Next up: Immigration reform (one more time)

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

And the WEASEL runs away…

You are only getting one Warning, but your repeated hurling of the word “weasel” (capitalized and all) in multiple posts is way out of line.

You are Warned to dial it back a lot.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@Eva_Luna

Just so it’s clear, I am by no means leaving the thread; I am simply not bothering with one poster, except to debunk factual inaccuracies. So everyone else, feel free to post away.

You also need to dial it back.

Stick to the discussion and leave the anger for the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[E-Sabbath]

I kind of like Chen’s idea. Let’s get rid of Birthright Citizenship. No people here shall have citizenship by birth. So… the only people who are citizens are those who went through the green card process!

Or is that not what he meant? Would there be some kind of test when you’re 18?
Maybe we could do it by blood group?

[Eva_Luna]

@tomndebb

Stick to the discussion and leave the anger for the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

I have already said I will not engage further in this thread with the source of my ire. I am a woman of my word.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

You are only getting one Warning, but your repeated hurling of the word “weasel” (capitalized and all) in multiple posts is way out of line.

You are Warned to dial it back a lot.

[ /Moderating ]

Have you guys lost your friggin minds? I use a phrase in Post 15, just to add emphasis—not addressed to anyone—and well within forum rules. EvaLuna then comes and uses that very language to address me personally. I do the same to her and Marley admonishes ME and not her!?!?!?

SHE then accuses ME of weaseling. I respond pointing out that she is the one doing the weaseling, and call her (get ready for it…) a WEASEL. :eek: Then YOU come and warn ME!!! Citing capitalization no less. :rolleyes:

WHAT THE FUCK? Do you not see a little problem with unfairness, here?

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

I mean give people that are here legally and causing no one harm time to get their affairs in order and move out.

But, why do you want to deport them at all?

[BrainGlutton]

@Chen019

Yes, and in the long run the GOP will be obsolete according to Steve Sailer:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090920_2050.htm

There is something to the idea that Republican obstructionism is rooted in “demographic panic.”

:dubious: Nevertheless, you do your case no good, ever, by citing from VDARE. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

VDARE
Peter Brimelow
Leadership:
Peter Brimelow
Peter Brimelow
Ideology:
White Nationalist

Originally established in 1999 by the Center for American Unity, a Virginia-based nonprofit foundation started by English immigrant Peter Brimelow, VDARE.com is an anti-immigration hate website “dedicated to preserving our historical unity as Americans into the 21st Century.” Now run by the VDARE Foundation, the site is a place where relatively intellectually inclined leaders of the anti-immigrant movement share their opinions. VDARE.com also regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites.

**In Its Own Words **
“America was defined — almost explicitly, sometimes very explicitly — as a white nation, for white people, and what that means is that there is virtually no figure, no law, no policy, no event in the history of the old, white America that can survive the transition to the new and non-white version. Whether we will want to call the new updated version ‘America’ at all is another question entirely.”
— Sam Francis, VDARE.com, July 21, 2003

“Jewish activity collectively, throughout history, is best understood as an elaborate and highly successful group competitive strategy directed against neighboring peoples and host societies. The objective has been control of economic resources and political power. One example: overwhelming Jewish support for non-traditional immigration, which has the effect of weakening America’s historic white majority.”
— Kevin MacDonald, VDARE.com, Nov. 14, 2006

“What race realists find most infuriating about the liberalism of the last half century is not just that it has lost its instinctive appreciation for the culture and people of the West but actively, viciously attacks them. Whites are doing something no other people have ever done in human history. Our rulers and elites welcome replacement by aliens, they vilify our ancestors and their own, they sacrifice our interests to those of favored minorities, and they treat the entire history of the West as if it were a global plague of rapine and exploitation. This is a disease that is killing us, and we must fight it head on.”
— Jared Taylor, VDARE.com, July 4, 2008

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

But, why do you want to deport them at all?

