Hackett's’s remark rattles Democrats-'deport illegal immigrants'

[Algorem]

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/NEWS09/60120046/-1/NEWS

Article published Friday, January 20, 2006

Candidate’s remark rattles Democrats
Senate contender Hackett stands by call in Toledo to deport illegal immigrants

By JIM TANKERSLEY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER

...U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett told a Toledo crowd this week that he’d deport all illegal immigrants if the national budget permitted, stirring another controversy over his candor — this time among Democrats...

Several Democrats in attendance said the comments surprised or disappointed them.

Frank Szollosi, a Toledo city councilman, said Mr. Hackett appeared “to the right of Pete Wilson” — a conservative Republican and former California governor — on immigration.

Mr. Szollosi and Denis Logan, Jr., the chairman of the Fulton County Democratic Party, said Mr. Hackett sounded as if he had not thought through his immigration position. Both also said they liked his style anyway...



Article published Thursday, January 19, 2006

Senate candidate Hackett brings campaign to University of Toledo

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060119/NEWS09/60119057/-1/NEWS

By JIM TANKERSLEY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER

...The answer made several of the young Democrats squirm in their seats. One pushed Mr. Hackett to clarify. “Deport them?” Mr. Hackett was asked.

“If we can afford to,” Mr. Hackett said, “yeah.”

The original questioner began to speak about the racism of Hispanics against whites. Mr. Hackett stood silently. An audience member suggested the discussion move on...

[KingFlorez]

1. Why?

This is an issue Democrats can use to win, I don't see what the problem is

[FreedomAngel82]

42. I don't get it either

So if I go into Canada illegally will they allow me to stay? I'm sure not. If I go to a store and steal something will they let me keep it? I'm sure not. I could go on....

[stepnw1f]

2. I'm Not Opposed to This

Just as long as immigrants still get a fair chance to apply for citizenship.

[FreedomAngel82]

He's talking about those who come here illegally

The fact that those democrats were worried about what he says worries me quite frankly. Remember a while back some Iraqi's tried to come through our boarders and they were planning an attack?

[Mythsaje]

3. It's a smart political move...

At least he's willing to address it rather than pretend it doesn't exist. It's a complicated issue, and there are no easy answers. But it's an issue that's gaining momentum along the southern border of the country--I know some reasonable people who are genuinely angry about it, and the fact that NEITHER party seems to be willing to do anything effective to deal with the problem.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. What's complicated about it?

You either enter a country legally or you're an illegal person and pay the proper consequences by sending them back to their original home. Again, if I go to a store and steal something do you think they'll let me keep it?

[Booster]

92. I'm with you on this one. We can't become Repugs who only

acknowledge the laws we like, and break the ones we don't like. Simple.

[Toots]

170. If you are a Republican the answer is yes

Republicans have accepted stolen money for years and years and yet even if they get caught all they have to do is donate it to their favorite charity which in turn doles it right back out to them....Apparently only Democrats need follow the law.

[zippy890]

123. I agree with your post

at least Hacketts willing to address it -
I may have some problems with it, but I admire him
for addressing it so directly

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. Agreed. Americans elect people to pick on the weak.

It's a winning tactic. Better our bad guys than their bad guys, I suppose.

Honestly, if "deport illegals" red meat rhetoric is what it takes to get single-payer health care, I say bring it on.

Flame bait? Maybe a little. :think:

[BuyingThyme]

4. Right on, Hackett!

[Imagevision]

275. Construction trades don't want to hire americans to work for cheaper rates

[davepc]

5. I don't get how the party can be against outsourcing on one hand

and for the unchecked importation of cheap labor on the other.

If the goal is the preserver the value of the American worker, then doesn't it make sense that both things be held in check?

[HereSince1628]

171. What makes you believe the party is against outsourcing?

I haven't heard what sounds like a real statement on that. We, the base, are saying that, but only some of the politicians.

As a party the democrats generally endorsed and promoted treaties that facilitated outsourcing in the 90's.

They did this over the objection of organized labor.

Now, the best they can provide us with are driveling mumbles about the need for international labor standards and environmental protections. A need that is very unlikely to ever be met.

[TrueAmerican]

6. Deport undocumented workers for breaking the law?

Yes, they should stand in line like everyone else that wants to get into this country.

[AgadorSparticus]

15. ABSOLUTELY!!!! They need to get in line like everyone else.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

17. That's right. Those poor hungry people better go back to

where ever the hell their from, especially the brown ones. :eyes:

[jsamuel]

25. yeah, well, see post 24

rule of law

and post 18

[TrueAmerican]

26. What about all the other poor hungry people who want

to come to the US and do it legally? Why should their numbers be reduced do to people breaking the law?

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Exactly

If they're so desperate to come here and make a better life for themselves than why not do it legally? Are they trying to hide something? And can't they still have a duel citizenship to their home country to go back and help other members come here too?

[proud2BlibKansan]

282. I take it you don't understand much about immigration

You definitely don't know how hard it is to come here legally.

[AgadorSparticus]

341. exactly, and all the MORE reason why it's a slap in the face to people

who DO abide by the rules to come here when we defend ILLegal immigration. We need to change the immigration LAWS. Not justify the the illegal behavior.

[Bridget Burke]

244. Poor Hungry people are not allowed in legally

Unless they are Cuban.

In fact, well-educated people have to hire lawyers to navigate the immigration laws.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

290. Thank you!

Geez, people talk about legality of being here as though you just apply and voila you're on the boat tomorrow.

My husband is British and we've hired a lawyer back in 2002 and we are STILL working on getting his permanent residency established. And we're married! Have been for 4 years almost. Even with a good lawyer, we barely squeaked through the conditional premanent residency hearing because oops, the lawyer's aid forgot one of his forms.

It's cost thousands of dollars, and years of time. These are desperate people.

"what you're starving? Ok, file out these forms and well get back to you in a couple of years"

[bliss_eternal]

350. SemiCharmed Quark--

I hope things are resolved sooner than later for your husband. It sounds like a huge, legal nightmare. Such a shame that trying to follow the rules s so costly...

:hug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

356. Thanks so much

:)

As ugly as this thread is, I was expecting a fight on my hands, not a nice comment :) Thanks.

[AgadorSparticus]

340. then revise the laws to include the poor. don't justify illegal behavior.

we need to revise the LAWS to include the poor, hungry folks around the world to come here and work on a documented worker system that enables everyone a fair shot at the labor jobs here in the U.S.

The key word is FAIRNESS and everyone will be documented. But I doubt Agribusiness will ever allow that to happen. But in the meantime, it does not mean that we can allow and justify an open border.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

360. Illegal behavior has always been the first step in changing laws.

Prohibition for example. And just about every other law that people felt was unfair or unjust began to change when people started to defy it.

Not saying it's right to break the law. But I find it hypocritical for people to condemn illegals and then turn around and congratulate other law breakers because they broke some law thought to be immoral.

For example, I once posted a question. Something like, if your kid got drafted, would you flee to Canada? Fleeing like that is against the law. And just about every single poster wrote they would. Many of whom were among the most vocal anti-illegal posters. Don't you find that hypocritical?

[AgadorSparticus]

375. no, and here's why. Not all laws are created equal.

if the war is illegal or there is some immoral issue connected with it, then people have the right to protest it.

however, in the case of immigration laws, it is not illegally done nor does it violate any human rights. Every country has immigration laws. And every country has the right to deny a citizen of another country entry. That is not a violation of human rights. If people from other countries are coming here to escape from violations of human rights in their native country, then those issues need to be taken up with that country.

What I DO find hypocritical is the government's lack of accountability of big business that employs illegals.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

383. Your examples don't line up.

ALL wars are not illegal. But people have a moral objection to THIS war. ALL immigration laws are not unfair, but people have an objection to THIS country's law.

Not only that, it is the very definition of hypocrisy to say "Im sorry, Im just for following laws" and then turning around and being willing to break the law when it benefits you.

[AgadorSparticus]

387. you didn't undertand my response and I'm not sure I understand yours.

I never said all wars are illegal. But when people are talking about dogding a draft, it is usually associated with an illegal war. I haven't heard anyone here say they dogded any draft during WW2.

But in the last war where there was a draft, people had objections to it being legal. So, they object to it for moral purposes. The Iraq war committed acts of crime towards humanity. People have every right to object it.

US immigration laws do not commit acts of crime towards humanity. That is why it is not a good analogy.

[guruoo]

380. Exactly. Thank you!

[TahitiNut]

32. A nation that selectively enforces its laws becomes a police state.

Either we control our borders or we don't. When 11 million people illegally cross a border into another country, it's usually called an invasion. So, the question becomes one of whether or not to control our borders. If we choose not to control who crosses our borders, then it becomes a question of what rights and entitlements (those are not the same thing, by the way) those people have. Should we distinguish between citizens and non-citizens at all? If so, in what way and how is it to be uniformly enforced? How should we distinguish between people who followed our laws in entering this country and those who have not?

It's really easy to smear others with the racism brush - without actually proposing solutions.

[1932]

63. Speaking of invasions, has anyone seen Malik's new movie, New World?

[TahitiNut]

86. I didn't know Pocahontas was an Inca.

[BlueCaliDem]

105. Clever, 1932...;-) n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

283. We all need to be grateful the Native Americans didn't block the borders

when our ancestors came here.

[bliss_eternal]

351. LOL--Good point!

:hi:

[AgadorSparticus]

144. you shouldn't automatically ASSUME it's racially motivated.

I get tired of that go to, knee jerking assumption. Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT make them against legal immigration. There are hungry, poor people ALL OVER the world that would love to come here too. OR do they not matter?

[1932]

175. My assumption: immigration of the powerful who try to take the whole loaf

is OK, but immigration by the powerless who try to take the crumbs falling down from that loaf is bad.

Hey, interesting that race correlates almost perfectly with that powerful-powerless dichotomy!

Oh, and capital is free to go wherever it pleases, which is usually flowing from poor to rich countries.

[AgadorSparticus]

342. the correlation isn't about RACE as it is about CLASS.

the rich in indonesia and nigeria do not have problems getting their visas. So, we need to change the immigration laws to make it accessible to the working poor to come to the US on a temporary worker visa basis.

The reality is that those with money, don't stay and that is why it is easy for them to get their visas. They live like kings in their country. They come here to visit, shop, and do business. And then they go home. I've seen it over and over.

That is why the law makes it difficult for the poor to come here on a temporary basis. Current immigration laws require that applicant provide "collateral" or motivation that they will go back home.

We need to address the hiring of illegals and the dependency we currently have on the illegal labor pool.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

361. It's both.

The expectiation for so called "third world" immigrants is much higher. IE, it's easier for a middle class brit to get in than a middle class mexican. But it might be easier for a very wealthy mexican than a middle class brit.

[AgadorSparticus]

376. First of all, there is really no such thing as a middle class in 3rd world

If you look, you will see that it is mostly the very wealthy and the very poor. That's EXACTLY the problem with these countries. The corrupt governments there tend to line the pockets of a very few and leave the masses impoverished. And the poor people from ANY country will have a terribly difficult time getting visas. They have to get in line because there are so many applicants and as I stated in another post, INS has quotas to fill from every country.

The middle class tends to be present only in well developed countries. And the middle class do have to jump through hoops no matter what country they are from. A very wealthy brittain will have the same green light as a very wealthy Indonesian. It's not both. It's class.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

384. You're grinding it down too much.

It's not that simple, nothing ever is.

And you're wrong about "no matter what country". Because I know many middle class asians who passed through, but not as quickly as a middle class European.

[AgadorSparticus]

388. There's more of a middle class in Europe than in Asia.

Middle class Europeans have more wealth than middle class Asians. It is very clear that the money distribution in Asia is concentrated in the hands of a few which will consequently affect immigration rates. As I stated before, wealthy asians have NO problems coming and going into this country. It's a class issue.

[Marie26]

260. I'm assuming he didn't think this through. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

284. It doesn't matter if the motivation is not racial,

it sounds racial and it reeks of bigotry. And in case you hadn't noticed, people from all over the world ARE coming here too. :eyes:

[AgadorSparticus]

339. people from all over the world are coming here LEGALLY.

it is discrimination to say OK to Mexicans coming here ILLegaly and then making someone from Thailand or Sudan jump through endless hoops.

But in case you hadn't noticed, people around the world are NOT coming here in droves ILLegally. But go ahead with the racial and bigotry angle since it makes you feel more righteous in your belief. :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

281. Sounds like you are as tired of this crap as I am

This causes me to be very disappointed in Hacket.

I am glad I don't have to vote for - or against - him.

[BigYawn]

343. I am a brown people who was poor at one time and I had to

jump through hoops to get legal permanent visa to stay in US
and then wait 5 more years to apply for citizenship. So why
are the other brown people getting a free pass? Not fair!!!

[AgadorSparticus]

345. EXACTLY!! I am tired of that racial card being trumped at the first

sign of any illegal immigration discussion. BTW, I'm not white, either.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

359. I don't resent illegals

Going through the immigration system legally doesn't make me hate illegal immigrants, it makes me understand them. With the mishap with the lost paper, I know, I KNOW that if my husband was Mexican he would have been turned away right there. But British? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. And it's the same for other legal immigrants I know as well.

The immigration system is an absolute nightmare. And many of the people that go through it understand that.

[AgadorSparticus]

378. I know exactly what this system is like. I am very close to it.

But individual inspectors are given a certain amount of leeway to make independent decisions on whether to accept or deny entry. They go by profiles, sixth sense, K9 units, etc. to apprehend criminals and make that decisions to accept, inspect, or deny entry.

Again, the system is designed to make it as fair as possible. But you are suggesting that the system is flawed because individuals flawed. There are always bad apples in every bunch. And there are good apples as well. What if there was a mexican american inspector with a bias for hispanic people? There are inherent biases in people that a system cannot erase. There is no such thing as a perfect system. We can modify the laws regarding immigration. But that does not mean justifying an open border nor does it justify an illegal behavior.


But in the case of lost papers, you cannot blame the INS for making their decision. You say that it is based on race. I say have your papers ready, dot your i's and cross your t's. Then you won't be at the whim of any individual's discriminations. Again, just because some individuals are flawed does not make an entire system flawed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

385. No, you pay a lawyer to handle your work.

Immigration lawyers are often overloaded with vast amounts of work. Your immigration lawyer screws up and then what? What are you supposed to do? Some of these people barely speak English.

[AgadorSparticus]

389. How is this the responsibility of INS? It is still an individual's

responsibility. Becoming a US citizen is not a RIGHT. It is a priviledge.

And if you think that these people do not talk with others in their ethnic communities to find out which lawyer is good and which is bad, then I don't know what to tell you. I KNOW they do. They are not alone. They immerse in their ethnic communities at first and find the in's and out's of their new country. That's how many survive and then excel.

[proud2BlibKansan]

369. So it's more fair to force them to stay in their native country and starve

to death? Or stay poor?

[BigYawn]

374. There are 8 Billion people living in poverty, whom shall we import?

Only those who sneak in illegally? Why not let all wishing
to emigrate apply and select based on skills? Or atleast
run a lottery??

But please dont import all of those 8 billion. I have been poor,
mainly because of over-populated conditions, and don't wanna live
through it again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

382. Nope, the question is - who do we exclude?

Only the brown skinned people? Or should we keep the blonde headed ones out as well?

Decisions, decisions.

[AgadorSparticus]

379. It's more FAIR to put blame on corrupt gov'ts in their native countries

that have managed to line the pockets of the few and starve the masses.

Citizens of other countries do not have a RIGHT to come to the US. It is a priviledge.

[guruoo]

381. Explain that to all the "brown" immigrants that

took the time and effort to enter
the country legally only to find
jobs being taken by those that
chose to the easy way in.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

287. lol, you don't know much about the process, do you?

My husband, being British, is going through it now and it is a nightmare. And he's British. I can't imagine the shit they'd give him if he was Mexican.

[proud2BlibKansan]

289. If he was Mexican or Hispanic

He would never be allowed to leave his country to come here legally. And if he got here, he would have to wait 18 months just to get the paperwork to apply for legal status.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

293. When we got married, they didn't give him a second glance.

Instead they looked at MY last name, which is "Ortiz" and made me answer a bunch of questions about my family. And I'm a third generation American.
No racial motivation my ass.

[AgadorSparticus]

344. Immigration has quotas on each nationality/country to make sure

that no one group gets more visas than another. And it's not a black and white system. They factor in economics, education, history of illegal behavior, mental health, etc.

And because of the quotas and the influx of illegal mexican immigrants, they will give anyone with a mexican name or descent a harder time. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

p.s. for what it's worth, EVERYONE gets a hard time unless you know some very powerful people. It's not race. It's more class oriented. I know people from 2nd and 3rd world countries who never have a hard time getting into the US because they are uber rich and know heavy hitters. See my above post re: wealth and how it factors into immigration laws.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

362. I agree with you, it has much to do with class.

But as I said in another post, that doesn't leave the racial element out of it all together.

[AgadorSparticus]

377. I believe that is exactly why they instituted the quota laws--in order

to keep the racial/discriminatory element out of it. I'm sure it's not a perfect system. But I don't expect it to be as no system is ever perfect.

[Jim Sagle]

7. Hackett RRRRRRRAWWWWKSSSS!!!!!!!!

[snowbear]

41. He does ROCK !!!!

[hollowdweller]

137. I agree! And the folks who hire them should be prosecuted too.

We shouldn't be allowing people to come into this country illegally, nor should we allow businesses or individuals to hire them.

[xchrom]

8. i really like paul, but, lol -- good luck with that.

[Marie26]

118. Yeah, I like him too, but not this idea.

For one thing, the states are not involved in deportations/border patrol - at all. That is an area that is exclusively within federal jurisdiction. So any arrests/deportations that are done would have to be done by a federal agency. The Border Patrol regulates illegal immigration, but they mostly work on monitoring the actual border areas, and are already understaffed. So who's going to go around rounding up illegal immigrants in Ohio? Can you say - Homeland Security? This would be Bushie's dream come true. This would represent a huge grant of power & authority to the federal government to randomly arrest & deport people w/o real trial or due process. And how are they actually going to do this - raid poultry plants & wheat farms, stop any brown-skinned person who looks poor? Would you feel comfortable w/that? Not to mention the compassion aspect of tearing apart families that have lived here for 20+ years. Such a program would also cost lots of money at a time when the deficit is already sky-rocketing. Some people are saying that he only meant that illegal immigrants who are already caught should be deported - but it doesn't sound like that's what he meant. He said "if we have the money to do it" - meaning if we have the money to pay for a whole new program to arrest immigrants. It's autocratic & a little scary, IMO. I think we're a little close enough to a police state already, thanks.

[ruggerson]

9. Hackett is a breath of fresh air

[SemiCharmedQuark]

295. Yes, I love that he's so open about his ignorance instead of hiding it.

[drduffy]

10. If we expect Bush to have to follow the law

then we should expect to deport illegal immigrants for exactly that reason. Bullshit to the racist hypothesis.

[AzDar]

11. Illegal immigrants are by definition, criminals.Why shouldn't they

be deported? It is a slap in the face to those who gain entry legitimately that those who cannot be "bothered" to go through the legal processes, and chose to break the laws of the land to get here, AREN'T deported.

[BR_Parkway]

12. Thank you for saying that - if some Dems disagree, change the law

but don't stand by and support anyone breaking it.

[High Plains]

13. You folks who want to deport all the illegal immigrants

Please tell me how you will do this. There are supposedly 11 million or so. They don't wear giant placards to identify themselves.

Are we going to have checkpoints set up where everyone has to show their papers?

Are we going to have massive police sweeps of neighborhoods with brown people?

Are we going to have SWAT teams raiding restaurants, construction sites, and farm fields?

How much of a police state can you tolerate to achieve this goal?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. That's Really Twisting The Intent and Is Off Point. Hackett's Point Is

that all illegal immigrants that are caught or identified should be deported. Saying that he's implying door to door searches asking for 2 forms of id as proof you are a citizen and if you don't comply will be shipped off, is a bit of a stretch methinks.

[1932]

23. Then what does, "if we have the money for it" mean?

What are you buying with that money, if not a huge state-sponsored intervention into the lives of anyone who might fall into the category of ourtwardly appearing to have been born outside the US?

[jsamuel]

18. yes, that is the problem. The goal sounds good, but there is NO GOOD

implimentation of that goal. In fact the only logical implimentations are just like what Bush is doing with the NSA wiretaping...

The important thing to find out is whether Hacket means that he would deport anyone found to be illegal or if he would intend on going on a witch hunt.

[FreedomAngel82]

49. Do you know what a background check is?

Don't legal citizen's have a Social Security number too? So if someone doesn't have one and is here and working wouldn't that mean they're not here legally?

[High Plains]

78. Social Security cards are a hot item on the black market.

To be honest, I don't know what happens once an employer checks the Social Security card. Does Social Security immediately respond?

I will point out that employers are not police nor immigration officers. Employers can be giant corporations, or they can be a subcontractor in a pick-up truck.

[spooky3]

101. true, but most employers are required by law to ensure that

workers are legally permitted to work in this country.

http://www.immigrantlegaladvocacy.org/employer.html

[BlueCaliDem]

102. But realistically, how many do? It's all about supply & demand.

Those most honest employers who really don't want to hire undocumented workers even when they can get cheap labor request that the applicants not only give them a social security card, but to bring in the original as well as a copy.

Most know an SSN by heart, but cannot produce a valid original card.

By far, most employers don't ask for the above, and that's the REAL immigration problem the U.S. faces.

It's the age-old supply and demand.

Dry up the demand, and the supply dries up along with it.

[spooky3]

136. You may well be right but that's a different point from the one

to which I thought I was responding. I haven't seen studies on the extent of compliance. But I do agree with you about drying up the demand.

The prior post to which I was responding seemed to imply that employers don't have any responsibility to check legal status, but in fact, they do, and that was the point I was trying to make. If our government fails to enforce the law, that's where the problem lies.

[BlueCaliDem]

164. Let's also not forget the IRS, the SSA, Local and State Governments...

...all feeding off the "undocumented worker wages" trough.

Undocumented workers either use a family's social security number (brings in additional social security money that will never be collected on--hence the huge SS surplus), or they use a legal Federal Tax ID number (extra $$s for the IRS), and then there are those unscrupulous employers who wanna save on workman's comp, and other taxes while getting long, long hours of labor for a pittance.

The problem is far more complex than most people know, because the fact of the matter is, the ONLY people who rant and rave against "illegal immigrants" are people who don't profit from them, and who don't understand that the undocumented workers are the real victims here.

Until we clean up the local, state, and Federal government, and penalize unscrupulous employers with hefty fines to help pay for the return of the workers to their native countries, we shouldn't seek instant gratification to placate our sense of "right and wrong" by demonizing those who are the real victims here.

We should attack the problem, NOT the symptoms.

[PaulaFarrell]

211. My husband's boss use to employ illegals

They were paid cash in hand at the end of the week. Same rate my husband was. They weren't being victimized. And they got regularly deported when caught by INS. They always came back though. They were hired because they were good workers, but I'm sure that the boss would have preferred to hire Americans and not have the hassle, but none applied.

You're right that we should attack the problem, but the problem is that people in Latin America have such poor opportunities that they are willing to leave their families and countries. If conditions improved in those countries there wouldn't be an ilegal immigration problem.

[BlueCaliDem]

241. I agree with you about the poor opportunities in Latin America...

...but I'm not so sure that, even if it's possible to create more favorable conditions for them in their own countries, they wouldn't still try to come to the United States as long as there are jobs here that, in dollars, pay MORE.

No, I believe that if we're serious about solving the entry of undocumented workers into this country, we need to do away with their reasons for coming here by getting the IRS, SSA and employers to abide by our laws for legal employment here.

[BlueCaliDem]

242. I agree with you about the poor opportunities in Latin America...

...but I'm not so sure that, even if it's possible to create more favorable conditions for them in their own countries, they wouldn't still try to come to the United States as long as there are jobs here that, in dollars, pay MORE.

No, I believe that if we're serious about solving the entry of undocumented workers into this country, we need to do away with their reasons for coming here by getting the IRS, SSA and employers to abide by our laws for legal employment here.

Until then, I don't think anyone should fault them for trying to find a better life for themselves, and their families, and blame them for the lack of immigration enforcement in this country.

[proud2BlibKansan]

291. And fake IDs and phoney SS cards are as easy to obtain as any street drug

[BlueCaliDem]

109. Then we'll need to refuse giving out Tax ID numbers too...

...because most of them (if they can't get a family member who's been legalized through marriage or what not, to give them their number) use Tax ID numbers that are very similar to SSNs with the 3-2-4 number sequence.

I don't know if the IRS will like that since they get a whole helluve lot of money through these "illegals", and the Social Security Administration isn't going to be all too happy about deporting "illegals" either, since they produce a nice chunk of change to the coffers too.

My daughter (before I made her legit in the U.S. through me--had to read up on INS laws to discover that she was!) had a tax ID number until I got her, her social security card.

NOW I have to worry about identity theft!

[proud2BlibKansan]

288. BRAVO!!

There have been proposals to make schools ask parents for green cards before allowing their children to enroll. These people who say "just send them back" have absolutely no idea how hard this would be. I can guarantee you there is no school in the US whose employees want to become immigration agents or border patrol officers. We proudly accept every child who walks in the door. And the day we stop doing that, I will be one angry teacher. And I am NOT alone.

I said it before in this thread and I will say it again - unless you are a Native American, chances are your ancestors came here illegally too. And people who live in glass houses . . . :eyes:

[Inland]

308. Okay, instead of deporting all now, how about half now, half later

Or about a million now. Or a half million now.

Seems to me that doesn't require a police state.

A national ID would do nicely. I've advocated that anyway, as a means to combat terrorism.

[AgadorSparticus]

347. Why is this so difficult? You cut the source out. You go after the

corporations and businesses that hire them. You don't need to round them up in the neighborhoods. We didn't get 11 million illegal immigrants in one year, so why expect it to be corrected in a year? It's a process.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

14. I don't really agree with him on this

I still like Hackett, though, because this kind of straight talk is what wins elections, whether I agree with him or not.

[BlueCaliDem]

103. I second your motion, jaredh.

However he plans on executing this "deportation" plan of his, I don't see any humane advantage for the unfortunate souls he's targeted, and I don't see the problem being solved by it either, unless we first take care of the "demand side" of the problem to discourage future "undocumented supply" from entering the United States.

Otherwise, it's just mopping with the faucets open, and punishing the already downtrodden, while letting the REAL problem makers (greedy employers) get away with it scott-free, imo.

[Marie26]

122. Exactly

Why isn't anyone (Republican or Democrat) talking about increasing penalties for these businesses that hire illegal workers? Right now it's profitable for them to hire illegal aliens that they can pay below minimum wage & work 13-hour days. Until it stops being beneficial to these companies, they will continue to hire illegal workers & continue the demand that inspires people to try to come to the US illegally. It's just basic supply & demand. If you want to stop illegal immigration, you have to stop the demand for such workers in the US. If we started deporting CEOS, I'm thinking the problem would be resolved quicker, & it'd be a benefit to the country, too. :)

[alarimer]

132. It's scapegoating pure and simple

The reall problem is the employers that hire these people at really low wages. If they all were deported, agriculture for one would grind to a halt. Does not sound practical or even humane. This guy has a pattern of shooting his mouth off; one of these days it will get him in trouble. I like that he calls Bush names but in this case I have to disagree.

[BlueCaliDem]

166. Yep. Scapegoating the most vulnerable; the least able to defend themselves

Targeting the unscrupulous employers, be they pick-up subcontractors or big corporations, while simultaneously sharpening the background check on people requesting Federal Tax IDs, and having the Social Security Administration check, and recheck the numbers being called in would be the best way to go if we're ever going to solve the immigration problem.

NOT scapegoating those who can't defend themselves.

Then, and ONLY then, imo, may we call them "illegal immigrants".

Until that time, I believe calling them "illegal" is misplaced, since the government from local to Federal are enabling their crossover by not adhering to, and ignoring, their written laws.

If these people are "illegal", then the so-called "turning a blind eye" governments are accomplices, and are breaking the law too.

They are the problem, and the undocumented workers are the symptoms, and are being unjustly blamed for the immigration problem we have in the United States.

Hackett should've either said this as a prelude to his "deport them all" cry, or, he should've kept his mouth shut about it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

286. Sure, doesn't anyone remember "No Irish Need Apply"

We all love to blame the weak.

[donheld]

168. Thats exactly what it is

I'm disappointed in this from him. Why must we pick on the weakest amoung us.

[savemefromdumbya]

162. in theory only not in practice

he'll appear to the conservatives

[bpilgrim]

19. OUTSOURCE YOUR CxO's - INCREASE YOUR BOTTOMLINE

:evilgrin:

peace

[progressivebydesign]

20. From someone who lived in a state that was crippled by this...

I have to agree with him. California, a once-great state, was saddled (thanks to the feds) with billions in social service costs for illegal aliens and their families. They spend money to put up traffic signs and special areas to keep you from running over the aliens as they run through the border area, but don't spend money to keep them from coming across.

I feel for them.. it would be awful to live in a country that perpetuates poverty and ignorance.. but is it our job to take them? Or.. is it a consistenly fucked up relationship with Mexico that causes this? If any president actually worked WITH Mexico to make America less attractive, wouldn't that be better?? That's something that never gets addressed, really. Mexico has natural resources, and there is wealth for SOME, but we do nothing to lift that country up.

I'm certain Hackett's comments were sincere, as in the way newbie politicans often speak sincerely, and are roasted for it later. If someone is an ILLEGAL ALIEN, then what would you all suggest we do with them? Imprison them??? Perhaps Hackett was referring, in his mind, to those that are held in detention centers.. in limbo.. or put in jail, rather than be deported.

[manic expression]

146. Sorry, but I must add a few things

First of all, California was a state of Mexico. Secondly, I think we should make sure people are treated humanely, regardless of how they got here. If that means spending a lot on social services, so be it, but putting people out in the cold because of legal status is not right. Keeping "them" from getting across won't work. They'll just try again, and again, and again until they do get through. (continued after quote)

"it would be awful to live in a country that perpetuates poverty and ignorance"

You already know how awful it is, the only difference is that the US is richer because of certain things (as in imperialism). Anyway, I feel that we need to solve the problem, but the thing is how to do that. I would propose allowing more visas, making the demand for passage into the US less intense and allowing those same people better access to better wages and lives. If they're going to get in, we should let many do so in a recognized way. There are many parts to this problem, so we need to look at all of them before we can reach a solution.

I don't really disagree with your views on the subject. I only think there are better ways of dealing with the situation.

(I hope my post wasn't aggressive...it wasn't!)

[Hyernel]

21. Um...I'm for deporting illegal immigrants too...

...Not all Dems are stupid about this. I'm sure Hackett has nothing against legal immigration. But in a nation of laws, the laws should be enforced.

[High Plains]

28. "The law should be enforced."

Hmmm, I guess we better go on a prison-building spree. It's going to take a lot of cells to hold the 11 million illegal immigrants, the 20 million pot-smokers, etc.

Actually, it would be very interesting to see us try to really enforce our myriad laws. Maybe if we were confronted with the consequences of actually trying to enforce those laws, we'd get rid of some of them.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Oh give me a break

So, as I've asked before if I go to a store and steal something do you think they'd let me keep it? If you're going to have a law everyone should follow it. Other wise why have the law at all? Why not just let all illegal immigrants automatically become citizen's? Why make them go through the process at all to become a legal citizen?

[Hyernel]

84. I didn't say anything about pot smokers...

...marijuana should be legalized (and taxed) And hemp should be cultivated for its fuel and fiber.

Plus, the idea of deporting them is to NOT have to have prisons to hold them.

[1932]

22. Fortress America. Hackett is so wrong about this.

I don't want to deport illegal aliens.

I'd like to give them some kind of due process within a set of rules that helps people not to have miserable lives. If they've been here, and are contributing to the community and the life of the nation, I don't want to kick them out.

What if an illegal alien has been here all her long lifes and knows nobody back in her home country? Do you want to kick her out?

What if the illegal immigrant is the 80 year old mother of a legal immigrant who depends on her children to live? Do you want to kick her out?

What if it's a child who was brought here by their parents, has grown up and gone to school and is now 18? Do you want to send that child back to a country she has never visited (afte her local community in the US has invested so much in her education) just because of something her parents did that she had no choice in?

People who support this, why are you Democrats? I thought being a Democrat meant you had compassioin, that you did feel like you were doing well unless everyone was doing well, and that you wanted to REDUCE the amount of misery in the world.

[jsamuel]

24. compassion, but these people are "corrupt" by braking the law

we are battling corruption in our country right now. We are battling the idea that you can break the law and get away with it. Saying that we let these people break the law and let them get away with it is wrong. Maybe a better position would be to try to change the laws so that we can lower the number of people who are illegal by allowing them to come in legally. None of that "until they finish the job" bullshit though. That is like indentured servitude.

[1932]

27. Would you really call any of my three examples corrupt?

And what's really corrupt is the polarization of wealth in this world which exports wealth from poor countries, ships it to the west, and then criminalizes individuals who want to be as free as capital is to cross borders in pursuit of tiny slivers of tha wealth because they don't want to accept lives of misery and poverty.

Are you people really Democrats? You can't think of a better solution than increasing the net misery in the world?

This past summer and fall when Africans were jumping fences in spain, the BBC interviewed one of those African illegal immingrants who said that no wall is high enough that would discourage people from trying to leave certain miserable lives in Africa for even a REMOTE chance at better life in the wealthier west.

It's is so misguided to equate the kind of criminality of Enron and Abramoff -- very wealthy people trying become even wealthier -- with the criminalilty of an illegal immigrant. Think about the relationship between those two sets of people a little harder. There is a relationship between the two, but it's not the one you just drew in your post.

[FreedomAngel82]

59. Oh get off it

Stop telling me I'm not a freakin democrat because I agree with what Hackett says. HOW DARE YOU! ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT? UGH! GET OFF IT! I'm sick and tired of people telling me I can't support this person or can't support this idea. If you don't like it fine, but DO NOT TELL ME I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH SOMETHING ELSE!! If you break the law you are a criminal. That is the definition and that is the fact. If they want a better life so bad become a legal citizen. What are they trying to hide when they're here illegally? If they're trying to escape like this guy I heard on a radio show once from Iran he came here and became a legal citizen. That way he couldn't be deported back to his home country and he could make a life better for himself and his family. You're encouraging something illegal. So are you going to encourage stealing next?

[1932]

65. Gotta love the LAW AND ORDER spin on this BS.

See my last response to that inspid defense of Hackett's remarks.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. So answer me: can I steal and keep the item?

[1932]

72. I vote for Dems so that they pass laws to help people live better lives

and so they change the ones that make people's lives misserable.

I'm really not down with the fortress america, law and order crap.

[FreedomAngel82]

107. You didn't answer my question though

Or how about this: Can I illegally go to Canada?

[1932]

139. If Canada's trade policies made America poor and Canada rich, YES!

[AgadorSparticus]

349. well then you should be down with the mexican gov't corruption crap

that's eliminated the middle class and has created the uber rich and the poor in mexico. The ruling elites in mexico have made pacts with the ruling elites here and have made obscene amounts of money at the expense of the poor in mexico.

the US is not responsible for the economic instability in mexico. the CORRUPT mexican gov't is and if they gave a damn about their working class, they wouldn't have sold them out and lined their own pockets while blaming it all on US immigration laws.

[oioioi]

99. ...encouraging something illegal...

In the fall of 1941, Manfred and his family were ordered by the Nazis to report for deportation, along with 50,000 other Jews. In an attempt to save Manfred, Gad disguised himself in an oversized Hitler Youth uniform and marched into Manfred’s holding camp, demanding his release. The ploy worked, but Manfred said he couldn’t leave his family and returned to the camp. That was the last time Gad saw his friend.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/archives/detail.php?category=06-exhibitions&content=2000-07-20

[FreedomAngel82]

110. This is about illegal immigration

Not Nazi's and gassing people. Can I go to a store and steal something and keep it? You're diverting from the issue. Can I go into Canada illegally? Or how about Mexico? Or Britain?

[oioioi]

116. THE NUREMBERG LAWS

The Congress of the National Socialist Workers' Party (NAZI) convened in Nuremburg, Germany on September 10, 1935. Among the many items of business on the Nazi agenda was the passage of a series of laws designed (a) to clarify the requirements of citizenship in the Third Reich, (b) to assure the purity of German blood and German honor and (b) to clarify the position of Jews in the Reich.These three laws, passed on September 15, 1935, and the numerous auxillary laws which followed them are called the Nuremberg Laws. They are reprinted here in their entirety. Please take special note of the similarity between these laws and the Jim Crow Laws which were passed in the United States following the Compromise of 1877, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) and remained in effect until the court reversed the "separate but equal doctrine in Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka (1954). It is clear that Hitler used the Jim Crow segregation statutes as his model for defining Jews in the Third Reich.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmberg.html

[1932]

179. Yes, you'd think Democrats would be more suspect of campaign strategies

used successfully by fascists.

[nsd]

204. This comparison is absurd.

Hackett and others concerned about undocumented or illegal immigration are not using some bogus racial criteria nor is there any imputation that undocumented immigrants are somehow inferior. Rather, they simply argue that those who have entered this country illegally do not have an inherent right to be here and should return to their home countries. That's it. Nobody is being sent to a gas chamber; they're just being sent home.

[1932]

233. Fascists didn't start with gas chambers. They started by scapegoating

a group of people they blamed for their problems.

[oioioi]

236. Really? And exactly how would you implement this proposal?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out.

German original:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niemoller

[manic expression]

147. Sure

you CAN go to Canada illegally. You CAN go to Mexico illegally. There's just one small thing:

US->Canada/Mexico/Britain (does not equal) Mexico->US

Get it? The factors involved are completely different.

Furthermore, putting people out in the cold or rounding people up and deporting them will never EVER solve the problem, NOR will it be ethically right. We need to treat people decently and improve lives. We need to find a real solution that looks at ALL of the aspects involved, one that does not use the "this is mine, forget those people" mindset.

To equate this with shoplifting is absolutely laughable and you know it.

[1932]

201. Yes. Exactly.

[High Plains]

224. All of those countries have undocumented immigrants, too.

It's a global phenomenon.

[QC]

124. Can we invoke Godwin's Law now and end this silly thread? n/t

[jsamuel]

134. We are battling the idea that you can break the law and get away with it.

I am saying that there are ways of solving the problem without allowing people to break the law.

For example, let's help Africa or change the law.

Don't go off the deep end when I said nothing of the sort.


Allowing people to live in the US illegally is NOT a solution. It is ignoring the problem. Let's look for solutions to why people are coming here in the first place and why they are doing it illegally. Letting people break the law is not a solution.


PS - look at post 18, I am not "supporting Hackett's remarks."

[1932]

142. We can change bad laws that ruin peoples lives, too, you know.

[jsamuel]

220. What did I say? "or change the law" --> you aren't reading my posts

you are too upset about this issue to read my posts logically

I understand this is a very tough issue for everyone, but there are solutions to our problems. We should not just ignore them. We have to work to resolve them. Changing the law is a democratically viable way to fix problems, but we cannot simply ignore the law, like Bush is doing.

[FreedomAngel82]

56. Uh no hon

Being a democrat just isn't about "compassion." There are rules too you know. We are a country with laws and everyone should follow those laws. If they don't they are a criminal. And how dare you judge me as a democrat. So much for compassion huh hon? Only works in your favor when you want something right?

[1932]

60. Uh, dear, the PEOPLE make the rules, and there are plenty of rules that

our government enforces that don't reflect Democratic values and I vote for Democrats so that I can change those rules.

Ohio, I guess, is lucky that they're getting enough information so that they'll know how to vote.

[Greyhound]

68. Yes, yes, and hell yes. What is so hard to understand about illegal?

[1932]

140. The Democratic Party I support wouldn't do that to those people.

[Greyhound]

182. So the Democratic party should prefer foreign criminals over our citizens?

[1932]

190. We're all better off when we're all better off. You're not helping

Americans by uprooting neighbors from their lives and their jobs and sending them off somewhere they've never been. You're not making yourself better off when a child whom the public schools in your community have invested thousands of dollars in educating is kicked out of the country because his or her parents illegally immigrated to the US when that child was 2 months old.

[Greyhound]

193. We are not all better off. The illegal invasion is hurting us badly.

It's not 'inconvenient', its terribly damaging. So we are not better off. The most frustrating thing is how simple it is to fix.
Make the penalties severe enough that there are no jobs for illegals, period. Heavy fines initially and jail time for repeated offenses will eliminate the threat within a few months.

[1932]

199. How is it hurting us badly? People working hard doesn't hurt anyone.

There are many bad things that cause illegal immigration: freely mobile capital, shipping most of the wealth of developing nations back to the US, exploitative employers in the US and abroad. There are many good solutions to the problem: making labor competitive and mobile to the same degree that we allow capital to be mobile; protecting labor everywhere -- making sure people got fair wages in the US (regardless of immigration status) and abroad.

I've never seen a study that shows that illegal immigration hurts anyone in the US. Many American workers work under the table, and the jobs that are available to illegals are available to them too, and legals work them too.

Demand for labor exists. Illegals consume in the US and create that demand. Kicking them out would reduce demand. You'd have a stasis. There'd be less economic activity here so there wouldn't be more jobs for legals.

The only think I can see happening from kicking out all illegal imigrants would be an increasingly polarization of wealth with less money going to people who work and more going to huge companies with factories overseas with captive exploited labor pools, There'd be even less production in the US and local consumption-drive economies would suffer even more.

[Greyhound]

202. "I've never seen a study that shows that illegal immigration hurts anyone"

Then you're just not looking, and I suspect, you don't live in the southwest. I know people in Boston and other NE cities that think they have a problem with illegals when, in fact, they are at least 10 years behind TX NM and AZ in the effects and probably 15 years behind SoCal. It is everywhere here, you can't get a job in the construction industry, for example, because it has been taken over by them. 20 years ago a framing carpenter in AZ made about $16 - $18 an hour, today if you can get a job you can start at about $10. The same thing has happened to the hospitality and janitorial industries. These are the places that people like newly single working mothers used to be able to go into to start their lives over now they're (we're) just fucked.
BTW I'm sure you heard about the orange and strawberry fields that are rotting because all of the illegals that used to pick them are working construction for $10 an hour.
Look, I feel badly for the people that live in these shitholes, but the fact is we don't have the capacity to support them all. Our standard of living is in a steady decline and is getting worse. It is the middle-class that made this country great and these policies are hurting them. How many DUers shop at Wallyworld because they have no choice, it's all they can afford. This is where we are headed.

[1932]

221. One recent study said they're a net benefit for society, not even includin

the unerpaid, expolited work the perform because many use false SS#s and pay into social security and pay income tax and they never file (so they don't get refunds to which they're entitled) and they don't end up getting social security.

So not only are their private employers making a lot of money off them, the government is making a lot of money off them, and I repeat, being an illegal alien isn't a pre-requisite for these jobs. Many Americans work under the table and are exploited by the same private employers, and they won't be better off if Paul Hackett kicks out all the illegals. There is nothing wrong with having the maximum number of people working hard in America, no matter where they were born. That's why we don't have mass cullings of people in tough economic times. In tough economic times we make sure more people can work for fair wages. Read up on the New Deal if you don't understand the economics.

As for your carpentry example, there are better solutions than kicking out the people making $10 an hour. Either they're creating value for the next person up the line, and you want to be that person in the chain (ie, be the contractor or the homeowner, rather than the subcontractor) or the person making $10 is being exploited and you want to make sure that person is protected because ALL boats rise on a rising tide -- ie, if more people who work see their labor become more valuable, then it's better for everyone. Another thing you can do if you see immigrants making money is get into a business that provides a value service to them. These are opportunities to do better, not do worse. More commerce, more happy people, that's good.

Trust me, unless you're the owner of capital, you're not better off screwing another guy who works for a living.

[nomatrix]

232. 1995 Fort Worth Star-Telegraph study

Of the 1.2 million illegal immigrants apprehended nationwide entering the U.S. over the past year, fingerprint checks revealed that more than 26,000 were linked to major crimes.

More than 4.5 million people have been arrested trying to enter the U.S. illegally since January 2001, and of that number 350,000 had criminal records.

Of the 32,625 alien absconders caught by the National Fugitive Operations Program started in March 2003, nearly HALF – 15,338 – were immigrant criminals. 5,300 were drug offenses.



House has already passed CLEAR. Isn't just a Democratic issue.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga09_norwood/CLEARpasses.html

[1932]

234. How do those numbers compare to the legal population?

Given the rate at which we incarcerate people, those numbers might not be too bad.

I still say the real problem is not going to be solved by rounding up people and kicking them out of the country.

[Greyhound]

203. BTW you didn't address the issue in the previous post. You're

advocating preferential treatment for illegal criminals over citizens.

[1932]

222. Yes I have. I don't think we should criminalize people who are working

to make better lives for themselves and their communities.

I believe that everyone who works for a living should be treated equally and that country of birth shouldn't mean that some of them get criminalized. And I believe in some sort of due process that would allow the examples in my earliest post in the thread an opportunity to stay in the US.

I will vote for Democrats who believe that.

[Greyhound]

315. So you believe everybody that wants to come here should? n/t

[barb162]

238. Uprooting? The roots of illegals are in whatever country they

came from and that's where they should be legally. Oh and education isn't lost when you change schools. Did you lose all your primary school knowledge when you went to high school?

[1932]

280. It's ridiculous that I have to explain this again, but here we go:

1) Many people immigrate to the US when they're a children. And 18 year old who has been in the US since she was 3 months old, who has never been to Honduras -- you want to uproot her from her life here and send her somewhere where she might have no family and no connections? Cruel.

2) Taxpayers pay for the education of the children in their community. They invest thousands of dollars in children by the time they graduate from high school (and even more if they go on to a public university). Why? So that someone can produce social value from their labor so that when you're retired someone is paying for your social security, and so that when you need a doctor to treat you, someone's there who can help you.

After investing so much money in these people, you want to kick them out of the country? They've been educated and they're ready to make your life better with their labor. But you're on such a law and order trip that you want ship them off? That's screwed up.

[High Plains]

226. Oh, please cut this "criminal" crap!

"Foreign criminals"?

You are referring to those people who are picking our vegetables, setting our drywall, washing dishes in our restaurants, right? Those criminals?

They don't have a goddamned piece of paper. That's their "crime."

They are here. That's a fact on the ground. Now, do we deal with them in a civilized manner or not?

But the hyper-legalism I see from some posters on this thread is a bit much. All this sanctity of the law crap. Sometimes the law is an ass. And I would submit that a law that creates a situation where there are millions of "illegal" people is pretty asinine. We need a law that recognizes that labor flows across borders, just like goods and capital.

[1932]

230. Who are these dear friends who are falling like dry leaves?

DEPORTEES
by Woody Guthrie

The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting
The oranges are filed in their creosote dumps
They're flying 'em back to the Mexico border
To take all their money to wade back again
Goodbye to my Juan, farewell Roselita
Adios mes amigos, Jesus e Maria
You won't have a name when you ride the big airplane
All they will call you will be deportees
My father's own father, he waded that river
They took all the money he made in his life
It's six hundred miles to the Mexico border
And they chased them like rustlers, like outlaws, like thieves
The skyplane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon
The great ball of fire it shook all our hills
Who are these dear friends who are falling like dry leaves?
Radio said, "They are just deportees"
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can raise our good crops?
To fall like dry leaves and rot on out topsoil
And be known by no names except "deportees"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Scratch another Dem from my "vote for" list.

"Deport them" sounds a lot like "Bring it on".

The party that protects the poor now wants to deport them. How very "progressive".

[yankeedem]

31. Why should we protect illegals?

And the companies that hire them? The solution is more nuanced than round them up and send them home, but we have to enforce our laws.

There are a lot of poor Americans and legal immigrants that we can protect before we protect lawbreakers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Why not protect them all?

We can afford it. We're the richest nation on earth. Trouble is that beating up on people is far more popular than helping them.

[davepc]

58. Why not just annex Central America?

That way they wont have to illegally come to the US, they'll already be there.

Between shipping jobs overseas and diluting the labor poll with cheap illegal labor, what middle class standard of living are Democrats willing to fight for?

[mitchtv]

90. If I could move my Medicare to Costa Rica

I'd be gone by the end of the month.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. How about a "middle class" for all?

Since when do "middle class" Americans pick strawberries and empty bedpans?

[Greyhound]

198. Since they got laid off from their real jobs 2 or more years ago

and haven't been able to get anywhere near the salary they had. The store manager at my local Taco Bell is in that situation, as are the clerks at Safeway, Blockbuster, The water store, and 2 new tellers at the Washington Mutual, all middle aged, formerly upper middle-class, and trying desperately to hang onto their homes.

Edited to add: They are doing this on about $9 - $12 buck an hour, the same or less than illegals are getting around here for yardwork and labor. :banghead:

[barb162]

271. The middle class is becoming smaller and smaller in this country

So to bring up a fantasy economy when things are clearly going the other way doesn't help the discussion. The middle class is shrinking and it has been for several years.

[FreedomAngel82]

64. We can afford it?

Uh have you seen the defecit? The stockmarket took a huge dive downwards yesterday and that was the first time ever. So no hon. We can NOT afford it. Beating up on people? So are you going to say someone can steal next and keep the item and not have anything happen to them? Can I go to a store and steal a plasma tv and keep it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. Immigrants are stealing all the plasma tv's?

I hadn't noticed.

The deficit is due to an illegal war and a huge "defense" budget. A trillion bucks might go a long way to reducing it and have plenty left over to help poor people. Even poor brown/black people.

[FreedomAngel82]

112. So where are you going to get the money?

China? They already own our asses for years to come.

[manic expression]

153. Where are you going to get the money

to put in place your supposed "solution"? Oh, I see.

[FreedomAngel82]

194. And what do you have to offer?

I don't know if you've noticed but we do have a huge defecit of which we will be paying China for years.

[Maddy McCall]

161. Your simplistic understanding of geopolitics is laughable.

[snowbear]

36. Do you live in Ohio?

You can't vote for Major Hackett anyway, can you?

~Paul Hackett with Max Cleland~

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Fortunately, I don't live in Ohio.

I did a long time ago. Nice state. Is he still a major? I thought he was out of the service.

[snowbear]

40. Once a Major, always a Major..

BTW.. According to my friends in Ohio, he's going to kick DeWine's ass right off the map!

~~ :patriot: :patriot: ~~

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Does that mean I'm still a L/cpl?

Well, good luck to the "major". Tho' I still wouldn't vote for him if he insists on victimizing poor people. Not to mention I don't like "majors" (or any other brass).

[snowbear]

48. We'll promote you to a Captain!

But yeah.. Hackett ROCKS! And an awesome "Fighting Dem" !!

No one kicks Bush's ass more than he does..

And kudos to General Clark who will be campaigning for him ~~~ :hug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. No thanks. I'd consider it an insult to a working man.

I'm less than impressed with ex-GIs of whatever rank, who parade their medals or service as a qualification for office.

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Not poor people

Criminals. And you defending something that's illegal is wrong. Can I steal and not be arrested?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. So were black people who ate at "white" lunch counters.

Criminals. I defended those "criminals" too. What are the "criminals" you are referring to stealing?

[FreedomAngel82]

111. This is about illegal immigration

Not black vs white lunch counters. Why should they come in here illegally? Why should they take jobs that people here need? You're ignoring the issue and letting them illegally come here into this country. Can I go to a store and steal something and keep it?

[manic expression]

149. No

because to you, a criminal is a criminal. Those blacks were criminals.

Who's ignoring the issue now?

Can you refuse to sell something to someone because of wrong and unjustified reasons?

[High Plains]

227. And it's not about stealing.

I do hope you turn yourself in to the police every time you exceed the speed limit.

[FreedomAngel82]

113. My question is

what are they hiding? Why wouldn't they want to become a legal citizen? If they are escaping a country then become a legal citizen so they can't be deported back. Why are they coming here illegally and why are you allowing someone to break a law? Oh, but we don't have a Constiution anymore so let's just get rid of all the laws! I guess I don't matter to you. You care more about illegal people than you do people here in this country. Shows your priorities.

[High Plains]

229. A bit paranoid--"What are they hiding?"

You ought to inform yourself about the immigration laws. There are legal immigration quotas for each country. I think for Mexico it's 20,000 people per year (but I could be wrong). About a million Mexicans a year are coming to the US to work, and there is no provision for them to do so legally.

Many, many of them have no desire to become US citizens or remain permanently in the US. They're here to make some money, maybe go back home and open a store or other small business with the bucks the saved in El Norte.

Rather than view them as "criminals," you might want to consider them as industrious, take-charge kind of folks working to better themselves who suffer from a bilateral political situation that is not prepared to deal with the reality of massive cross-border labor transfers.

[alarimer]

133. Who the fuck picks the tomatoes then?

that you buy for a buck a pound at the store? these people pay their life savings to a coyote to bring them over and they work shitty jobs and often end up basically indentured because their "employers" treat them basically like slaves. I cannot believe the attitudes on display in this thread. Let's deport all illegal immigrants and, hell, let's make it retroactive while we're at it. if you cannot prove that your great, great grandfather was not here legally, you're gone too.

[manic expression]

148. They are poor people

and more importantly, they are PEOPLE. Try looking at that and maybe you'll get somewhere. They are committing a crime ONLY against an unjust system. A system that cares not for them, a system that tries to keep what they deserve out of reach. They are not criminals, they are people.

A starving man who steals bread should not be arrested. Would you like to slap the cuffs on his wrists?

[FreedomAngel82]

61. So if someone steals should they not go to jail?

[manic expression]

150. Your comparison is just wrong

Illegal immigrants are trying to get a decent living. Would you deny them that? Would you leave them out in the cold? THAT is theft. The most disgusting thing is that you feel there is no crime committed, when it is the true crime.

[LizW]

88. I don't know. Sounds like to me he got trapped into that comment.

If he had said, "No, it is not practical or affordable to deport them," that would have been splashed around the news. "Hackett advocates ignoring immigration laws."

Sounds like a sound bite "gotcha" to me.

[Inland]

309. Well, can we still deport the better off illegals?

If one is illegal, but destitute, one can stay. But that Irish kid that overstayed his visa and tends bar, he's got to go. It's not a nation, it's a charity.

.

[yankeedem]

30. We don't have to deport them

How about we just shut down businesses that hire them, and they will go back on their own.
What Hackett said is a little "in your face", but he's right. Not that I think it will ever happen.

[Carni]

43. Why not force the employers to pay a fine TO the illegals

They know who they are hiring...you get busted as an employer of illegal aliens you not only pay a fine--you pay for the illegals transport back home and punitive damages TO the illegal.

The illegal person profits goes back home with a nest egg and these companies will be a little more ethical in their hiring practices.

Probably a naive suggestion on my part.

[FreedomAngel82]

71. So what about all the legals who work there?

You're going to punish them too?

[spuddonna]

33. If we expect to hold the * Administration to the rule of law...

... we need to stand behind the rule of law.

Illegal immigrants are breaking the law, as are our largest corporations who benefit from having this illegal labor.

We need a complete plan that will support the illegal immigrants that have come to this country and have jobs and families here, while at the same time addressing the issue of immigration. I don't think we should start throwing families out of the country, and I support the educational programs for children of illegal immigrants. I am also no policy expert but I know the Democrats could come up with something much better than the system we have now, which is to just ignore the problem...

[1932]

51. See post 27. When laws make lives miserable, maybe we shouldn't accept

those laws? Maybe we should live the values we claim Democrats believe in.

[spuddonna]

80. When laws make lives miserable, then they need to be changed...

... but it doesn't mean you abandon the rule of law!

People escaping manslaughter and starvation should be granted asylum, and immigration should be sorted out afterwards. Our immigration laws need to be broadened and revamped. However, there is a dramatic difference between needing asylum, and "seeking better economic opportunities". (Hell, I'd qualify for 'seeking better economic opportunities'!)

Corporate America is preying upon these poor people desperate for an opportunity. Corp America is the primary beneficiary of our current, broken system.

Are you suggesting we just ignore the problem altogether? As a Democrat I believe in the Constitution; I believe in the laws created by our country. If you don't agree with the law, then you change it.

If the laws are made by compassionate people, they will reflect our Democratic values... Right now, the immigration policies reflect our nation's disinterest with people desperately trying to get into our country. You will note the current administration doesn't change a thing, even after substantial screaming from their constituents in TX and the like. Why? Their corp money says "Don't stick your nose in our business here... nothing to see...move along!"

Don't you get that right now the GOP LIKES the current policy?! It's a great arrangement for the corporations (no benefits for these people, no need to follow labor laws); it gives the freepers someone else to 'hate' (those 'damn illegals on the social programs'); and it divides the working poor against themselves and their best interests ('they're taking my job!').

It's time to fix a broken system...

[1932]

176. And here's an opportunity to elect legislators who have better ideas.

Spending as much money as possible to kick everyone out because that's the law does not sound like a good idea. It's sounds like something out of 1930s Germany.

[boot@9]

200. you are correct...

if illegal immigration was stopped it would just be a matter of time before the hospitality, construction and agricultral industries would collaspe. Locally a major construction owner was quoted as saying fines for hiring illegals should not be increased as that would really hurt their business. Just for information illegal immigration is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense, a misdemeanor like a traffic ticket.

[Carni]

34. If they are here illegally what's the big deal?

Am I missing something here?

[BlueCaliDem]

117. Yes. That the problem is more complex.

Deportation of undocumented workers is right under our laws, but do you really think this solves the immigration problem??

The undocumented workers in the U.S. is the symptom, NOT the problem, and is self-defeating if we leave things running the way they have that attracted them in the first place!

I believe it was Paul Hackett's way of catering to the more righty in the crowd since he is, after all, vying for a rightwinger's seat in the Senate.

[Joanne98]

37. Good! He's got my vote!

[gunsaximbo]

39. all 30,000,000? Lame Brain

That is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't do that. We won't do that. We can't do that.

What we should do, however, is impose an amnesty then guard our borders with the military with orders to arrest anyone caught sneaking in and then deport. In the instance that someone attempts to evade capture they should have the right to do what we DON'T WANT THEM TO DO - fire over their heads first, then shoot them if they must.

I know I'm going to catch hell for this but it will work.

[Greyhound]

62. We gave amnesty about 20 years ago making the 3.5 million

illegals that were here, legal. Now we have another 10 - 15 million, what makes you think it will work this time?

[gunsaximbo]

83. Because 20 years ago

we didn't guard our borders with the military. Read my whole statement.

[Greyhound]

96. I am not aware of anybody that could secure the borders, saying

anything about securing the borders. To the contrary, what I do hear over and over again is that it is impossible to secure the borders.

[gunsaximbo]

160. impossible? impossible?

Nothing is impossible NOTHING. Difficult - yes. Impossible -no. 10 years ago I may have thought it was impossible to put 1000 songs or videos on a little device the size of a credit card and listen to the music or watch the video.

We can do anything we put our mind to. We can literally send men to the moon, send a rocket to pluto and beam images back from mars. This country we live in is capable of anything. Guarding our borders is not the issue.

The real issue is neither party really wants to anger the Hispanic voter. Bush WANTS the hispanics to come across. The Hispanic votes in the USA are split 50/50 whoever shuts the door risks losing 10, 20, or 30 percent of the hispanic vote.

[Greyhound]

181. Quite true, I don't think its even that difficult. I didn't say that I

agreed with those who say it's impossible, only that that's what they say. I am all in favor of securing our borders and deporting those found in violation.

[democrattruth]

373. Do you want

millions of Elian Gonzales cases shown on TV screens?

[BlueCaliDem]

119. The majority now voting DEMOCRAT.

Using the wedge issue of illegal migration to "divide and conquer" the American voters is a repuglikan strategy.

Wasn't it Cornyn (R-Tx) who was quoted saying (paraphrase) that "we (meaning the Republican party) need to stop the influx of illegals into this country because we all know what happens if we don't! MORE democratic voters."

I'm all for battling illegal migration into the U.S., but ONLY if the burden and penalties are handed out equally among all those who break our laws, including huge corporations, business owners, the IRS, the SSA, local and state governments who ALL benefit from undocumented workers' taxes either way.

Otherwise, I'm against Paul Hacketts' stance, IF that's really his stance.

[Greyhound]

206. Agreed, significant fines initially and jail time for repeated offenses

would just about eliminate the issue in a very short time, no point in risking your life to get here if there's no work once you arrive.
Deporting (most of) those already here is easy enough, INS does it all the time. We know where they work and when they're there, they just bring in a half dozen vans to the resort or job site, load them up and take them to the processing facility, the whole thing takes about 15 minutes.

[BlueCaliDem]

237. I don't know about any jail time for repeat offenders...

...because I don't think it would help the legal and American employees who'll be out of a job should the employer choose.

But I agree with the {very} significant fines that will help offset the costs of the deportation, and the money they've robbed from the government.

Then finally, hopefully, we can get to REAL enforcement of our immigration laws.

Until then, I think it was pretty right-wingish of Hackett to just call out "Deport them!", though I do like the guy's cajones.

It's pretty refreshing most times.

[Greyhound]

272. I see your point, but with no jail time it is just an accounting decision

and it will be made according the economics, rather than obeying the law.

[High Plains]

273. "Deporting (most of) those here is easy enough"

Then why are there about 11 million of them here?

"We know where they work?" Oh, really? How do we know that?

No, it's not that easy, and it would require the kind of police state measures that should make good progressives shudder.

Ditto with "protecting the border." It may be possible, but at what cost to us? And I don't mean just in financial terms. What kind of country walls itself away from its neighbors? What kind of country has a cop on every corner checking IDs? Especially for people who "look foreign"?

We need to regularize these labor flows, and we need to do it in a way that protects the rights of workers, foreign and native-born alike.

[gulliver]

46. Paul Hackett is great.

Some Democrats may be rattled, but that's good. They need to be rattled. What Hackett is talking about is the law. He isn't saying he wouldn't give illegal immigrants every legitimate right to legal immigration. He is saying he would enforce the law.

You won't see any Republicans trying to make hay out of this.

[neverevergivein]

50. the operative word is "ILLEGAL"

if it's against the law, they are lucky if they are only deported.

[1932]

53. I have some questions for you in post 24.

[Adelante]

55. Mexico deports illegal aliens

Mexico requires proof of $1200(USD)/mo income for legal aliens.

If anybody ever wondered.

[1932]

57. I'm not sure I would hold up Mexico as a great example of compassion

at least until after their next elections when they finally elect a progressive government.

[Adelante]

74. I wouldn't be so sure

It's shaping up as a very close race.

[manic expression]

151. Really?

That wasn't what I heard. I hope they can finally get a decent government, anyway.

[Adelante]

157. All three candidates are in the 30s

This has been pretty steady for a few weeks now, with a few shuffling points here and there. It will all change, of course, one way or another, but this is current.

[kevinbgoode]

67. For godsakes....what's so wrong about this?

Illegal aliens are NOT immigrants. As for the "racism" of Hispanics against the poor, downtrodden, historically battered white male. . .you know that is a Republican plant.

[1932]

73. see post 22

[Strelnikov_]

70. Only Reich-Wing Politicians Can Get Away With Admitting They Will Not

uphold the law.

Irregardless of the reason they came, they are here illegally, after all.

And I see nothing in the article that indicates he is talking about 'fortress america' as some seem to be alluding to.

[cyberpj]

75. Illegal does mean illegal doesn't it? Dems aren't told to think alike.

Just to THINK.

[Vinca]

76. What am I missing?

Isn't deportation what's supposed to happen to illegals? Why is following the law "rattling" Democrats?

[Mr.Green93]

77. NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL.

The Mexican People have as much right to be as Paul Hackett.

[MercutioATC]

79. Plenty of human beings are illegally in the United States.

They're not "illegal" because they're Mexican, they're "illegal" because they broke the law.

And they DON'T have that "right".

[Hyernel]

85. Wrong! In terms of American citizenship...

...they are illegal.

I might also add some statements that you might deem racist, but are nonetheless, unfortunately, true. Either way...evolutionally speaking...the our herd must be managed.

[manic expression]

155. Wrong, indeed

In terms of human beings, they have the same status you and I do. To leave them out in the cold and deny them a decent life is disgusting. THAT is a crime. To treat people unfairly and perpetuate injustice is wrong. THAT is a crime.

"the our herd must be managed."

What? What, exactly, do you mean by that?

[Mr.Green93]

108. This thread reads like a Minute Man site

Not the Democrats I know.

[FreedomAngel82]

114. Being in another country illegally is illegal

So can I go and live and work in Canada without being a legal citizen?

[sarcasmo]

81. This guy is just what this party needs a breath of fresh air and a big set

of BALLS.

[w8liftinglady]

95. agreed

[UTUSN]

82. 5th Rec for My Mantra: Nobody Is FOR Illegality. Everybody IS

for national security. But we Dems have to keep this issue clear and focused. Wingnuts want to MIX the issues of illegality-national-security with their hidden racism. We are FOR social justice, civil rights, and humane treatment.

And to the poster above who said "this issue" (anti-immigrant) is gaining popularity along the southern border----------uh, no. It has gained popularity wherever the hell Bill O'LOOFAH and Michelle MALKIN and HANNITY and TANCREDO live. The southern border economy lives on TRADE with whoever is on the other side of it, which explains why Dems at the southern border are FOR NAFTA.

Analogous to the CHOICE issue, we have to keep things clear: We are NOT for "abortion", we are for CHOICE. Likewise, we are not for illegality and we ARE for national security, but we are also FOR social justice, civil rights, and humane treatement/non-exploitation.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

87. Huh.

He sounds just like my sycophantic right-wing brother in law.
The one who just got laid off from his job as an airline pilot.
The one who still blames everything, including losing his job, on "illegals".

Another case of treating the symptom, and not the disease.

[FreedomAngel82]

115. Oh please

Hackett wasn't blaming anything on the "illegals." They are illegal and they are breaking the law. So why are you advocating for someone breaking the law? What's next, are you going to say Bush can spy on people in the name of "national security"?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

127. Nice connection there.

:eyes:
And how dare you say I'm for advocating someone breaking the law based on one post? Black and white world?

(Nice attempt to deflect the debate, there, too. How the hell did you think you could connect my comment with me allegedly advocating Bush's illegal wiretaps? You've been doing it all through this thread to try to deflect the debate at hand. Don't think people haven't noticed.)

If you would have bothered to read my post, you would have noticed that last line.
I'll even re-print it for you here: "Another case of treating the symptom, and not the disease."

Hackett's simply targeting the "illegals" (nice de-humanizing term for someone who's probably trying to make a better life for themselves)
instead of actually going after the disease itself: the people who hire them. If you'd target the people who hire these "illegals",
then you'd take care of the problem.

I have no time for anyone (even this "Hackett" person, who's awfully conservative) who refers to another human being as an "illegal". It's a disgusting term trumped up by the GOP to
dehumanize human beings. When my brother-in-law says "illegals" I know he's being racist. I've heard worse from his mouth about
the same group of people.

Go after the disease, not the symptom. These people sneaking into the country are not the problem. It's the people who hire them.
But you know what? I didn't see Hackett say SHIT about that in the article.

On edit: Hacket said shit about them, but it was just a few mealy-mouthed words: "Mr. Hackett said in a telephone interview yesterday that many immigrants are “exploited” by American corporations, and laws must be changed to help them. He did not elaborate, except to say he opposes amnesty for immigrants in the country illegally." Wow. Can't even offer a solution, but he has time to hit the people who try to make some money for their family. "Laws must be changed". Sheesh. :eyes:

See, that's what's supposedly amazing about us members of the Democratic party. We can look past the black and white world that the Republicans have painted the world.
We also tend to look at the reason things happen, rather than just scream "THEY'RE BREAKING THE LAW! THEY'RE BREAKING THE LAW!" Doing that is consigning yourself to a never ending battle. Most of us like to look past the symptom and actually see what's going on.
I've noticed that you've done little but equate anyone who questions Hackett's words with Bush wiretap supporters. Many people know that questioning Hackett's words here is not the same as supporting Bush's wiretaps. Even the character portrayed by the actor in your signature line knew better.

[FreedomAngel82]

152. They are illegal

So what would you call someone who isn't here legally?

[High Plains]

274. You ought to consider changing your screen name

Given your insistent, repeated assertions about these criminals.

How about: TheLawIsAllAngel or UnfreedomAngel or ShowMeYourPapersAngel?

[SillyGoose]

89. I agree with him on this. nt

[sandyd921]

91. It's the corporations

that are benefitting massively from illegal immigration. That's who Democrats should be going after. Once the consequences of doing business this way start to impact the companies getting the bennies from it, illegal immigration will be vastly reduced. That plus reducing the incentives for outsourcing and creating fair trade policies are what Democrats should be telling American workers right now if we want to win elections, not pandering to people's worst insticts.

[w8liftinglady]

94. Illegal aliens are one big reason healthcare is so high...

at least here in Texas...in our county hospital,a huge percentage of babies are born to illegal aliens(about 40%)

[UTUSN]

104. Wingnut strategy: Pitting better-off and less-well-off Dems against each o

other:

**********QUOTE******
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/08/25/bush_second_term/index.html

And you thought his first term was a nightmare
What Bush has planned for America if he wins.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Tiefer

Aug. 25, 2004 | .... Under Bush's slogan of an "ownership society," the Republicans intend a long-term effort, using changes in Medicare, Social Security and taxes to pit better-off and worse-off Democrats against each other, offering all-but-irresistible incentives for some to desert the others -- and any progressive national coalition. .... A second-term Bush agenda will constantly impale Democrats on the dilemma of abandoning their poorer, sicker, older and minority groups, or seeing their better-off, healthier and younger members lured off to the other party. If it sounds like a political nightmare for the Democrats, that's because that's what it is planned to be. ....

********UNQUOTE**********

[1932]

259. So true.

[oioioi]

120. 2005 numbers for ONE healthcare company...

Total Revenue $74,910,700,000

Cost of Revenue $69,904,200,000

Gross Profit $5,006,500,000

Operating Income $1,762,800,000

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=CAH&annual

One year's net operating income = Five and a quarter BILLION diapers.

http://www.drugstore.com/qxc26918_333181_sespider/diapers/diapers.htm

[wiley]

128. And, you're wrong. But Hackett is right to discuss the issue.

:rant:

The ever rising cost of Drugs and Supplies, not the birth of babies or even the cost of providing care is the reason health care costs are so high. In order to force the states to stop asking the federal government for money for Medicaid, Medicare and other health programs, the CORRUPT REPUBLICANS made sure that the costs of such programs were shifted to the states - sometimes sticking the states with hugh deficits that would traditionally have been paid. At the same time, they forced through needless tax cuts for the wealthy, and created medical malpractice costs instead of the insurance companies astounding greed as another reason for high health care costs (they are a tiny fraction).

The issue is that other countries are not providing their people with job opportunities, health care, and any chance to live a decent existence. The amount of money that the US has already spent in Iraq would solve the health care problems of every human being in the world. I bet a lot of people would feel a whole lot better about the "evil" US. Oh, and that means giving money to people, not the corrupt leaders and middle men who exchange these funds to enforce policies.

The fact is that the CORRUPT REPUBLICAN plan is working. The poor and working families in this country have virtually no access to health care, or have recently had their access denied due to cuts in programs. States have moved hugh portions of their budgets to cover these health care expenses and people - especially those who believe that illegal and legal immigrants as well are the source of all monetary problems - want to know why they have to pay taxes or sacrifice for people who don't play by the rules, like they do. At least if they are suffering, illegal immigrants and those who weren't born in this country should be worse off than they are.

There hasn't been a functioning immigration policy in this country for almost ten years. CORRUPT REPUBLICANS only follow laws when it is to their advantage. Homeland Security is profoundly inept - how do millions of illegal immigrants get in this country - and the recent tragedy in NO shows just how much they actually care about Americans who need assistance. This is about a war started by CORRUPT REPUBLICANS to have the poor and working people, whipped into a frenzy by the RW regime, resolve the issues of illegal immigration.

If the issue is deporting individuals who illegally enter the country, what is the big deal with enforcing the law? What's the big deal with running a country with integrity and compassion? CORRUPT REPUBLICANS are incapable of both the former and the latter.

[Bridget Burke]

246. I thought that Republicans in Austin were the reason....

Health care is so high. Starting with Governor Bush.

It's so handy to have a scapegoat.

[zbdent]

100. Watch the Repukes combat Hackett with

"Do it, and watch prices rise as you have to hire Americans and pay for Health Care costs!"

[TheFarseer]

106. I agree with him

I'm not going to debate the merits of deporting illegals here, but I'm glad he had the courage to say what he felt instead of pandering to what the crowd wanted. Agree or disagree, I'm glad he has the guts to take a stand on a real issue that people are concerned about.

[imlost]

121. Ex-illegal alien here!

My parents brought me here when I was one year old, yes illegally!
We are from the state of Michoacan and where extremely poor there.
My life would have been totally different if I would have stayed there.
I would have worked the land for almost nothing, married at the age of thirteen or fourteen.
My husband would have probably controlled my life and I would have gotten no education.
Just like other countries Mexico is not very good to its poor.
If many of you where living in Mexico you would do the same exact thing that many of these illegal immigrants are doing.
Your butts would be over here trying to make a better life for yourself, instead of remaining and not knowing when you would
get your next meal.

Growing up we were also poor, but we had so much more opportunity. My parents were janitors all there lives. They worked their asses of cleaning toilets and office buildings.
They were so proud of the work they did and for very little money. The idea that there kids could maybe have a better life here
brought them to tears.
I also worked my ass off. Before the age of 18 I had worked as a janitor, counselor, translator, in retail, and a nanny.
I also did it with pride. I worked full time to put myself through college.
We were never on welfare or food stamps. We worked our asses off.
Here I am today, a happy 30 something year old who has lived the "american dream"

I don't know what the answer is. I do agree that if you are committing an illegal act it is illegal no matter what.
I also know that when times are hard, us the "brown" ones get blamed because we are an easy target.
When times are good, "oh no problem just make sure you cut my lawn, cook my dinner, wash my dishes, clean the shit of my toilets, and
don't forget to vote for me." I'm sick of it. Both Mexico and the US are to blame for this issue before us. No one is willing to deal with
it because it isn't in there best interest. Business here benefits with the low wages and it has someone to the dirty work. Mexico benefits
because it is one less mouth to worry about, the money the illegals make abroad ends up going back to family and helps out its economy.

I agree you should deport them back but at the same time we should setup good workers programs to help both sides out.
The US and its people need to acknowledge that these workers are needed. The workers need to be respected.
I would have appreciated if Hackett would have elaborated. At this point I don't know what to think about him on this issue.
I still like the guy.

By the way it isn't only latinos coming across our borders illegally. We are the only ones that get crap for it.

[Adelante]

135. "Both Mexico and the US are to blame for this issue"

That's certainly the truth. It's hard to know what to think. I certainly want immigration to be legal. I also know that Mexican society is not organized in a way that can possibly keep people productively employed. I know Mexicans in this situation, families who literally would not survive without the husband NOB, and I want to cry when I think of the dangers they face, from many different directions, crossing that border. There's hypocrisy all around, too, and Mexican politicians who advocate illegal emmigration instead of working for meaningful economic reform are hurting their own country and putting their people's lives in danger. I'm personally in favor of open borders to both Mexico and Canada, some kind of North American regional federation, similar to the EU, not that that doesn't have its own complications. I don't think for a minute Mexicans or Canadians or Americans would go for it, because of nationalism and cultural insecurity and historical resentments and downright selfishness. But that's actually what I think is in the best interest of all of us on the continent.

[barb162]

239. Latinos get the crap because Latinos are the largest group

by far coming her illegally. Last I recall Latinos make up about 90+% of illegal immigration. Although you explain the circumstances of why illegals want to come to the US the problem is there are probably about a billion or more people who would do the same. The US needs to control its borders and make its own decisions on who comes here, just like any other country. Citizens of other countries should not be defying US immigration law, which is what they do when they come here without permission

[Beelzebud]

125. He's correct. The key word: Illegal.

I'm all for LEGAL immigration.

[Cocoa]

126. I expect Sherrod Brown will take a somewhat different position

[wiley]

130. Why was I waiting to hear that?

I'd love to hear Sherrod Brown's response.

[nomatrix]

129. Who here read the whole article?

"Mr. Hackett said in a telephone interview yesterday that many immigrants are “exploited” by American corporations, and laws must be changed to help them. He did not elaborate, except to say he opposes amnesty for immigrants in the country illegally.

Asked if he stood by his statements, Mr. Hackett said: “Illegal immigration is illegal. It’s that simple.”

[wiley]

131. I did. Hackett is a winner!

Now that's a man who says what he believes. He supports gay marriage. He says the RW has been hijacked by religious fanatics. he says our time in Iraq is up. I don't believe he is against immigration,either.

[1932]

141. So we're doing them a favor by uprooting them and sending them

back to the miserable lives they were trying to escape when they followed the wealth of their nation which, thanks to freely mobile capital, ended up in the US?

I wonder what the employers are like in the countries they left?

I agree that we need to protect people from bad employers, but I'm sure there's a way to do that without ruining lives.

[FreedomAngel82]

154. So why have the law?

Why not let anyone who wants come here and take jobs? Why should anybody be legal?

[1932]

172. So why have legislators, elections and democracy if not to make good laws?

And I'll vote for people who get rid of the bad laws that make people's lives miserable.

[FreedomAngel82]

196. Make people's lives miserable?

I know people who think taxes make their lives miserable and it's bad for paying for certain things and call it "leeching." So should they elect people who will get rid of those laws?

[1932]

197. Reducing the tax base, not investing in infrastructure and education,

makes lives more miserable.

If people are miserable paying taxes, it's because the US has, at all levels, shifted the tax burden off corporations and on to individuals. And if you want to see real misery, we'll keep letting it happen, and we'll keep reducing the tax base, and we'll continue to go into deeper deficits, and we'll continue to run trade deficitis, and we'll prey that Canada, Argentian, Brazil, Venezuela, the European Union, Malaysia, and India don't have restrictive immigration policies.

[QC]

173. You expect people around here to read articles *before* commenting

on them? But that would take all the pleasure of easy sanctimony out of the whole thing. It's much more fun to pretend outrage over what someone didn't say than to deal with what he did say.

[MrSlayer]

143. I like this guy more and more every day.

Why should the Democrats be against tossing people out who are here illegally? We should steal this issue from the Pukes and make it our own. They certainly aren't doing any more than paying it lip service.

[FreedomAngel82]

158. I think with this issue

is we need to show we're serious about it and go with what Hackett is saying. And yes I agree with MrSlayer that the republicans just do lipservice. If Bush cared about immigration and protecting the country he wouldn't have the boarders and posts so open like they do. It's all talk for people to vote for them. We do need to work on it and I think it's something we should take seriously.

[WCGreen]

145. The problem isn't the issue, so to speak....

It's the fact that the area surounding Toledo is very rural and has always been heavily dependent on migrant farm workers....

The famous CBS documentary, Harvest of Shame, was filmed in and around this area...

It just happens to be a soar subject for the people in this area since the legal hispanics have always voted democrat....

It's just an example of a candidate not being aware of what he is saying and where he says it...

He could have toned down the rhetoric just a bit...

He just doesn't know the state yet.....

Give him time....

[Ouabache]

156. and PROSECUTE employers who hire illegals to the full extent of the

law. Take Hackett's position, and couple it with maximum PROSECUTION of employers who hire illegals.

= More jobs at fair wages, more opportunity for everyone who follows the labor laws.
More and better opportunities for everyone who follows the immigration laws.

Less exploitation of illegals results too.

In the 1840's we sent boatloads of people back to Europe who didn't pass health exams.

[FreedomAngel82]

159. Yes, I agree

The companies giving jobs are a problem too. They're doing something illegal too aren't they?

[mtnsnake]

163. Full Metal Hackett

[bigjohn16]

165. I agree completely with Hackett

We deport all of the illegals wall up the US and then none of the worlds problems will ever effect us again.

[WCGreen]

167. Wow. Pat Buchanan is posting on DU....

[QC]

174. Wow. Joe McCarthy is posting on DU....

[WCGreen]

177. Wow... It's almost exactly what PB has been saying for

years....

[QC]

178. Sure, but guilt by association is just too easy,

much like the common tactic here of trying to shut down discussions of illegal immigration by declaring that anyone who has a problem with it is a racist. The same three or four people do it every time this subject comes up, and usually they get what they want: the thread quickly becomes a pointless flamewar and gets locked. I'm surprised this one has lasted so long.

[WCGreen]

183. I was making an observation about what the poster said....

It was just like PB...

It isn't a racist issue...

At least to me....

It's an issue that is divisive so naturally the people who are in power pay lip service to the solutions....

Talking in slogan instead of engaging in real, honest debate....

That is not the way, in my very humble opinion, to address an issue as hot as how to deal and or cope with illegal as well as legal immagration...

What we need to do is beef up the border patrol, enforce the laws on the books and work with first Mexico to try and make life bearable for the poorest of the poor so they don't feel compelled to run for the border just to stay alive...

[bigjohn16]

184. This is why I never post

I guess the :sarcasm: tag is a requirement

[WCGreen]

186. Given the tone of some of the other comments in this

thread, perhaps that may have been the wise thing to do...

In the rush to glorify Hackett, it seems a lot of folks are making exceptions, rationalizing their support for Hackett because of his outspoken objections to the war in Iraq...

Time will tell if Hackett can refine his message or if he will continue to make off the cuff remarks that play well on the internet but may well offend real time voters....

He is raw....

He is talented...

But as I have said in other posts, if all it took was a quick wit and an outsider persona, Congress would turn over far more frequently than it does....

[bigjohn16]

187. Off the cuff remarks.

Off the cuff remarks let you get to the core of a politicians beliefs. Refined and tested messages are whats wrong with this country, at least now you know his positions on immigration. Off the cuff remarks are what gives us gems like "If this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier just as long as I'm the dictator."

[WCGreen]

189. Good point....

I hate to say this, but part of Hackett's appeal may come from the same place that allows conservatives to over look comments such as the "dictator" quote of Bush....

Probably why Hillaries "Plantation" remark was vilified...

She is so scripted and in control that a remark like that seems to stand out...

It's a careful blend of ad lib and control....

Bill Clinton had that down to a tee....

[Bridget Burke]

247. I caught the sarcasm....

It's amazing how many did not!

[Algorem]

169. related Time column-

It's Easy to Be Hard and Hard to Be Smart
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1151749,00.html

Will attitude, opinions, and very little information be enough to win the primary elections?

Posted Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006

"The republican party has been hijacked by religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of other religious nuts around the world," said Paul Hackett, a recent Iraq-war combat veteran who is running for the U.S. Senate from Ohio. As you may have surmised, Hackett is a Democrat, and his statement, to the Columbus Dispatch, raised an immediate call by the Ohio G.O.P. for an apology. "I said it," Hackett replied. "I meant it. I stand by it." In fact, he has taken to repeating it at every stop along the campaign trail.

Which sent me hurtling to Ohio last week to check out the first hot contest of the 2006 election, the primary election between Hackett and a traditional lunch-pail-liberal Congressman named Sherrod Brown, which will be decided in a May 2 vote. The winner will meet incumbent Republican Senator Mike DeWine in the fall. It is a race with national implications—winning Ohio has become the holy grail for Democrats—but it also raises an interesting stylistic question for both parties: Is this one of those "outsider" years when the public rises up and cleans out the Congress? Hackett is, flagrantly, an amateur; Brown first ran for office soon after graduating from Yale in 1974, and he has been running ever since.

I caught up with Hackett—a tall, Hollywood-handsome sort—as he strode into a wings joint just outside Marion. At 43, he is a successful lawyer whose Marine reserve unit was deposited in the toughest part of Iraq, Ramadi and later Fallujah, in August 2004. When he arrived home—indeed, as he was embracing his wife—his best friend told him that the local congressional seat was open and that he should run for it. He did, lost well to the heavily favored Republican Jean Schmidt and received lots of positive national attention. With hardly a breath, he turned around and began his Senate campaign, after some prodding from the national-party hierarchy.

At the wings joint, he approached a small crowd of potential supporters with a combative abrasiveness that made Howard Dean seem like Mister Rogers. "I'm a strong Democrat from the great state of Ohio and damned proud of it," he thundered. "What does the Democratic Party stand for? Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility." Limited government? That was the fun part: "I don't want to send someone to Washington to invade my private life, control what goes on in my kid's school, get involved in the decisions made by my wife and her physician or to find out how many guns there are in Hackett's gun safe." He paused, looking for a reaction from any wussified, gun-hating Dems in the crowd. Finding none, he seemed lost. He didn't rise to his preferred state of indignation until the question period, when he was asked about Iraq. "The war is over. Bring 'em home. The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. We have a saying in the Marines: It's easy to be hard and hard to be smart." ...

[WilliamPitt]

180. Um...

Politically, I suppose this is smart, in that this is a big issue with Western red states.

But...um...how do I put this...?

Every single person in the country will starve to death if we do this. Illegal immigrants are the backbone of the agricultural industry. No illegals, no food. It's that simple.

[flpoljunkie]

185. Exactly!

[1932]

195. What about Democratic values?

You've covered the "political appeal" angle and the "material impact" angle, and, hey, that's important.

But what's more important is what people like George Lakoff says and what Carville and Begala are starting to say -- Democrats lose because they're not putting together a coherent message about what they stand for. Democrats don't stand for political expediency in the western states, or value-free economic reality. They stand for the idea that we're all better off when we're all better off -- which is the essence of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the War on Poverty. We're going to do better in the western states if western voters feel like we stand for something good and important. And good values are good economics. We are better off when we're all better off. FDR proved that that's true.

Americans aren't not better off when we pick an "other" and punish them for the sake of the people luck enough not to fall into that category.

[Maestro]

209. They certainly are doing the work

that many will not do. In fact, agribusiness depended on immigrants so much so in the 50's that the government created the "Brazero" program which allowed those who would be considered illegal today to work in the fields. And if you look at my other post, #208, here you will also see that they pay into the economy as well.

[Bridget Burke]

248. Speaking as a Texan, I don't think this is smart.

In fact, some of the most virulent "but they're ILLEGAL" posters here live very far from the big, bad, evil red states. Perhaps they've seen a few suspiciously brown people in their lily-white enclaves. And they're scared. "But it's not about racism!"

[LincolnMcGrath]

188. Beltway Dem planted to trip up Hackett?

"The original questioner began to speak about the racism of Hispanics against whites. " WTF?

[brook]

191. Immigration laws need to

be fixed and enforced. There has to be a legal avenue for people to immigrate and to achieve resident status in a timely, prescribed manner. And, no - I don't have the complete answer.

I am sickened by the racism I see and by the way this country allows this

After you read the story, vote in the poll.

[johnfunk]

192. Plays well in his district and home state -- AND...

... it allows Hackett to position himself as a REFORMER as opposed to those DO=NOTHING REPUBLICANS.

[Maestro]

205. Attacking undocumented workers like this is wrong.

I would have much rather like to have heard. "I'll attack any business or corporation that knowingly engages in hiring undocumented workers simply to increase its bottom-line." Undocumented workers are an easy target. It's typical right wing ideology. I'm saddened to see Hackett say this.

[ruggerson]

207. Undocumented

is just a euphemism for illegal.

Bush's wiretapping is "undocumented" too. Softening the word doesn't make it any less criminal.

[Maestro]

208. Do you know these people?

I work with them on a daily basis. They are hard-working individuals that do not want to take anything away from Americans. They are good people. You want to call them criminals go ahead, but the real criminals are the cheap labor asswipes that hire them avoiding having to pay decent wages and medical coverage to Americans. These people are coming here to escape horrible economic and sometimes war situations. Attacking them is cowardly. Attack the businesses.

SPL Center Info on Immigrants

AILA info

The above two links to a good job at debunking some of the myths related to immigration, legal and illegal.

[ruggerson]

212. I'm not working to deport them

But I can't argue with the fact that they are breaking the law. If we don't like the law, change the law. But we can't just arbitrarily decide for ourselves which laws are just and which are not. If we do that, we have no society. If we break the law, we have to expect the consequences - until we have worked to change the law.

[Maestro]

217. I see your point, but

the reason they break the law is because they know they can be hired and paid in USD from unscrupulous companies such as Brinker Inc and many small business construction owners for example. Attack them; not the immigrants. That is all that I am saying.

[greiner3]

210. I'd vote for him;

Ohio does not have many immagrants, illegal or otherwise. DAmn, but he did sound like he could go places. This finishes him as a national candidate.

[BringEmOn]

213. Can we start retroactive to 1492?

[Freddie Stubbs]

327. You can't deport the dead

[Charlie Brown]

214. Hackett's completely wrong about this

We cannot shut the door of opportunity to those who live and work among us.

I hope Sherrod Brown has a more sensible approach to immigrants, or that Hackett retracts this, 'cause I wouldn't care to vote for someone with this attitude.

If Republicans had said this, everyone here would be chiding them and calling them bigots (and with some justification). I would hope that Hackett does not get a "free pass" on this.

[1932]

223. I agree. It's disturbing that this seems to be minority opinion here.

[barb162]

240. There's nothing disturbing about it.. Immigration law is there

for a reason and every country has immigration laws. No countries that I know of let this happen on their borders. IN FACT, MOST COUNTRIES CONTROL THEIR IMMIGRATION VERY CAREFULLY. A million or two people entering this country illegally year after year is an extremely serious problem. It shouldn't be happening.

[1932]

250. Thanks for that, but I know when I'm disturbed. BTW, no EU country

stops any of the 350 million people who live in EU countries at any national border within the EU because those countries recognize that it is good for people to be able to cross international borders in order to persue the best jobs.

Also, the mobility of labor across national borders in Africa is considered one of the reasons that there have been cases of strong economic growth in Africa (I believe Botswana is one of the fastest growing economies in the world for several of the last 5 or 6 years). There is a book about how organized religion provides these workers with a sense of community in whatever cities they move to and that that has really helped workers make money and build middle classes (I heard the author on NPR in, IIRC, 2002 or 2003).

To sum up:

1) MANY countries do not stop millions of people from being able to cross national borders to persue jobs and work to build economies, and

2) They do that because they know that it's good for people who work, and therefore it's good for economies to do that.

Ie, you're exactly wrong.

[barb162]

270. Yeah, right. That's why Egypt was killing Sudanese who

illegally entered Egypt.http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/01/02/egypt.sudan.reut/?section=cnn_latest
Egypt's Sudanese despair after killings



Sudanese refugees and migrants stand defiantly as Egyptian troops fire water cannons on them Friday. CAIRO, Egypt (Reuters) -- Halima Baraka cried quietly on Monday as she recalled how she lost her 11-year old son in the panic that ensued when Egyptian police cleared a Sudanese refugee protest camp last Friday, leaving at least 27 dead

snip

The countries in the EU are stable with stable populations and fairly similar economic conditions so there aren't situations where there is one way migration. You would notice they have haven't allowed Eastern Europe in because there would be precisely that kind of one way migration from East Europe. They know it isn't good for their own countries to allow this kind of one-way migration. Your one example of where it supposedly works is a precise example of one way migration not taking place and disproving your own point.

Your "many" countries are really only a very few third world countries, some barter type economies in Africa. Yes there are true open borders in those poorest countries on the planet as I doubt they even have money for border patrol.

Do you have any examples of first world economies allowing in a few million third world illegal immigrants annually. Singapore? Japan? Norway? Britain? AUstralia? I bet you can't come up with any. It's simply not happening

[1932]

279. When Turkey enters EU it will be treated exactly the same as every other

country.

I'm sorry. When you said no country does this, I though you meant no country did it.

By the way, