frankly, i couldn't care less about the whole "immigration debate". in fact, i tend to think of the whole thing as yet another GOP faux-scandal intended to get The Base all hot and bothered.

What does this all mean?

First... let's not call them "minutemen."

They are vigilantes.

Second... here in Arizona they've been shown hoisting a Confederate flag.

Vigilantes + Confederate flag = KKK

They deserve to be chased away with bats and bricks.

Thanks Kevin for recognizing that bunch of neocom wise apples as what they are "The New Republican".

Other possibility: TNR + NRO = TNRO. Might as well as acknowledge that they're different flavors of the same syrup.

Which leads to the search for one nifty phrase to describe that whole school of wise acre pundits: Saletan, Kaus, Weisberg, Sullivan, etc. Magazines: TNR, the Economist, National Review, etc. All so glib, all so certain, all so facile.

Anyone got a good name?

It's the daily "Kevin justifies criminal activity!" post.

When can we expect your series on why stealing isn't so bad?

For that matter, why can't I illegally immigrate to your house and sleep on your couch? I'm just asking for basic human rights. It would be wrong of you to kick me out, if I'm willing to work.

On top of that, your other series of posts wants to give healthcare to the poor at the expense of the working.... so you want lots of illegal immigrants all leaching off hard-working Americans, probably just so the Democrats can get more votes by increasing its "dependency on the state" block.

Typical. This is why the GOP needs to keep the house. Y'all would wreck the budget.

The Republican plan of dividing labor against itself isn't playing as they might have liked. In the end, it's hard-working labor types siding with other hard-working labor types against the "system."

The flag stuff is ridiculous. You ought to see Broolyn streets in Bensonhurst when Italy is in the World Cup -- Italian flags lining the block. Or check out the Israel Day parade, or St. Paddy's day or what all. It's only when our brown-skinned folk wave their homeland flags that anyone gets bothered about it.

Al, honey. STFU

I guess they forgot about Pedro Morales, the Puerto Rican who in the 70s was the first Hispanic heavyweight champion of what wsa then called the WWWF (World Wide Wrestling Federation).

There might be two sides to the African-American issue.

You're going to see an increasing conflict between black leaders who are seriously concerned about the welfare of African-Americans, and those who are more worried about the political consequences.

cleek: Al, honey. STFU

It's good to see you demonstrating the usual liberal contempt for free speech and open debate. Run along. The government probably has a handout for you somewhere.

frankly, i couldn't care less about the whole "immigration debate". in fact, i tend to think of the whole thing as yet another GOP faux-scandal intended to get The Base all hot and bothered.

Precisely.

The wrestling anecdote is great and all, but Rey Mysterio, Jr. was actually born in San Diego and is an American. He also speaks perfect English.

Of course, according to the right-wing, anyone with a Spanish-sounding surname or Hispanic heritage is now an "illegal immigrant."

It's interesting watching the GOP dig their own grave with this racist bullcrap.

I suspect that at least some of the resistance to the vigilantes and the suddenly oh-so-law-abiding crowd (I'm sure they pay their day laborers' Social Security taxes and never ever drive when they've been drinking) is because many of them are archetypal Ugly Americans, and there's a lot of people who don't think too highly of those.

And as to African-Americans in particular, all this talk about "respect for the law" and "burdening our schools and hospitals" has, I'm sure, a very familiar ring, since these are the same coded phrases that long have been used to suppress voting, justify segregation, and so on.

This is jingoism. It won a race for Pete Wilson in California, and in so doing it lost Latinos to California Republicans for a generation. It's a truly desperate measure, and it may not have any but negative consequences for the Republicans this time around. Needless to say, such a self-inflicted disaster couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of assholes, imho.

And BTW, could we please stop talking about Democrats busting the budget? Anyone looked at who's been balancing the budget and who's been busting it over the last, say, 25 years?

Doesn't anyone remember professional wrestling accurately? In the 1980s it was Hulk Hogan who fought the Iron Sheik. In the 1990s, during the first Iraq war, the Iron Sheik mysteriously went from being Iranian to Iraqi and allied with Sargent Slaughter against Hogan.

This is why the GOP needs to keep the house. Y'all would wreck the budget.
Al on May 4, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, I thought the budget was already a wreck.

Al, honey. it's old. old, stale and moldy. predictable, too. and there's nothing worse than a predicatble troll.

Y'all would wreck the budget.

I know - they might run up $2.6 trillion in new debt in 5 years.

Oh, wait - the Republicans actually did that.

That's a million dollars per minute, in case anyone's counting.

Ignorance, Fear, & Economic Uncertainty Appear to Drive Anti-Immigrant Opinion

But perhaps immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe?

Another interesting piece of evidence is provided by the recent Pew Research Poll:
No Consensus on Immigration Problem or Proposed Fixes AMERICA’S IMMIGRATION QUANDARY

One question in particular suggests strongly that those who describe themselves as financially struggling are far more likely to see immigrants in a negative light than those who consider themselves financially secure. Of course, this is not the same as "working class" but is related. Those describing themselves as finanancially struggling were far more likely to describe imigrants both as a burden on society and as a threat to traditional values than those who described themselves as financial secure. Furthermore, those who were not college graduates were far more likely to see imigrants in a negative light than graduates. Both were far better predictors of attitudes than party identification alone.