So they can get back on line legally, behind those who have chosen to not break our immigration laws and have been waiting—with amazing patience—to come here.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

So they can get back on line legally, behind those who have chosen to not break our immigration laws and have been waiting—with amazing patience—to come here.

But, you were speaking of those who are here legally.

And “no one who is here after a certain date,” without qualification as to legality of entry, seems to mean that after a certain date, all non-naturalized immigrants present in the U.S. will be deemed illegal, and marked for deportation. That’s more draconian than any idea I’ve yet heard seriously proposed on the subject.

[Chen019]

**Brain Glutton **wrote

There is something to the idea that Republican obstructionism is rooted in “demographic panic.”

Nevertheless, you do your case no good, ever, by citing from VDARE. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The problem is that Republicans have been as bad as Democrats, if for more short-sighted & greedy reasons (cheap labour).

In terms of SPLC, I think that their approach of playing the man and not the ball is interesting and effective. It’s also known as ad hominem attack.

Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors

This report examines the efforts by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to smear the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and, by extension, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA.

With no serious analysis, the SPLC in late 2007 unilaterally labeled FAIR a “hate group.” That poisonous designation became the centerpiece of a “Stop the Hate” campaign launched by the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), also known as La Raza, to call on Congress and the media to exclude FAIR from the national debate on immigration.

The campaign gathered strength as newspapers across the country reported that FAIR had been “designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” While the news stories generally included FAIR’s denial of the charge, thereby providing a semblance of balance, the designation’s taint lingered. The SPLC, presenting itself as a non-partisan, public-interest watchdog, never acknowledged — and no reporter ever disclosed — that the center was an active ally of the NCLR in the campaign.

The evidence presented here demonstrates that the SPLC became a propaganda arm of the NCLR. The SPLC’s decision to smear FAIR was the work of a kangaroo court, one convened to reach a pre-determined verdict by inventing or distorting evidence. The “Stop the Hate” campaign would more accurately be labeled as a campaign to “Stop the Debate.”

As this report notes, FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA have raised questions about the social, economic, and fiscal costs of the “comprehensive immigration reform” sought by La Raza and such allies as the National Immigration Forum and America’s Voice. Rather than engage in a debate, La Raza and its allies have waged a campaign to have the other side shunned by the press, civil society, and elected officials. It is an effort to destroy the reputations of its targets. It also seeks to intimidate and coerce others into silence. It undermines basic principles of civil society and democratic discussion.

Immigration and the SPLC

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: Nevertheless, you do your case no good, ever, by citing from VDARE. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Oh, please. You quote the SPLC to define VDARE. How about you quote moveon.org to define Fox News, or ask Cindy Sheehan to encapsulate the presidency of GWB? Or ask Sean Hannity to critique that of Barack Obama? Come on, now.

@SPLC via BrainGlutton

… VDARE.com is an anti-immigration hate website …

Uh, I’m pretty sure that Brimelow is an immigrant. Are you suggesting he hates himself? VDARE is not anti-immigration, it is anti ILLEGAL immigration. And anti unfettered immigration.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

But, you were speaking of those who are here legally.

And “no one who is here after a certain date,” without qualification as to legality of entry, seems to mean that after a certain date, all non-naturalized immigrants present in the U.S. will be deemed illegal, and marked for deportation. That’s more draconian than any idea I’ve yet heard seriously proposed on the subject.

No. I have no desire to remove anyone who is here legally. Zero. I was talking about those that are here illegally.

[Chen019]

No. I have no desire to remove anyone who is here legally. Zero. I was talking about those that are here illegally.

Spain’s approach of paying unemployed legal migrants to leave isn’t a bad idea. In the long run it could have considerable cost savings.

[BrainGlutton]

@Chen019

The problem is that Republicans have been as bad as Democrats, if for more short-sighted & greedy reasons (cheap labour).

In terms of SPLC, I think that their approach of playing the man and not the ball is interesting and effective. It’s also known as ad hominem attack.

