01:11:58Z")
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull] They adjectives are true however. A union representative pales in comparison to the head duck IMO. “Amnesty” is now and not 2004 (the articles date) anyway. [/QUOTE] I strongly suspect that your definitions of “xenophobic” and “bigoted” are “anyone who opposes illegal immigration,” so it’s not worth arguing the point. On your definitions, yes, anti-illegal immigration people are necessarily xenophobes and bigots and let’s just go the full nine, Nazis. So noted – but only on your highly-personalized definition of said adjectives. For the proposition that border patrol agents know more about what is happening than politically-motivated Administration spokesmen, on the very fact specific issue of whether border agents are seeing more illegals coming in, and more of them citing a possible amnesty as their motive, following Bush’s initial announcement of his plan, I don’t think I need a cite beyond cf. common sense. And the whole point is that, yes, the plan which was announced in 2004 is the genesis of the bill currently up for consideration, so the issues are indeed the same. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/23 "2007-06-16T02:57:50Z")
“SignonSanDiego” is a xenophobic and bigoted organisation? Hehe. Hehehe. No, really. It’s a “chamber of commerce” type site, I think. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/24 "2007-06-16T03:08:23Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] “SignonSanDiego” is a xenophobic and bigoted organisation? Hehe. Hehehe. [/QUOTE] The adjectives were, I believe, directed at the the two other citations provided. Vdare is notoriously racist. Fairus is arguably xenophobic. (I say arguably because they have attempted to distance themselves from their clearly racist (and now departed) founder and often the determination of whether they are xenophobic is in the eye of the beholder.) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/25 "2007-06-16T03:35:28Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] The adjectives were, I believe, directed at the the two other citations provided. Vdare is notoriously racist. Fairus is arguably xenophobic. (I say arguably because they have attempted to distance themselves from their clearly racist (and now departed) founder and often the determination of whether they are xenophobic is in the eye of the beholder.) [/QUOTE] Ah. Sorry. I thought the adjectives were being applied to _all_ of the cites. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/26 "2007-06-16T04:29:21Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] The adjectives were, I believe, directed at the the two other citations provided. Vdare is notoriously racist. Fairus is arguably xenophobic. (I say arguably because they have attempted to distance themselves from their clearly racist (and now departed) founder and often the determination of whether they are xenophobic is in the eye of the beholder.) [/QUOTE] While we seen that there are some people and and articles on VDare that one could rightly categorize as racist, not everything/everyone is. The broad brush you, and others use, in an attempt to quash all information from the website is jsut as wide as that criticized by you and others when talking about other issues. Guess when it works in your favor it’s just dandy. And regarding FairUS, if having a stance against people who sneak into the country = xenophobic, they sure are. As are a good portion of congress and many, many people who are legal immigrants. Tsk, tsk. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/27 "2007-06-16T04:36:20Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > “Amnesty” is now and not 2004 (the articles date) anyway. I live in San Diego. I commute 45 miles round trip to work every work day. I listen to the traffic reports on the radio. Those traffic reports include a report from the border crossing stations (the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa stations), as the traffic from there flows up the I5 and I805, heavily impacting the commuters using those highways. I recall that the last time President Bush talked about a “workers permit” type visa (coincidentally, in 2004, when those articles are from), the “wait time” at the stations went from an average of 45 minutes (at the time in the morning that I am listening to the radio), to 75 minutes literally over the span of a single weekend. No other factor seemed to be immediately apparent, for example a crop failure in Mexico forcing a wave of folks north. This observation is roughly the same as the border agent cited in the article above. The wait times have dipped somewhat since then, but continue to remain higher than they were in 2003. While these only qualify as anecdotes, they shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand _just because_ they are anectdotes. You may ask what has the traffic at the border stations have to do with illegal border crossings. Well, not every illegal immigrant crosses into the US through the remote locations. Some come through the border stations. (I am not sure if the border agents are supposed to check every vehicle or not…) [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280873,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280873,00.html) Notice at the bottom: > [@](#): > > Smugglers’ have been successful at recruiting U.S. agents in the past. In California, at least nine border agents have been arrested or sentenced in the last 18 months on corruption charges. In Texas, at least 10 agents, including four Border Patrol agents, have been charged or sentenced in border corruption schemes. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/28 "2007-06-16T04:52:27Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] I recall that the last time President Bush talked about a “workers permit” type visa (coincidentally, in 2004, when those articles are from), the “wait time” at the stations went from an average of 45 minutes (at the time in the morning that I am listening to the radio), to 75 minutes literally over the span of a single weekend. No other factor seemed to be immediately apparent, for example a crop failure in Mexico forcing a wave of folks north. This observation is roughly the same as the border agent cited in the article above. [/QUOTE] If I were really xenophobic, I would think Mexican people were stupid, but of course I don’t – they are acting as perfectly economically-rational participants in a market that has provided an incentive to get their feet on U.S. soil, with the deal having been sweetened by the prospect of amnesty. Understandable as economic self-interest – the U.S. has better economic opportunities and a more stable and (comparatively) non-corrupt political and economic climate. But these very benefits are due in no small part to the fact that America has developed (or at least in the past has paid lip service to) a social contract and legal framework wherein flouting the law and social norms is Not Okay. Sure, we can think of plenty of examples when this code was observed only in the breach. But there’s at least a default assumption that rules matter. From what we hear of Mexican politics, law enforcement, etc., there’s not even the pretense of following the rules if you can get around them. Well, it turns out maybe the rule of law matters, and maybe Mexico and other f’d-up places from which people are inclined to emigrate to the U.S. are f’d-up precisely because of the mindset that rules don’t really matter when they’re inconvenient. I have sympathy for people living in poverty in a f’d-up country, but I am not sure the solution is for them to break one more law or outsource their homeland’s pathology (as opposed to working to build an open and prosperous society back home). As has been said, and notwithstanding the fact that many illegal immigrants do work very hard and under poor conditions – one of the traits that you would probably look for in prospective new citizens was someone whose first act on U.S. soil was not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/29 "2007-06-16T08:55:42Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] While we seen that there are some people and and articles on VDare that one could rightly categorize as racist, not everything/everyone is. The broad brush you, and others use, in an attempt to quash all information from the website is jsut as wide as that criticized by you and others when talking about other issues. Guess when it works in your favor it’s just dandy. And regarding FairUS, if having a stance against people who sneak into the country = xenophobic, they sure are. As are a good portion of congress and many, many people who are legal immigrants. Tsk, tsk. [/QUOTE] No. A review of Vdare demonstrates a site that is wholly and unequivocally xenophobic. It reproduces anything that will denigrate any group that is not “white American” in nature, uncritically reproducing any article that meets its agenda. Now, it is true that a few articles actually have some legitimate sources. However, it makes far more sense in those rare cases to look up the primary source from which the information has been taken and cite that than it does to rely on the uncritcal reproduction of bad science, manipulated statistics, xenophobic opinion, and racist drivel that is the bulk of the Vdare material. In your view, that some minute fraction of its material has some basis in fact somehow lets you pretend that the overwhelming majority of its material is legitimate and then whine that it is unfair to dismiss it simply because over 90% of it is trash. I would never dismiss an article simply because it appeared on Vdare–provided I could find a legitimate source for the same material. If the only source is Vdare, then the specific bias of the site calls into question its legitimacy. As to fairus, I noted that the issue was one that was “arguable” without claiming which side of the argument should “win.” (That it was founded by a racist xenophobe is a fact. That he was later pushed out of a position of leadership is also a fact. Whether his removal was the result of a desire to distance the group from his racism or a desire to distance the group from the bad reputation he brings (without necessarily disavowing his beliefs or goals) is arguable. I have not expressed an opinion on that topic.) (And when did you suddenly become enamored of the opinions of congresscritters–unless it is just “dandy” when a few of them happen to agree with your views?) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/30 "2007-06-16T09:48:24Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] No. A review of Vdare demonstrates a site that is wholly and unequivocally xenophobic. It reproduces anything that will denigrate any group that is not “white American” in nature, uncritically reproducing any article that meets its agenda. Now, it is true that a few articles actually have some legitimate sources. However, it makes far more sense in those rare cases to look up the primary source from which the information has been taken and cite that than it does to rely on the uncritcal reproduction of bad science, manipulated statistics, xenophobic opinion, and racist drivel that is the bulk of the Vdare material. [/QUOTE] Well, it appears that you’ve backpedalled from calling Vdare “racist”. That is progrees, good for you for realizing you should move the goalpost. Would it be safe to consider this a retraction of your original charge? Of course, you now use “xenophobic” as the new charge because it has a lower bar and is harder to disprove. Pretty slick. Now as I’ve noted before, if only you would use these considerable talents of yours for good… 😉 [QUOTE=tomndebb] (And when did you suddenly become enamored of the opinions of congresscritters–unless it is just “dandy” when a few of them happen to agree with your views?) [/QUOTE] I am far from enamored with the critters. My point, which you know full well, is that not everyone who believes strongly that we need to control our borders and that those who sneak in should not be rewarded in any way—amnesty or amnesty light included—is not a xenophobe or a racist. I noticed how you were mum on the legal immigrants I mentioned who fall into such a category. And I must ask, do you not see your post that I commented on and your initial post in this thread as a Mod as being at cross purposes. On the one hand you make a gentle attempt keep those-who-cry-racist-or-bigot in line, on the other you adopt the tactics like those employed by **Unregistered Bull** that you profess to want to quell. Sorry, **tom** , I’m gonna have to give you another tsk, tsk. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/31 "2007-06-16T14:06:53Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] I noticed how you were mum on the legal immigrants I mentioned who fall into such a category. [/QUOTE] Legal Hispanic-Americans are IIRC very anti illegal-immigration as they should be – they followed the rules, the others have not. If I were less lazy I’d have excerpted the factual source cites from VDare rather than cite the article itself – I am sufficiently versed in the ways of debate, and SDMB debate, that I’d no more cite a partisan opinion piece (which VDare certainly is – not sure if it is “racist” or “xenophobic” per se, but YMMV) as probative of any disputed fact than I would cite a Bible verse as a deal-clincher in a theological debate 'round here. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/32 "2007-06-16T15:11:32Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Well, it appears that you’ve backpedalled from calling Vdare “racist”. That is progrees, good for you for realizing you should move the goalpost. [/QUOTE] No. VDare is racist. What I described was the _manner_ in which their racism is manifest. Note that “white Americans” includes the element of race within its definition. Now, if you would like to open a thread discussing the lack of racism in VDare, feel free to do so. This is an unnecessary hijack: [ul][li] **Huerta88** cited three links as evidence of a position.[/li][li] **Unregistered Bull** dismissed those citations with the comment.[/li] > [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > Two dubious cites from extremely xenophobic and bigoted organizations. And a news article stating no “amnesty” link. [li] **Huerta88** expressed surpise that one of the sites was being identified as racist. ( **Huerta88** still has the opportunity to defend the citations with supporting information.)[/li][li]I pointed out that three links were provided and that **Unregistered Bull** had only indicated two as prejudiced, indicating that the third site was probably not included in that charge.[/ul][/li]My only purpose was to avoid further confusion regarding which sites were being challenged on the basis of prejudice so as to avoid a hijack. You have decided to create a hijack, anyway, because you don’t like seeing your favorite sources slighted. Since I did not intend to participate in the exchange between **Huerta88** and **Unregistered Bull** beyond clarifying a single statement by **Unregistered Bull** , I see no reason for this hijack to continue. Take it to another thread. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/33 "2007-06-16T15:26:03Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] Legal Hispanic-Americans are IIRC very anti illegal-immigration as they should be – they followed the rules, the others have not. [/QUOTE] Exactly. As are many legal immigrants with non-Hispanic backgrounds, as well. [QUOTE=Huerta88] If I were less lazy I’d have excerpted the factual source cites from VDare rather than cite the article itself – I am sufficiently versed in the ways of debate, and SDMB debate, that I’d no more cite a partisan opinion piece (which VDare certainly is – not sure if it is “racist” or “xenophobic” per se, but YMMV) as probative of any disputed fact than I would cite a Bible verse as a deal-clincher in a theological debate 'round here. [/QUOTE] Very wise. I have ceased using it as a place for cites because many around here start to whine to the high heavens, and it derails the debate. A little victory for the mob that shouts the loudest around here. Is the VDare site biased? Absolutely. Does it have some extreme views? Yes. But is the site as a whole racist? I’d say not. Xenophobic? Only if being against illegal immigration or wanting people to assimilate into the existing culture is taken to be xenophobic. Which it is not. But something like the Southern Poverty Law Center suffers from similar descriptions of extremism and bias, as well, yet that site is embraced. Such is the tilt of SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/34 "2007-06-16T15:57:57Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] No. VDare is racist. What I described was the _manner_ in which their racism is manifest. Note that “white Americans” includes the element of race within its definition. [/QUOTE] Oh, so that is how you’re using “racist”. My mistake. I didn’t take your statement to imply that VDare can be charaterized as racist merely in the same way that organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are racist. That _is_ what you’re saying now, right? [QUOTE=tomndebb] Now, if you would like to open a thread discussing the lack of racism in VDare, feel free to do so. This is an unnecessary hijack: [ul][li] **Huerta88** cited three links as evidence of a position.[/li][li] **Unregistered Bull** dismissed those citations with the comment.[/li][/QUOTE] It is not a hijack. You commented on a post made by another poster and I commented on the _opinions_ you put forth when doing so. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see your Mod Hat on in Post 24. It seems that you were in fact opining, not merely offering factual clarity to move the debate on. Or are we now to take your opinion as a non-Mod as 100% factual and unassailable? [QUOTE=tomndebb] [li] **Huerta88** expressed surpise that one of the sites was being identified as racist. ( **Huerta88** still has the opportunity to defend the citations with supporting information.)[/li][li]I pointed out that three links were provided and that **Unregistered Bull** had only indicated two as prejudiced, indicating that the third site was probably not included in that charge.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] No, you did more. You offered an opinion as to the veracity of the adjectives offered by **Unregistered Bull**. You made yourself part of the debate. [QUOTE=tomndebb] My only purpose was to avoid further confusion regarding which sites were being challenged on the basis of prejudice so as to avoid a hijack. [/QUOTE] Incorrect. See above. You offered an opinion as to the veracity of someone else’s accusations. You were taking a position in the debate. Are the _opinions_ of the great **tomndebb** (cue angels singing) not to be questioned in debate? [QUOTE=tomndebb] Since I did not intend to participate in the exchange between **Huerta88** and **Unregistered Bull** beyond clarifying a single statement by **Unregistered Bull** , I see no reason for this hijack to continue. Take it to another thread. [/QUOTE] Okay. I’ll take you at your word as far as what your _intent_ was. Perhaps you should have not offered your _opinions_ here then and started another thread yourself decrying VDare and FairUS. You’re asking for a free shot here as a poster. You get to level, or support, accusations of racism and xenophobia and then wave your hand and say “No, I’m not discussing that here. Open another thread.” Sounds a little, what’s the word…unfair? Don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/35 "2007-06-16T16:24:51Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Oh, so that is how you’re using “racist”. My mistake. I didn’t take your statement to imply that VDare can be charaterized as racist merely in the same way that organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are racist. That _is_ what you’re saying now, right? [/quote] Neither the Black Caucus nor the NAACP seek out and publish any and all literature that is intended to denigrate another race or ethnicity. That you would equate organizations who promote a group that has been and continues to be the subject of discrimination without denigrating other groups with an outfit that primarily denigrates any group that is not part of the majority shows the desperation of your argument. [QUOTE=magellan01] No, you did more. You offered an opinion as to the veracity of the adjectives offered by **Unregistered Bull**. You made yourself part of the debate. [/QUOTE] I stated a fact to remove the potential stigma associated with [SignonSanDiego.com](http://SignonSanDiego.com). 😛 [QUOTE=magellan01] Okay. I’ll take you at your word as far as what your _intent_ was. Perhaps you should have not offered your _opinions_ here then and started another thread yourself decrying VDare and FairUS. You’re asking for a free shot here as a poster. You get to level, or support, accusations of racism and xenophobia and then wave your hand and say “No, I’m not discussing that here. Open another thread.” Sounds a little, what’s the word…unfair? Don’t you think? [/QUOTE] I merely identified the two of three sites that had already been identified as prejudiced, thereby releasing the third site from that accusation. I made no wholesale attack upon them. You did not provide any evidence that VDare was not racist, you merely attacked me for having provided the context in which **Unregistered Bull** had made his claim. Your "intent’ does not appear to have had anything to do with providing evidence that **Huerta88** ’s citations were legitimate. You provided no evidence that some independent group has information that confirmed the claim posted on VDare. You simply attacked me. That is a hijack. If the issue is one that you believe is sufficiently important to hijack the thread, then it should be sufficuently important enough to you to have its own thread. If it is not that important, then you are engaging in a pointless hijack. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/36 "2007-06-16T16:34:52Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] “SignonSanDiego” is a xenophobic and bigoted organisation? Hehe. Hehehe. No, really. It’s a “chamber of commerce” type site, I think. [/QUOTE] A simple click would have revealed it to be the online edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune, city’s major daily newspaper. It’s definitely Republican-oriented editorially, as you’d expect anywhere with such a high military concentration, but come on now, people. Oh, yeah, the OP - this bill doesn’t seem to have an overarching goal in mind, a simple, single problem it addresses in a way that appeals to our better nature. Reagan’s bill looked like simple compassion towards families that were being broken up by the big, bad gummint. This doesn’t. And there’s also the inescapable Bush factor by now - if he wants something, there’s a presumption in place now that he has to overcome, and he hasn’t shown he knows how or even recognizes the problem. He’s still thinking in the mode of “\*You \* Congress people go fix this problem \*you \* have. I’ll see you at the signing ceremony.” Doesn’t work that way in the leadership biz, pal. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/37 "2007-06-16T20:43:50Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Neither the Black Caucus nor the NAACP seek out and publish any and all literature that is intended to denigrate another race or ethnicity. [/QUOTE] When I challenged you on your characterization of VDARE as racist—which was not a hijack, by the way—this was your rationale: [QUOTE=tomndebb] What I described was the manner in which their racism is manifest. Note that “white Americans” includes the element of race within its definition. [/QUOTE] So, if an organization is based on the interest of “white Americans”, they are racist. But if a group is concerned with the role of Black America or people of color, they are not racist. Do you see an inconsistency here, at least based on the rationale you gave in defense of your charge of racism that I called you on? [QUOTE=tomndebb] I made no “wholesale” attack upon them. [/QUOTE] I didn’t say you made any wholesale attack. I cited your very words: [QUOTE=tomndebb] Vdare is notoriously racist. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=tomndebb] You did not provide any evidence that VDare was not racist, [/QUOTE] No, you are the one that made the claim, not me. There is no burden upon me. In fact, my original reply to you merely accused you of painting with a broad brush, something that people get called upon around here quite often. So if you don’t think it is not a broad brush transgression, you should have just supported your case, as was incumbent upon you. But you just want to hurl the accusation in support of it beiing a racist organization and have your opinion be taken as a cold hard fact. Don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/38 "2007-06-16T20:49:42Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] When I challenged you on your characterization of VDARE as racist—which was not a hijack, by the way—this was your rationale: So, if an organization is based on the interest of “white Americans”, they are racist. But if a group is concerned with the role of Black America or people of color, they are not racist. Do you see an inconsistency here, at least based on the rationale you gave in defense of your charge of racism that I called you on? I didn’t say you made any wholesale attack. I cited your very words: No, you are the one that made the claim, not me. There is no burden upon me. In fact, my original reply to you merely accused you of painting with a broad brush, something that people get called upon around here quite often. So if you don’t think it is not a broad brush transgression, you should have just supported your case, as was incumbent upon you. But you just want to hurl the accusation in support of it beiing a racist organization and have your opinion be taken as a cold hard fact. Don’t think so. [/QUOTE] I don’t think so too, but you will be right is there was no evidence for that