Perhaps most interesting is that those who had the smallest percentages of immigrants in their community were the most negative, while those who had the highest percentages were far more positive.

These results at least suggest that fear of the unknown is a large driver on immigration opinion as well as economic uncertainty.

The demographics that predicted the most hostility to immigrants: self described as financially struggling, no college education and relatively little exposure to immigrants.

BTW, anybody looking at the polls on this issue?

But perhaps immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe?

Perhaps? Divide and conquer is all too familiar to the working class. And it's getting a bit boring.

Here's Republican "fiscal reponsibility".

Imagine every home in America had a parking meter in the living room. But instead of paying for parking they were feeding the Republican debt. Every hour, 24 hours a day, in every home in the country, someone would need to feed a meter another 50 cents.

Ah, but everyone is forgetting the mysterious General Adnan who only spoke "Iraqi" and worked with the Sheik and Slaughter against Hogan! Never forget Adnan!

And Kevin, I think you should concede you're out of your depth when it comes to WWE. In the late 90s, there were three rival "gang factions" : a white 'biker' gang, a black 'street' gang, and a Puerto Rican gang. Did the crowd instinctively cheer the white gang? No! They didn't cheer anyone, because the whole plotline sucked. It was dropped in short order.

The thing about wrestling is that it's really about the individual's 'character.' Rey Mysterio, Jr. is a good guy and a great wrestler. He's a high-flyer and he's got technical skills. In short, he's fun to watch. When he's beat on and bullied by a clumsy muscled Texan who's the plot-line's bad guy, he's going to get cheered. QED.

BTW, anybody looking at the polls on this issue? tbrosz on May 4, 2006 at 2:25 PM

The polls are all over the map on this subject. Apparently Americans are against illegal immigration, but are also against demonizing folks already in the country. They are sure against turning 12 million people into felons. To quote the headline of the recent Pew Poll
"No Consensus on Immigration Problem or Proposed Fixes AMERICA’S IMMIGRATION QUANDARY." That lack of consensus probably explains why the Republican Party and Lew Dobbs are having such a hard time turning immigration into a wedge issue. It just doesn't have the "O Sh*t" appeal of the Ports deal or the Katrina screwup. It is more akin to Terry Shiavo. The Republicans are simply turning tone deaf. That is what happens when you only listen to a couple of hundred residents of gated communities and Jerry Falwell.

Samuel Knight:

Anyone got a good name?

How's about "Not The Nation"? You could just call all of them NTN. God forbid anyone not hew to the party line. Careful there, buddy boy, you just might hear something that you don't already believe and I wouldn't want your little pin-head to explode.

Al, the little girl's pal:

For that matter, why can't I illegally immigrate to your house and sleep on your couch? I'm just asking for basic human rights. It would be wrong of you to kick me out, if I'm willing to work.

Pederasty is not work.

Minutemen should have sought the leading Afro American intellectual Shelby Steele. He would have been able to convince the target audience that Whites are indeed a superior race and they should tehrefore listen to the Minutemen.

I grew up in Illinois, although not near Peoria.

You need to understand that the stockyards and slaughterhouses moved from Chicago out into the sticks to escape the unions. Places like Peoria got the slaughterhouses and the workers were, for the most part, illegal immigrants.

So "Peoria" ain't "Peoria" anymore. Some rural areas in the midwest will have high concentrations of illegal workers to work either the fields of the slaughterhouses.

Austin MN is another such place. That is where they slaughter hogs and make Spam, among other things.

Catch22 & Ron Byers:

Pretty much been my gut read on it. Illegal immigrant paranoia increases in inverse proportion to the amount of exposure to illegal immigrants.

This clarifies a few things for the Dems. It means the strongest opposition to illegals comes from lilywhite suburban districts that are already heavily Republican.

It also means that the Bubba bracket is vulnerable to demagoguery. Down the education and income scale, you'll find whites in traditionally white areas who are fuming about this issue. This is the wedge turf, but I'm guessing that there are more newly energized Hispanic voters on this issue than there are dirt-poor communities of white people who feel threatened by immigration.

This would also explain why the very wealthy are the least concerned about the issue -- they've traveled, and they employ illegals. They've been exposed, they can isolate themselves, and they certainly feel no economic threat.

It's going to be Bubba vs Paco at the polls this year.

Bob

"But perhaps immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe?"

I think assimilated immigration isn't considered a huge deal by lots of people who are worried about unassimilated immigration.

Sebastian Holsclaw:

This isn't France. There is no "unassimilated immigration" for the large part in America.

By the third generation, everybody speaks English and a goodly chunk vote Republican.

Bob

MDS on May 4, 2006 at 2:19 PM:

Doesn't anyone remember professional wrestling accurately?

Um, No...Should we be?

From my understanding, pro wrestling has been big in Mexico and among the Latin community for some time...Why would the WWE want to piss off a sizeable chunk of its audience?

Kevin Drum wrote:

But perhaps immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe?

Only for members of the racist working class...IMHO, the real fear is that the influx of cheap labor depresses wages for American lower-wage earners...Same basic concern about outsourcing engineering and programming jobs, really.

Anyone who calls Minutemen Vigilantes, including Bush, doesn't know what a Vigilante is. Blacks may just have been slow on the uptake, because some Blacks understand the wage busting by illegals disproportionately affects Blacks. Anyone at this late date who still doesn't get "Illegal" probably thinks a rapist is just an undocumented husband.

grapey:

While racism is a factor, I think it's more a matter of the human heart. Yeah, there are certainly a few literal racists stirring things up, but for the most part the economically insecure whites are more motivated by fear of the unknown, as the above poll seems to indicate.