Immigration and the SPLC

Ad hominem is not always a fallacy. Quite often, the most important piece of information in a message is the name of the messenger. (My thread is my cite.) And I don’t see you denying that VDARE is a white-racialist organization. I hope you will agree that alone would, if true, make suspect anything it might have to say about immigration policy or politics.

And, now that you’ve told us what the Center for Immigration Studies has to say about the SPLC, here’s what SPLC has to say about CIS:

Fudging Facts: A Look at CIS’ Studies

Although the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) bills itself as an “independent” think tank that seeks "to expand the base of public knowledge"about immigration, the Washington, D.C.-based group is only interested in one thing. CIS’s reams of reports, as well as its blog postings, editorials, and frequent panels and press conferences, incessantly push the idea that America’s immigration system is an unadulterated evil and that the only way to save America from impending doom is to cut drastically the number of immigrants. CIS has blamed immigrants, both legal and undocumented, for everything from terrorism to global warming. To make its case seem as strong as possible, CIS often manipulates data, relying on shaky statistics or faulty logic to come to the preordained conclusion that immigration is bad for this country. But CIS studies have been regularly debunked by mainstream academics and think tanks including the Immigration Policy Center, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and America’s Voice. Here are some examples:

“Hello, I Love You, Won’t You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon” (November 2008). This report alleges widespread fraud among marriages between American citizens and foreigners, but then goes on to admit that “there is no way of knowing” just how prevalent marriage fraud is because there is no systematic data. CIS even concedes that most marriages “between Americans and foreign nationals are legitimate.” Then, based on this non-data, CIS gets to what seems to be the real point of its study — “if small-time con artists and Third-World gold-diggers can obtain green cards with so little resistance, then surely terrorists can.” Fraudulent marriage applications, CIS concludes, are “prevalent among international terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda.”

“Homeward Bound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population” (July 2008). Widely cited by the mainstream press, this report argues that the migration decisions of undocumented workers are based more on the level of immigration enforcement than the lure of jobs. In other words, as CIS argues, the Bush Administration’s stepped-up enforcement efforts in 2007 were working, leading to an exodus of undocumented workers. But experts said the decreases in the undocumented population that the report claims to have documented were not mainly the result of enforcement efforts. Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California-San Diego, said that “undocumented migration clearly responds to changing U.S. economic conditions” more than anything else. The report also suggests, without any supporting evidence, that undocumented workers may have decided to stay here longer than they would have otherwise because of the 2007 immigration debate.

“Back Where We Started: 
An Examination of Trends in Immigrant 
Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform” (March 2003). This report argues that after declining in the 1990s, immigrants have made up “a growing share of all households using the welfare system” — in other words, they have been sapping public benefits. But the month after it was released, the study was thoroughly debunked by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which said CIS had manipulated data. First of all, CIS included as immigrant households even those headed by naturalized citizens and it also attributed “benefit use to an immigrant household in cases where the only members of the household receiving benefits are U.S. citizens.” CBPP pointed out that the CIS study itself found that use of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income and food stamps by these households had declined substantially between 1996 and 2001, but “because it finds that the share of such households with at least one member who receives Medicaid rose modestly,” it concludes “that the share of immigrant households using ‘at least one major welfare program’ has not declined since 1996.” The CIS report “fails to mention that the modest increase in Medicaid participation by so-called ‘immigrant’ households is due entirely to an increase in Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) use by U.S. citizens who live in households headed by foreign-born individuals.” “CIS inexcusably fails to disclose,” says CBPP, that “among both noncitizen adults and noncitizen children, Medicaid participation declined between 1996 and 2001.” Even worse, the CBPP report, “using the same database as CIS,” found that “the percentage of legal noncitizens participating in each of the major means-tested federal programs … declined significantly since 1996.”

[CBEscapee]

@BrainGlutton

No, they wouldn’t. What are you talking about?

He doesn’t have a clue. There are a large number of Americans living here legally. The government grants them many concessions.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

I’m talking about people who are here now illegally.

@magellan01

I mean give people that are here legally and causing no one harm time to get their affairs in order and move out. Give them, say, until May 1, 2011. If we catch you here after that, for any reason and through any means, you are banned from ever becoming a citizen or getting a green card. Fell free to move the date and play with the timeline. Maybe “never” becomes 15 years, etc.

Perhaps that was a typo and you meant "illegally. But this:

@magellan01

One other thing we should do is pass a law that no one who is here after a certain date, or can shown to have been here illegally, can ever become a citizen or get a green card.

is harder to explain away.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Uh, I’m pretty sure that Brimelow is an immigrant. Are you suggesting he hates himself?

I saw a cartoon once titled “A Short History of Immigration”:

PANEL 1:
Guy1: “What a beautiful spot!”
Guy2: “Hey! I was here first!”

PANEL 2:
They fight.

PANEL 3:
Guy2: “Puff-puff. All right! You can stay!”

PANEL 4:
Guy3: “What a beautiful spot!”
Guy1 & Guy2: “Hey! We were here first!”

@magellan01

VDARE is not anti-immigration, it is anti ILLEGAL immigration. And anti unfettered immigration.

VDARE is anti-non-white immigration and you know it.

[joebuck20]

Immigration reform is needed, but right now is absolutely the wrong time to tackle this. After the bruising fight for HCR and with an unemployment rate that continues to hover around 10 percent I doubt it will get much support from anyone, including Latinos.
If Katrina was the beginning of the end for Bush, then immigration reform was the deathblow. That was really the first issue on which members of his own party were willing to break ranks with him. And if conservatives made a big stink when GWB tried to push through immigration reform, you can only imagine how they’ll react when Obama tries it. It’ll make HCR look like a cakewalk.
What I imagine will happen is Obama will half-heartedly put some immigration plan forward, just so he can say he tried to do something, but then let it quietly die at the first sign of opposition. He might even be able to score a few points with Latinos and bring a few more over to the Democratic side by claiming it was the Republicans who stalled this effort.
But the guy is not dumb. He already blew an enormous amount of political capital trying to get HCR passed. With the November elections coming up he’s not going to want to get into a big fight over an issue that isn’t very popular at the moment, and that frankly he never said much about during his campaign.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Oh, please. You quote the SPLC to define VDARE. How about you quote moveon.org to define Fox News, or ask Cindy Sheehan to encapsulate the presidency of GWB? Or ask Sean Hannity to critique that of Barack Obama? Come on, now.

So, it seems that you are forgetting that VDARE still publishes unfounded prejudiced material? And that was not just coming from the SPLC, as it was shown before.

But just sticking to the article at hand, one of its points is that minority lending was the reason for the economic meltdown, I guess since the predatory lenders were usually not minorities that would not make for a good VDARE article.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/

Just for that one could dismiss the VDARE article.

But what made me say “what the heck?” was noticing that the writer moves from talking about illegal immigration to minority lending, the writer and the site makes the inference that most of the minorities getting those loans were also illegals.

IMHO the writers at VDARE have a fear of diversity and see the need to demonize it by claiming illegals were a big factor. Well, that still ignores the predatory lenders. The article, and most of the ones it links, disparages diversity by putting a lot of the blame of the meltdown on them illegals. Not a very effective way to hide the prejudice.

[GIGObuster]

@joebuck20

What I imagine will happen is Obama will half-heartedly put some immigration plan forward, just so he can say he tried to do something, but then let it quietly die at the first sign of opposition. He might even be able to score a few points with Latinos and bring a few more over to the Democratic side by claiming it was the Republicans who stalled this effort.

I did remark before that this is the most likely thing that we will see, and I’m a Latino. Reminding Latinos about what is the party that is most opposed to reform would be really good until the economy improves, However, IMO there is a lot of room to improve the situation of many illegals.