position. [http://www.dfire.org/x2444.xml](http://www.dfire.org/x2444.xml) > [@](#): > > See, Malkin, a conservative columnist, blogger (the most popular conservative blogger, according to Technorati and Truth Laid Bear) and Fox News contributor, has some affiliations of her own, some skeletons in the closet O’Reilly never bothered to mention — skeletons like [VDARE.com](http://VDARE.com). > > Named for Virginia Dare, the first white person born in the New World, the site has been named by the anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. And for good reason: as I noted in a previous column, the site is dedicated to pushing the kind of pseudo-science the Nazis could have only dreamed of using to support their racial fantasies. Forget phrenology: VDARE spends its time flogging books that purport to prove that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 67 — below the accepted standard criteria for a diagnosis of mental retardation. (The Anti-Defamation League notes that the author of the linked review, J. Philippe Rushton, has been less than subtle about his racism. “During [a] 1996 conference… Rushton lectured at length about the sexual differences among various races, arguing that blacks, while possessing smaller brains, reproduce at a faster rate due to the larger size of their sex organs. ‘Not to reinforce stereotypes,’ he has said elsewhere, ‘but it’s a trade-off: more brain or more penis, you can’t have everything.’ … He has also stated that Nazi Germany’s military prowess was due in part to the purity of their gene pool.”) > > Malkin’s ties to the site are legion: it regularly prints her column, while she employs one of its writers, Juan Mann, as the principal writer of her “Immigration Blog” and lists the site on her blogroll. And it’s not as if Malkin isn’t well aware of the criticism, both of the site and her ties to it — in a post on her blog in September 2004, she noted that “my friend Peter Brimelow [the founder of VDARE] observes that some people apparently think linking to VDARE is tantamount to a hate crime.” > > But Malkin isn’t the only prominent person to be writing for VDARE. There’s also Jared Taylor, a self-proclaimed “white nationalist” who edits the American Renaissance journal and is president of the journal’s parent, the New Century Foundation, an organization notable among other reasons for its 1999 report, “The Color of Crime,” which in its conclusion stated, “Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous.” That report was only one of Taylor’s attempts to provide pseudo-scientific justifications for his racism. > > “The New Century Foundation — known primarily by the name of its publication, American Renaissance — promotes ‘genteel’ racism,” the Anti-Defamation League has noted: “pseudoscientific, questionably researched and argued articles that validate the genetic and moral inferiority of nonwhites and the need for racial ‘purity.'” > > In an article on VDARE, preceded by a preface from site founder and friend of Malkin Brimelow, in which Brimelow called Taylor “perhaps the most brilliant and accomplished figure among White Nationalists,” Taylor defended his beliefs by in separate instances calling both African Americans and non-white immigrants inferior to whites, writing: > > “The reason blacks and whites do not enjoy similar outcomes despite similar treatment by society is that the black and white populations are not equivalent. … Our government has permitted a huge influx of non-white immigrants who threaten to reduce whites to a minority by the middle of this century. In their bones, whites know this will not be a good thing. They know that an increasingly Third-World America will slip into Third-World habits of corruption, poverty, and violence.” > > VDARE also publishes writers like the late Sam Francis, a former columnist for the Washington Times, fired for saying at the American Renaissance’s 1994 annual meeting that: “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.” > > According to Brimelow, Francis “played a quiet but effective role in putting together the principals of [VDARE.COM](http://VDARE.COM).” > > When Francis died in 2005, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke eulogized him on his website, saying: > > "I have known Sam Francis for almost two decades. When many political pundits were afraid of associating with the ‘former KKK’er turned elected official’ Sam wasn’t. … I remember well the dinner we had that night in the Orleans restaurant in Arlington when we shared each other’s views of the world and each found a true brother in the Cause. Many times Sam Francis defended me in his newspaper columns and dared to stand up against the anti-White racists and the Jewish supremacists. > > "So the loss of Sam Francis is both a great loss for me personally and a terrible loss for the Movement as a whole. We will all miss his wit, his passion for our principles, his love for our people, and yes, his courage. … > > “The best way we can remember Sam is to rededicate ourselves to the Cause that he lived his life for.” > > And no wonder, given what Francis has written, especially for VDARE. Like a criticism of a Monday Night Football ad showing, in Francis’ words, “blonde white sexpot Nicolette Sheridan of the steamy ‘Desperate Housewives’ series smooching up to black football star Terrell Owens in the locker room of the Philadelphia Eagles.” The ad, Francis said, “was an intentional act of moral subversion. … The point was not just to hurl a pie in the face of morals and good taste but also of white racial and cultural identity. The message of the ad was that white women are eager to have sex with black men, that they should be eager, and that black men should take them up on it. … [T]he ad’s message also was that interracial sex is normal and legitimate, a fairly radical concept for both the dominant media as well as its audience.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/39 "2007-06-16T21:02:22Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I don’t think so too, but you will be right is there was no evidence for that position. [http://www.dfire.org/x2444.xml](http://www.dfire.org/x2444.xml) [/QUOTE] Correction: “but you will be right **if** there was no evidence for that position.” Just by proposing a “white nationalist” angle it is enough for me to put them on the racist column. They are about the worse reference to use against immigration. [http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170001](http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170001) > [@](#): > > In its August 15 “Culture, et cetera” column, The Washington Times excerpted a column by Steve Sailer that originally appeared on the website [VDARE.com](http://VDARE.com), an anti-immigration web site that describes itself as “white nationalist.” > > The excerpt the Times reprinted, taken from Sailer’s August 7 VDARE article, seemed to make the argument that since Charles Darwin’s views on race were typical for the time in which he lived – i.e., he believed that some races were inferior to others – then that must mean that “Darwinian science is on a collision course with progressive egalitarians.” Sailer wrote: “But somebody should ask liberal pundits if they believe in the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. I bet not many would agree. Yet that’s the subtitle to Darwin’s ‘The Origin of Species.’” > > In fact, The Origin of Species does not concern human evolution at all. Though the book’s subtitle is indeed “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” the term “races” in the 19th century also referred to groups of animals. This is plainly how Darwin was using the word, since The Origin of Species contains no discussion of human evolution. > > Though Sailer is wrong on this point, there is no doubt that Darwin’s writings on human evolution contain many assertions of differences between races that strike us today as shockingly racist. But while this may be of interest as history and biography, it says nothing about the validity of evolutionary science, a field of study that, though based in Darwin’s insights, has persisted through a century and a half of elaboration by countless scientists. Those who take issue with the current wave of attacks on evolution do so because of that history of accumulated scientific discovery, not because they believe Darwin himself was a paragon of virtue. > > But the real question is why The Washington Times is excerpting pieces from a website like VDARE. The site is a collection of anti-immigration writings that sometimes cross over into outright racism, as Media Matters for America has noted. Named for Virginia Dare, the first child of English descent born in the New World in the 16th century, the site describes itself as “white nationalist.” The site’s FAQ page contains two links: one to an explanation of its name and one titled “How can I report an illegal alien?” > > A search for the word “white” on VDARE will return articles with headlines such as “Do White Men Need Their Own Political Party?” “White Americans: Second-Class Citizens,” “No Democracy For Whites in the New America,” and “No Equal Protection for Whites?” Peter Brimelow, who operates the site through his nonprofit organization, the Center for American Unity, wrote that “[VDARE.COM](http://VDARE.COM) is obviously not a ‘White Supremacist’ site, if for no other reason than that it publishes non-whites. We do publish writers who could fairly be described as ‘white nationalists,’ in that they explicitly defend the interests of American whites.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2007, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628/40 "2007-06-16T21:02:34Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I don’t think so too, but you will be right is there was no evidence for that position. [/QUOTE] I admit, and have admitted in tha past, that there are indeed articles on VDare that have been fair to characterize as racist, in the worst sense of the word. Some of them written by people who are similalry racist. But that does not mean that everything on the site is racist by default. This is the broad brush argument I mentioned, the one that people are called upon all the time around here. And for the record, just because the SPLC characterizes something or someone as racist, I don’t give that a whole lot of weight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-how-was-reagan-able-to-sell-his-amnesty-plan-when-bush-cant-sell-his/407628.md?page=3)