This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 2, 2006 6:50 AM. The previous post in this blog was Words of wisdom. The next post in this blog is Minor detail. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, October 2, 2006


Comments (22)

Who moved the NOLA levy?

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Only now, they're yearning to breathe free because we're water-boarding them.

Excuse me friends, but isn't the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island a symbol of "legal" immigration?

There's only two reasons for this depiction and position. IMO

Either one can't tell the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration or,

One wants to paint those opposed to illegal immigration as also being opposed to legal immigration.

At the core of this debate is the question whether millions if "illegal" immigrants is a problem.

This election cycle has it pretty clear that Republicans think it is and Democrats do not.

So there you go.

If you think illegal immigration is no problem vote Democrat.

However, it should be instructional to all voters that Democrats increasingly rely upon making the false pretense that there is no difference between legal and illegal immigration.

Voters should also note that while Democrats continue to demagogue the issue they avoid efforts to change our immigration laws to fit their rhetoric.

With our immigration laws and quotas being overrun with illegal immigration what good are they and who needs Ellis Island?

The photo has the impact of a political cartoon without a caption, and is thus a little incomplete.

I understand that the Liberty statue is a symbol of how America is an immigration magnet... and, that the fence represents a sort of ironic and hypocritical right-wing conceit. It is a fence, isn't it? It does sort of have the look of a metallic, perhaps iron, curtain, I suppose.

Anyway, a more salient message would emerge from the photo if a Walmart, Target and WinCo could be located just outside the fence.

I keep asking myself this: If the country and it's government are run by a Power Elite, how do the rulers benefit from tens of millions of illegal aliens dwelling in a squatters' limbo?

The squatters consume while here! And, the economic health of the oligarchy rests precariously on a grand bubble of ever-expanding U.S. consumption.

Actually the wall is there to protect against rising sea levels due to global warming

caused by Wal-Mart.

Steve, see how you worded that on illegal immigration as a problem: "This election cycle has it pretty clear that Republicans think it is and Democrats do not."
Why isn't it more clear? Why aren't you talking about that big Immigration Bill this Republican Congress passed? Because they're divided on this. Big Business owns them and Big Business wants the cheap labor.
At least you didn't say vote Republican because they believe in small government.
What happened to that old standard about how reckless Democrats are with spending? You could say, "This election cycle has it pretty clear Republicans are against big spending although you could never tell watching us."
Let's face it: "Pretty clear" is "unclear".
I'd vote to return some checks and balances to our 3-branch system, if we still have a 3-branch system.


Good point about the conflation of legal vs. illegal immigration. It is very true that those who are opposed to illegal immigration are not necessarily against all immigration.

However, when you say:

If you think illegal immigration is no problem vote Democrat.

You are also dramatically oversimplifying the issue.

I happen to be a Republican "sympathizer" (having recently left the party to become an independant) but I see demagoguery on both sides of the aisle. And sadly, too many in the Republican leadership don't really think illegal immigration is much of a problem, either. Oh, they decry the social problems that it brings, but they rejoice in the economic benefits that come with it (to business and consumers, that is, not workers). GWB pushes for amnesty and a guest worker program, but Democrats are the ones who don't take the issue seriously? Where is the hue and cry from the Republicans over punishing the employers of illegal aliens? Certainly there are some in the party who talk about it, but it ain't the party leadership.

It's a complicated problem. The solution won't be as simple as building a fence/wall. Or voting Republican.

Steve, what about the 8th district of Arizona - a border district - where the "tough on immigration" republican candidate won the primary yet now, basically, the national party is conceding the district to the democrats because the "tough on immigration" position isn't a winning message in that district?

Yet, this "cartoon" is wrong. There have always been limits to immigration. The question is what those limits should be - who gets in and who doesn't. Because thousands of people are not respecting those limits in legal form, the Congress has decided to erect a physical barrier along the border. That is our right as a nation. It doesn't mean we don't want immigrants. It just means we want to decide who they will be - which is also our right as a nation.

FYI, the prices of health care and legal advice are so high because there are tons more immigration restrictions on who can practice such things, creating an imbalance in demand/supply. If we're going to let everybody in, the least we could do is let in more doctors and lawyers to bring some good old fashioned supply/demand rebalance to those professions.

Darn, I thought that it is a depiction of tha Army Corp of Engineers design for a levee to protect New York against Atlantic Hurricanes.

Your dichotomy is so simplistic as to be meaningless. We know, of course, that all Republicans are against illegal immigrants and the labor they provide. Of course, they're not above enjoying the fruits of their labor (see, e.g., Walmart).

Pacific Northwest farmers are already complaining about the shortage of immigrant labor for the harvest season. Obviously, if American farmers cannot compete due to the shortage of low cost labor, more and more of our food supply will come from overseas. We are just as dependant on illegal immigrant labor to deliver a safe and affordable food supply as we are on foreign oil for cheap gasoline. If we build a big fence to keep illegal people out, then we had better compensate with an efficient and low-cost way to allow them to come here to work legally. From the sounds of things, the people calling the shots on this in Washington D.C. are all hopped up about spending valuable resources on fences rather than looking at a long term solution to the chronic shortage of labor for the agricultural industry.

Kevin -

If the business I run depended on an illegal workforce to be profitable, why should I deserve any sympathy from the government? Just because it's agriculture shouldn't give it any special consideration over any other type of business (including condo development). If there's enough of a demand, the price will be met, barring any artificial restrictions.

A "labor shortage" really means the wages aren't high enough. If the wages rise, the price rises. If the price rises too much, demand will fall (just like what happened with gas recently). If Americans aren't willing to pay for the "true" cost of legally-produced food, then it shouldn't be grown here.

But I doubt that means we will starve anytime soon. We export $40 billion worth of food - that means we grow more than enough to feed Americans. Farmers get their way with price supports, subsidies, cheap grazing, cheap water, cheap power, tons of pollution, an illegal work force and they STILL can't turn a profit. We're all subjected to sob stories about their "way of life" disappearing (as we were about the horse-and-buggy industry).

There's no sensible economic reason for America to grow so much food other than supporting welfare for domestic farmers at the expense of farmers around the world. Other farmers around the world deserve that business just as much as ours do. We won't starve - we're up to our ears in domestically produced food.

I have no sympathy for anyone who can't run their business without massive government subsidies. Farmers have gotten a great deal for 100 years and they still won't stop bitching.

I would also say that immigration has been a great cause of Californians moving up here to Oregon, which Jack is obviously not a fan of. So Jack, I take it that immigration from other countries to the US is OK, but immigration from other states to Oregon is not?

Yes my "dichotomy is simplistic" but hardly meaningless.

Democrat politicians by in large are indeed enablers of illegal immigration.
Good God what could be more clear here in Oregon?

No every Republican does not share the oppostie position.

But Republicans are far more ready to enforce immigration laws and do far more than Democrats such as those running Oregon.

This is a simple issue, similar to crime.

Democrats are opposed to enforcement of immigration laws just as they are opposed to mandatory minimum sentencing.

Not everyone.
No one needs reminding that their are exceptions.

IMO it seems Democrats attempt to over complicate issues in order to cloud their positions which the majority public does not support.

Jud: how is Wal-Mart enjoying the fruits of illegal immigration?

The only Wal-Mart connection to undocumented workers was a sub-contractor that was cleaning some of their stores at night (roughly 300 illegal aliens IN 60 STORES). Compare that to more than 1.1 million employees just in the U.S.

Wal-Mart's inclusionary hiring practices (the elderly, the disabled, the mentally challenged) provides a sufficent pool of labor that they don't need to hire undocumented workers. If the question is "why were so many illegal aliens willing to work nights, cleaning Wal-Marts?" the answer should include some discussion of whether many Americans were clamoring for these jobs.

I believe the answer was (previously) no.

Steve -

Would you also say Jack is an "enabler of illegal immigration" for his posting of the photoshop picture? ;) I look forward to your answer.

I find the "liberty" fence hillarious. It looks kinda cheap and rickety like something Haliburton might build under a no-bid contract. In reality the half assed nature of this approach to the problem is rickety logic in action and makes us look rather foolish. Are we fencing them in or out?
We have immigration regulations which allow for issuance of work visas to those willing to perform jobs not sought after by citizens. How difficult is it to request a list from all employers of those non-citizens employed to work such jobs? Issue blanket work visas for employees by employer list. For the rest who overstay their visas or have none, send them home on those weird little buses we already use for that purpose. For an excellent example of firm, but fair, application of immigration controls, see Australia's system. We needn't re-invent this wheel.

My grandfather was Ladislav of Czechoslovakia. His son emigrated through Ellis Island (ok, Battery Park, since Ellis moved it off island by the early 1950s). His son came here the honest way. And he learned the language (he knew 4 different ones). And he got educated (PhD from Ohio State). And he became a citizen (you know, passport, able to vote, etc).

I love immigrants. Immigrants are what built this country.


Many of our farmers are struggling because they have difficulty competing against foreign farmers who grow crops with subsidies and protective tariffs from their own governments. As an example, if our farmers stop growing apples because they can't compete, then we will rely on the Chinese or Chileans for our apples. We will then be at their beck and call if we want apples. Obviously this whole thing is bigger than just apples, because our way of life isn't going to suffer if apples cost $15.00 lb. If we don't have ready cheap labor to plant, raise and harvest our food supply, the above example becomes magnified across the board to other foods. The "illegals" who provide this service are already an integral part of our economy and the economy of Mexico. I think it's time we recognize it as a fact of life and start treating these people like our friends rather than criminals because we rely on them. Making it easy for them to come here to work legally makes more sense than building fences. I don't think my position on this has anything to do a misguided romantic impulse to protect the family farm.

Rex asked,
"""Steve -Would you also say Jack is an "enabler of illegal immigration" for his posting of the photoshop picture? ;) I look forward to your answer."""

Why would I say that?
Last I heard Jack is not a Democrat elected official, Democrat policy maker, Democrat agency head or Democrat bureaucrat handing out driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
And his posting has nothing to do with enabling illegal immigration.

Once again you are NOT copying what I said.

For the third time, can you understand that I am not talking about all Democrats. That would be asinine to do so, in any context, about nearly any group.
Why don't you quit responding to things you fabricate that I said?

To speculate, I don't know if Jack would continue the status quo policies our Democrat led agencies currently follow or not.
Handing out fake ID to illegal, prohibiting public agencies, including law enforcement, from checking legal status when red flags abound and assigning agency staff to knowingly assist illegal immigrants with a myriad of social services and resources is aiding and abetting crime.

The issue of illegal immigration, (ILLEGAL, not grandpa coming through Ellis Island) is crystal clear in this Democrat run State.
If you don't think 100s of thousands more illegal immigrants in Oregon would be a problem vote to retain the Democrat governor control of the state's agencies. They'll welcome them all with everything government has to offer.
Including turning a blind eye to their illegal entrance.

Besides, Jack is a swell guy and the host.

You want me banned?

Put on your happy shoes.

I guess the lack of caption makes the picture kind of a Rorhschach test. I looked at it and immediately saw a seawall (presumably with some variation of the Thames Barrier off-camera) keeping a globally-warmed Atlantic at bay from a historical monument.

Go figure.

Steve -- The grammatically correct adjective is "Democratic."

"""Steve -- The grammatically correct adjective is "Democratic.""""

I'm sorry
But I'll have you know I was going to use Dumbass but thought that might get be booted. So I didn't.


Clicky Web Analytics