But a few racists can whisper a lot of nasty shit into the ears of that larger number ...

Bob

Walter E. Wallis:

It's the *employers* who are doing the wage busting -- and the drive to demonize illegals is designed precisely to distract workers from that.

Blame the other worker. For gods sake don't *ever* blame the boss ...

Bob

Walter E. Wallis:

Hey, if the wife's been more than willingly fucking the guy for five years ...

Bob

Are you seriously inferring policy from Pro Wrestling? Are you really this out of touch?

It's the *employers* who are doing the wage busting...

The Minutemen have actually spent a great deal of time and energy photodocumenting contractors and employers who break immigration laws.

Second... here in Arizona they've been shown hoisting a Confederate flag..

Oh, the horror. Did you suffer from a case of the vapors?

Both parties run the risk of misplaying this issue. Democrats run the risk of seeming to want to do nothing to increase border security, while Republicans run the risk of being hostile to the millions of illegals already here. The proper middle ground is combining much, much tighter border control (what we do now is a joke) with setting up a non-punitive system to assimilate the illegals who are already here.

My prediction is we do nothing.

Kevin,

How dare you call Ray Mysterio an illegal migrant?

Racist! You just assumed you could make the link because he's Hispanic.

Cute Rick, but not accurate.

How about Not the American Prospect, not the Washington Monthly, Not Mother Jones, Not the Guardian, or Not the Editorial Page of the WSJ.

No, there are lots of places to get good information: for example the news part of the WSJ. But NRO, and TNR ain't it. And reading Kaus, Sully and the rest isn't either.

And the Iraq War proved wonderfully who could stick to reading the facts and who would swallow the BS. And TNRO really swallowed hard. For example, who really cares what Pollock thinks about Iran after Cole was done with him?

It's going to be Bubba vs Paco at the polls this year.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on May 4, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

And how does comments like this help the left? Heck, I'd say you offended everyone with that comment.

rmck1 on May 4, 2006 at 3:17 PM:

..but for the most part the economically insecure whites are more motivated by fear of the unknown..

So some components of a possible solution to this current immigration issue (Howard Dean - right again) could be:

- Enact a federal 'living wage' to be paid to all documented workers, American citizens or otherwise, to alleviate the fear of lower income-earning Americans;
- End tax breaks for off-shoring jobs to alleviate the fears of middle-income earners;
- Resident workers must pay taxes, be given the opportunity to gain citizenship if desired (If consistently working in the US for, say, 5 years, clean criminal record, et cetera);
- Stronger enforcement of employment laws and enforcement of more severe penalties for hiring undocumented workers and for working as an undocumented worker.

These items are probably only a starting point, and, as such could use some adjusting...But they would seem to alleviate some of the economic concerns of Americans as well as provide an avenue for the legitimization of a large, undocumented population.

But a few racists can whisper a lot of nasty shit into the ears of that larger number...

Cowards sowing their fear on fertile ground, i'm sorry to say.

“What does this all mean? I don't know. But perhaps immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe?”
Or perhaps it’s the ILLEGAL-immigration people are upset about (with its continuation, scope & lack of political response for years) [not that there aren’t other dynamics involved]
I followed this debate rather carefully over the years. What we have here is an issue that cuts across party lines in multiple directions. It was essentially ignored for three prominent reasons.
1) Business interests 2) political vying for the Hispanic vote 3) politically correct charges of racism.
From the people I talk with, and what I read –1) Americans are generally welcoming of immigrants, 2) are receptive to plans of amnesty (when strict but non-draconian measures are applied to border jumpers & visa dodgers) 3) & want guarantee’s of tougher border protection & policing of employers.
Basically they want what the politicians want, to get a handle on this problem, help the economy, and not be thought of as unwelcoming in the process.
Sounds like all the pieces are in place & the system will hopefully deliver a just and timely policy!

Any arguments?

McClellan: Bush 'Can Speak Spanish But Not That Well'

THIS IS QUITE SOMETHING...

3 general comments on immigration.

1) Flags - what utter hypocrisy - Italians, Scots, all the rest of us whities feel perfectly free to wave our flags and no-one bashes that.

2) The elite vs. working class split on immigration is pretty universal all over the industrialized world. In almost every country (except Japan) the elite is for open immigration and the working class is basically against. And the economic rationale is clear. The elite want the labor - and the workers don't want the competition and they don't believe the economic studies that say otherwise.

3) Crowding. A lot of parts of the country are getting a lot more crowded very quickly - DC, LA, etc. If we let in more people our cities become bigger. A lot of people just don't want that happen.

Samuel Knight:

No, there are lots of places to get good information: for example the news part of the WSJ. But NRO, and TNR ain't it. And reading Kaus, Sully and the rest isn't either.

Ummm... no kidding. They're not news magazines or reporters. TNR, NRO, Sullivan, Kaus, and this site are all commentary and analysis. You may not agree with them, e.g. I don't agree with NRO 99% of the time and don't agree with TNR maybe... 25% of the time? But your list of "credible" sources illustrates exactly the problem I'm talking about: you're sitting in the choir listening to the preacher and not letting any other perspectives in. That's a pretty fucking limited set of options you've got there (and no, don't go thinking you're open minded because you read the news sections of the WSJ; that's the news sections).

And the Iraq War proved wonderfully who could stick to reading the facts and who would swallow the BS. And TNRO really swallowed hard. For example, who really cares what Pollock thinks about Iran after Cole was done with him?

As far as TNR's support of the Iraq War, that was pretty much Marty Peretz and Peter Beinart. A number of other people on the staff there disagreed with that position and said so in the magazine at the time (Spencer Ackerman is the main Iraq analyst at the magazine and opposed the war). But it's worth noting that they didn't "swallow the BS": they didn't base their case for intervention in Iraq on the administration's arguments. I disagreed with the case that they made. But they made a respectable case nonetheless.

And Juan Cole is, in many ways, an ass. The fact that he disagrees with Pollack in no way decides for me the merit of Pollack's arguments. I haven't read any of that thread yet, so I don't have any judgment on who's right and who's not. Doesn't sound like you need to be bothered with such niceties though. Just have your favorite filters digest the information and tell you what you think. It certainly does save time, doesn't it?

Illegal immigration at 13,000/day is just getting started and gaining momentum, so unless you live in the occupied territories like Cheecago, Mexinois, or Mexifornia, Mexizona, Aztlan, North Mexilina, you are just beginning to be aware of the magnitude of the invasion.

The situation is a textbook example of exponential growth, or the snowball effect. Three million amnesties brought in 12 million more. The more Hispanics, the more power they have, the greater representation, the more territory they control to harbor more relatives. We are really in the third generation of the modern invasion, so it must be realized that there are now anchor babies (3.5 ninos/illegal alien) and anchor babies who have matured into voting age and fully support illegal immigration, as this is their heritage.

Walter E. Wallis:

Anyone at this late date who still doesn't get "Illegal" probably thinks a rapist is just an undocumented husband.

Are you saying that immigration, like rape, is fundamentally morally wrong regardless of legality or are you saying that rape, like the illegal immigration, is only morally wrong because of the regulatory details of the law?

Or are you just pretending that two things are analogous that fundamentally are not?

Trends in Immigrant Sentiment Mirror Economic Trends?

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/274.pdf

Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents. 41% in 2006

Immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care. 52% in 2006.

The National trend is interesting in that the they show a steady decline in aggrement with the first question since September of 2000 when 50% agreed and steady inceas in agreement with the second negative statement when 38% agreed. There has been close to a mirror reversal.

The trend data only goes back 1994 when the answers were 31% and 63% respectively with the results in 1997 very similar to those in March 2006. The most postive responses and least negative responses both peaked in September 2000.

If longer term results were available it would be interesting to compare these trends with economic trends such as the unemployment rate. The key issue appears to be related to percentage of those who consider themselves to be struggling financially.

Yancey Ward & Fitz:

That's about where the American people stand on it. Couple border enforcement with a way to assimilate illegals without trashing our values.

This is why I support the bipartisan Senate compromise bill.

Unfortunately, though, in the end I have to agree with Yancey. The Tancredo bill has been demagogued so strenuosly that the House will aceept nothing less -- and Bush isn't willing to sign a death warrant with Hispanic voters.

So at the end of the day, we'll wind up doing nothing ... *sigh*.

grapey:

Good suggestions. Way out of the ballpark of current Amercan economic orthodoxy -- and so much the better for it :)

Bob

rmck1 on May 4, 2006 at 4:38 PM:

Good suggestions.

Er, thanks...Third bullet should have read 'Documented' workers instead of 'Resident' workers.

Way out of the ballpark of current Amercan economic orthodoxy

Not as much as you think, Bob...'Tho I'd agree with you on that point when it comes to better enforcement and stricter penalties..

Anyone got a good name?

Samuel Knight

The Kool-Aid Chroniclers?

i would be interested in the composition of the audience for the wrestling match thingy in peoria. i bet a significant number were hispanics who have made major inroads into middle and rural america.

grapey:

Oh no, not on minimum wage increases. There's a mini-groundswell for those, I realize.

I just meant all the beefed-up corporate regulations ...

Not that I disagree, mind you. Just way out of the ballpark compared to what we've seen even under that dyed-in-the-wool free-trader Clinton.

Bob

Rick - we all have limited time so we all put in filters - that's just a basic fact of life.

And yes, there are certain places that I think are worthwhile to look for news and facts - my favorites being the WSJ news sections, the Toronto Globe and Mail, Ha'aretz a few other players. And a few places that I to find informed analysis: including here, Eric Kraus of Sovlink Securities in Russia, Kuttner, Cole, Krugman and a few others. And I don't take umbrage when people are angry, cocky and condescending - when they have reason to be. And like it or not Kraus, Krugman, and Cole all have been spot on right on a lot of big issues. And they aren't shy about telling your that, nor should they be.

And I don't fall for that silly there are two-sides journalistic theory. There are a heck of a lot more than two angles on most stories.

And, if one part of the US spectrum are a bunch of loonies, many who are amply paid to be loonies on behalf of many sorta "think tanks", you really don't have to read them to stay on top of things. You can use that time much more productively in looking all over the world for more informed and thought-provoking perspectives.

And boy I wish a lot more Americans had listened 3 and a half years ago to what the rest of the world was screaming at the top of its lungs before we plunged in Iraq.

And on TNR I lost it when they published Glass when it was clear to almost everyone he was lying.

Working-class people don't hate Mexicans.

They hate illegals.

Make them legal, stop new illegals from coming in, and the subclass of exploitable labor will disappear, and we can have a real labor market again.

A cracker by any other name...

Tbrosz wrote:

"There might be two sides to the African-American issue."

What I think Tbrosz has in mind: there's the pro-Bush side and the anti-democrat side.

"You're going to see an increasing conflict between black leaders who are seriously concerned about the welfare of African-Americans, and those who are more worried about the political consequences."

Suddenly Tbrosz is copasetic with the NY Times! We'll remember this next time they report unfavorably on the administration.

Well, aside from the silliness of the NYT piece - modeled on the Fox News "some people say" school of journalism - the best you can say is that the article might demonstrate that African-Americans are as conflicted about this issue as everyone else. This, of course, is not news, but advanced in this way, pure political theater.

But Tbrosz reaches for his typical fatuous and self-serving moralistic distinction without a difference: "those who are concerned about the welfare of African Americans" and those who are "worried about political consequences."

So Tbrosz, why don't you go ahead and anoint the African-Americans you think fit into the first category?

OBF:

In essence -- I agree.

I don't know if we'll ever manage border control as thoroughly as some would like, for purely logistical reasons -- but generally that's the game plan.

We can also make employers be better capable of catching forged SS#.

Bob

Look, I no more think the immigration debate is about communism than I think it is simply about granting amnesty and the full rights of citizenship to illegal immigrants. Those who attempt to make it either are simply couching hidden agendas they are fearful to express. Are some of those in this debate on the extreme…absolutely. I have no doubt some are communists (I would more likely say Marxists but I use communists to keep consistent with the rhetoric). Do some prefer fully open borders without enforcement thereby allowing unfettered immigration…sure. Do some prefer a full-scale round-up of all illegal’s in order to return them to their country of origin…yep. Do some simply dislike Mexicans and find it convenient to oppose them by speaking in broader terms about the illegal immigration problem…no doubt. Do any of these positions represent a majority consensus or are they the appropriate focus to bring to the debate…not a chance.

Where does that leave us? Back to where I started…near the end of the “tit for tat” debate that has done nothing to resolve the underlying problem. So where is the “truth”? In my opinion, smack dab in the middle. The vast majority of illegal immigrants worked on Monday like they do every Monday. They had children to feed and take to school in the morning. They had to stop at the grocery store after work to get what they needed for dinner. They do the right thing day in and day out because they came here out of despair and a hope for a better existence. They appreciate the opportunity to be in this country and they are willing to do what may be necessary to obtain citizenship.

As to the communists and those who believe in unfettered border crossing…well those people existed before this issue and they will exist after this issue is resolved. Picking a handful of communists out of a crowd estimated to be less than ten percent of the total illegal immigrant population serves only one purpose…inciting and promoting an unspoken agenda for those who lurk within our society just waiting for an opportunity to unleash anger and hatred. Are they a large portion of society…of course not.

It is no different on the other end of the spectrum. Picking a handful of bigots out of the crowd of those opposed to illegal immigration, which represented a miniscule percentage of the citizenry of this country, and reporting on their remarks also serves only one purpose…to incite and promote an unspoken agenda for those who lurk within our society just waiting for an opportunity to unleash anger and hatred.

Can value judgments be made about these opposing extremes…sure. One might be a lesser evil than the other. However, stoking the anger and hatred of one side or the other does nothing to solve the problem. It might feel good for the moment but if change is the goal, and at times I seriously doubt that it is, then the methods must become effective and they must be chosen and measured accordingly.

read more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

rmck1 on May 4, 2006 at 5:04 PM:

I just meant all the beefed-up corporate regulations...

Title IV of the McCain-Kennedy bill basically states:

The Department of Labor will have new authority to conduct random audits of employers and ensure compliance with labor laws; also includes new worker protections and enhanced fines for illegal employment practices

Even then, the issue is the enforcement of the enforcement, which is lacking under this current administration.

Just way out of the ballpark compared to what we've seen even under that dyed-in-the-wool free-trader Clinton.

From what I've seen, this whole 'free-trade-equals-fair-wages-and-higher-environmental-and living-standards' idea is a buncha hooey, a false front for excessive profiteering...

Has anyone ever noticed how often Vince McMahon makes Canadians into bad guys? What's up with that?

Let me get this straight: Kevin wonders if "immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe," because the current champion of WWE Smackdown is an "Hispanic American."

Perhaps the WWE has an Hispanic American champion because WWE Smackdown has a large Hispanic audience?

I didn't realize that Rey Mysterio was an illegal alien -- wait, he isn't? Then what's Kevin's damn point? If Rey is legal, then we've always welcomed legal immigrants. If Rey is an American then what the heck is Kevin's point?

Washington Monthly - Increasingly Moronic

"What does this all mean? I don't know."

Then don't post about it!

"But perhaps immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe?"

Nice Strawman, Kev. Who's been saying that legal immigration is unpopular with America? Hasn't this entire discussion been about illegal immigration?

That Vince McMahon shit is fake.

Where's the discussion of Lucha Libre?

the republican politics of division is just that. by keeping Joe Sixpack angry at various groups of people he won't notice that republicans are ripping him blind.

Isn't the elephant in the room here really assimilation rather than immigration?

The debate seems stuck between left-wing and corporatarian multiculturalists who apparently want open borders and a separate "Latino" culture and language, and right-wing and populist multiculturalists who apparently want closed borders and (maybe) a guest worker program (which would pretty much ensure a separate Latino subculture in areas with large guest worker populations).

Shouldn't we be getting real and talking about not only amnesty but assimilation, as in making the latter a necessary prerequisite for the former? This is ultimately a cultural issue for people, and Americans would be a whole lot less uncomfortable with Latino immigration if they were all fluent in American English, well-versed in American history and the culture of aspiration, and sought to dress and look like mainstream Americans. One of my 3rd great-grandfathers was a German who not only learned American English before coming to this country but Anglicized his name from Carl to Charles (a gesture that went beyond what was necessary at that time) to fit in.

The fact is that America's birth rate is almost as low as Europe's, and without robust, continued immigration it is not altogether likely that America will be able to preserve middle class old age entitlements, let alone add a universal health care system, and remain the world's dominant military and geopolitical power. If anything we should be talking about increasing immigration, but we should also be talking about assimilation.

If America goes down the path of right or left wing multiculturalism, we will not only remain a balkanized society (with all that implies), we will miss out on a new century of cultural achievement by assimilated immigrants. There will be no Latino Bernsteins or Copelands or Dreisers or O'Neills or John Hustons or Billy Wilders, and America will be poorer for it.

Wrong, Kevin. It's trememdously unpopular. I don't think that most people want to round up the Mexicans and ship them home, but they do want to find a way around paying for their health care and ror school, to name a couple of benefits.

The Blue Nomad: The fact is that America's birth rate is almost as low as Europe's

Nope. US fertility rate is about 2.1 children/woman (slightly above replacement rate) but Europe is only about 1.4.

"Minutemen should have sought the leading Afro American intellectual Shelby Steele. He would have been able to convince the target audience that Whites are indeed a superior race and they should tehrefore listen to the Minutemen."

Why would someone start picking on Shelby Steele because he is black? The happens to be an expert on race relations, so he gets trashed.

Shouldn't we be getting real and talking about not only amnesty but assimilation, as in making the latter a necessary prerequisite for the former?

No. The reason why the US HAS assimilated its immigrants successfully for 300+ years now (yes, well before independence) is that there have been no prerequisites. We make people feel welcome here, and thus they make America their own. We tell them: you ARE American, and thus they enthusiastically make themselves American. This is happening just as fast with Hispanic immigrants as it has with any other wave, as all the research shows; but we're in the thick of a massive wave right now. Your anxieties over people not speaking English or failing to assimilate are the same as those which were felt in the middle of other waves of immigration, e.g. in 1890-1910. Ultimately, those immigrants assimilated just fine, and the current wave of hispanics will too -- provided we maintain the strong institutions (schools and upwardly mobile economy) which encourage assimilation.

This is ultimately a cultural issue for people, and Americans would be a whole lot less uncomfortable with Latino immigration if they were all fluent in American English, well-versed in American history and the culture of aspiration, and sought to dress and look like mainstream Americans.

See above. The "dress and look like" thing is way off base, especially with the hip-hop generation all wearing Tommy Hilfiger and Polo.

One of my 3rd great-grandfathers was a German who not only learned American English before coming to this country but Anglicized his name from Carl to Charles (a gesture that went beyond what was necessary at that time) to fit in.

None of my great-grandfathers had any chance to learn English before coming to this country, since they came from impoverished farming shtetls in Poland and Austria-Hungary. Their names were Anglicized for them by clerks at Ellis Island. They gave their kids invented names they thought sounded English, like "Irving" and "Sidney". Those names, of course, became the identifiably Jewish names of the next generation. My great-grandparents spoke broken and accented English; my grandparents spoke lovely English peppered with Yiddish for flavor; my parents speak English and recognize a few Yiddish words and phrase. The timeline for hispanic immigrants is pretty much identical.

I think it means that many gullible voters are confusing sympathy with other ethnic groups, pposition to racism etc. with the foundational issue of legality and process in citizenship. Despite sloppy anecdotal evidence of this sort, laxity about *illegal* immigration will turn off voters in November if Democrats let it slide.

Furthermore, we shouldn't be letting unlimited numbers of legal immigrants in either - we just can't assimilate that many, and it will depress wages just from oversupply of labor regardless of who it is. Check the damn W-2s for legit SSNs, and prosecute the employers who are cheating. Since when do "progressives" let employers get away with employment fraud that hurts working-class and poor Americans?

The Sierra club and FAIR, the anti-immigration group:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0220/p01s04-ussc.html

"Leaders of the anti-immigration faction are mainly establishment types - former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, the former director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and university professors from around the country. Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, president of the antiwhaling Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and an advocate of zero population growth, gathered enough club support to get himself nominated and then elected to a [Sierra Club] board position last year. So did two other population activists."

The environmental anti-immigration movement would dissuade us that packing millions more into California and Texas cities is a bad idea, for environmental reasons.

Are they mistaken? If we have to move masses of people around to keep them alive during a severely resource constrained time in history, then why not California?

My gut reaction, for personal reasons, is no. The cultural impact of massive growth in California cities is my reason, simply doubling the size of Los Angeles is a cultural impact of mammoth proportions regardless of where they come from.

California is a relatively ecological fragile environment -- it makes more sense to put more people where the water is, rather than trying to move the water to them. But it would also make a lot more sense to pack people in tighter, and here California's traditional pro-sprawl lifestyle needs to change if it's going to accommodate more and more immigrants. On the other hand, politically, California seems among the best disposed areas of the US to address such issues seriously.

But what is the evidence that most new hispanic immigrants are coming to California? Seems to me the most striking new hispanic communities are those in the upper Hudson Valley, the Midwest -- places one doesn't traditionally associate with hispanic communities.

Selective quoting is fun. My turn!

Citizen Pain (The New Republic)

Concerns about illegal immigration are hardly unfounded. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that there are as many as twelve million "unauthorized migrants" in the United States, with 850,000 new ones arriving each year--not only in California, but also in states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. What was once a regional concern has increasingly become a national one. Certain aspects of this influx are undeniably troubling from a policy standpoint. For example, 59 percent of adult illegals lack health insurance, compared with 25 percent of adult legal immigrants and 14 percent of natives.

And

Migrants today, especially those who do not need to cross an ocean, move between the United States and their homeland with greater frequency. Most come here to work hard, save money, and then go home and invest their savings in a tractor, some land, or a house. Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey and his colleagues at the Mexican Migration Project conclude, "Left to their own devices, most Mexican immigrants would work in the United States only sporadically and for limited periods of time." Massey emphasizes that even those with legal documents don't necessarily intend to stay.

University of California-Irvine anthropologist Leo Chavez reports that such sojourners are "target earners," focused singlemindedly on maximizing earnings and minimizing expenditures. So they put up with overcrowded living quarters, sharing beds, and sleeping in shifts. And they work more than one job, often enduring substandard or dangerous working conditions. Many employers exploit such workers. But the well-kept secret about immigrants is that they are also willing to exploit themselves.

Such hard work and determination are admirable. But the narrow, short-term goals of target earners contribute directly to the instability of immigrant neighborhoods. Even when such immigrants bring their families, this instability persists--just ask any school administrator in California about empty classrooms when Mexican families go home for prolonged visits, especially at holidays. By the same token, sojourners focused on returning home tend not to make good neighbors. Often, they are oblivious to others' expectations about noise, litter, or attendance at PTA meetings. As a police lieutenant in Santa Ana, a Southern California city with a predominantly Latino population, once put it to one of us: "How do you do community policing when there is no community?"

It's the daily "Kevin justifies criminal activity!" post.
[ AL Justifies Bush and Cronies Corruption]

When can we expect your series on why stealing isn't so bad?
[Isn't that what Custer Battles and Halliburton did? Delay?]

For that matter, why can't I illegally immigrate to your house and sleep on your couch? I'm just asking for basic human rights. It would be wrong of you to kick me out, if I'm willing to work.
[Ask Souter, go to africa, take your kool-aid]

On top of that, your other series of posts wants to give healthcare to the poor at the expense of the working.... so you want lots of illegal immigrants all leaching off hard-working Americans, probably just so the Democrats can get more votes by increasing its "dependency on the state" block.
[Poverty Level wages pretty much CREATE a form of socilaized healthcare]
Typical. This is why the GOP needs to keep the house. Y'all would wreck the budget.
[Bush already did that, plus the deficit, plus backloaded taxes, plus the cost of a misguided war]

Really AL. Would you stop the BIAS BLAME GAME and give a coherent opinion that is your OWN?

Read my lips AL
POVERTY WAGES CREATE, [Starving the Beast] A SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

How do you expect that, AL, NOT to happen?

I really don't know what Kevin Drum's problem is. Is he trying to further reduce his already low credibility? Is he trying to turn this blog into an Atrios playground?

Did Kevin Drum bother to look into those protesters? Did he bother to consider whether the L.A. Times is telling the truth?

Since the Los Angeles Times has a history of lying about far-left groups (refering to ANSWER as an "antiwar and anti-racism group" - without the quotes), can we trust the L.A. Times to ask whether those protesters are from ANSWER or some other group?

Does Kevin Drum ever intend to get serious about this issue, or is he just going to be more and more juvenile?

-- Illegal immigration
-- Immigration Reform

AL Justifies Bush and Cronies Corruption

I don't know about Al, but all those who support illegal immigration support corruption. Those companies that profit off illegal immigration donate to politicans who look the other way.

Regarding the other comment about the Sierra Club and immigration, their Foundation received a $100,000,000 donation from someone who told Carl Pope that if they came out against immigration they'd never receive another dime. Think there might be a correlation between that donation and the smears the SC unleashed against Watson et al?

Maybe Kevin Drum could put down the crayons and take a look at the latest Zogby poll.

My impression, living in New Orleans, is that the Mexicans got $7 to $10 an hour jobs working for the sub-sub-sub contractors while the big bucks went to out of state politically-well-connected firms who did little more than hire subcontractors. In Mississippi there are lawsuits on behalf of the Mexicans who didn't get paid anything in exchange for all their hard work; I'm not aware of any such suits in LA but there may be some here as well.

If the issue of Black and immigrant relations are the subject, listen to this from CronWatch:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7592

Quick summary:

Barack Obama's electorial prospects are threatened by losing the Black vote on the immigration issue.

Tony Brown writes, '''The U. S. Census Bureau reported in the New York Times...the poor Black and Latino communities lose the most income of any group of Americans, including all Americans who did not finish high school and all Americans who are paying higher taxes to subsidize welfare benefits for illegal immigrants and businesses that hire them.'

FAIR documents, and Terry Anderson of SF agree:

In California, Blacks are being forced out from communities like South Central, Los Angeles, where they have long lived

a GAO study found that a decade of heavy immigration to Los Angeles had changed the janitorial industry from a mostly native Black, unionized workforce to one of non-unionized Latinos, many of whom were illegal aliens.

Kevin did actually bias the report, as he usually does, failing to mention that the MinuteMen got a warm welcome from the local leader of the homeless advocacy groups.

Do we agree? Should we care? Black culture is part of our heritage, it did arise in America and is uniquely American.

More fun with selective quoting:

Growing Unease for Some Blacks on Immigration (New York Times)

But despite some sympathy for the nation's illegal immigrants, many black professionals, academics and blue-collar workers feel increasingly uneasy as they watch Hispanics flex their political muscle while assuming the mantle of a seminal black struggle for justice.

Some blacks bristle at the comparison between the civil rights movement and the immigrant demonstrations, pointing out that black protesters in the 1960's were American citizens and had endured centuries of enslavement, rapes, lynchings and discrimination before they started marching.

Others worry about the plight of low-skilled black workers, who sometimes compete with immigrants for entry-level jobs.

And

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center captured the ambivalence among blacks over immigration. Nearly 80 percent said immigrants from Latin American work very hard and have strong family values.

But nearly twice as many blacks as whites said that they or a family member had lost a job, or not gotten a job, because an employer hired an immigrant worker. Blacks were also more likely than whites to feel that immigrants take jobs away from American citizens.

Mr. Walters said he understood those conflicting emotions, saying he feels torn himself because of his concerns about the competition between immigrants and low-skilled black men for jobs. In 2004, 72 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts.

"Left to their own devices, most Mexican immigrants would work in the United States only sporadically and for limited periods of time."

This is a very misleading statement that I have heard for many years.

What the immigrant wants is much of what we want, work in the city and a house in the suburbs, except that their suburb is in Mexico. But, temporary workers in the major metropolitan areas, who stay for a few days then commute back home is becoming more common. Splitting out time between the city and a distant suburb is a common trend among all workers.

Mexicans would prefer their suburb be a lot closer to LA, just like most LA workers.

Search this author for historical information about Black leaders and their viewpoint on immigration: Earl Ofari Hutchinson

He seems to be the expert in the matter, but he does point out that historically, back to even before the civil war, Black leaders apposed it.

I tend to agree, Blacks are better off opposing massive immigration.

From: http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_112202507.html

Headline: Black Groups, Minutemen To Join Forces For Rally

(CBS) LOS ANGELES A few African American groups plan to join members of the Minuteman Project Sunday to protest illegal immigration, called the “biggest threat to blacks in America since slavery” by organizer Ted Hayes.

Hayes, a homeless activist, says that illegal immigration compounds the problem of black homelessness, especially in Los Angeles, because African Americans refuse to work for the “slave wages” that many illegal immigrants accept.

-- snip --

The Minuteman Project is a group of civilians who guard the Mexican border. The group's founder, Jim Gilchrist, may attend Sunday’s rally along with some other members, Hayes said. He said members of the Minuteman Project have an unfair reputation as "rednecks" or racist.

"I've been down to the border with them. They're not racist," Hayes said. "They don't care what color you are."

What, Al? "The daily Kevin justifies illegal activiy post"? Come one... don't tell me that you don't break the law on a daily basis.

I'm with you, Kevin. I don't think that there is as widespread disaproval as we are led to believe by the GOP.

Come on Al... "the weekly Kevin supports illegal activity post"? Tell me that you don't break the law on a daily basis.

I'm with Kevin. I don't think that immigrants find as widespread opposition with the working class as we are led to believe. After all, in the job market, we are all in competition and we cant simply eliminate the competition on dubious grounds...

Huh? Nobody linked to the Onion yet? "WWE: Illegal Mexican Wrestlers Taking Smackdowns American Wrestlers Don't Want", how much more relevant can it get?

Favorite Onion immigration headline:

Photo of a Mexican guy with a broom.

Caption: MEXICANS SWEEPING THE NATION!

Bob

I think blacks are conflicted over illegals.

On the one hand, their first reaction was that brown and black and Asian people would join up to dominate the hated whitey.

On the other hand, they are beginning to realize that people aren't going to hire blacks if they can achieve their minority quota with Mexicans. Blacks have gotten used to their special status in the workplace where employers are deathly afraid of blacks and the lib media joining up to crucify businesses with charges of racism, so blacks have gotten used to talking on the phone all day, working on CP time, etc., knowing that they cannot be disciplined for fear of racism charges. Thus who would hire blacks if they can get Mexicans?

"But perhaps immigration from Mexico isn't quite as unpopular with America's working class as we've been led to believe?"

I don't think that immigration from Mexico (or anywhere else) is unpopular with America's working class. However, ILLEGAL immigration is very unpopular. Seems like liberals are always dropping the word "illegal" when talking about this issue.

Don't confuse African-American distaste for the Minutemen with support for illegal immigration. We are well able to sort out the differences.

And we see that we are being replaced by illegals in construction, hotel housekeeping and work as nursing home attendents.

People who cannot protest their working conditions, unlike African-Americans who not afraid to stand up for our rights, will always be more attractive to employers.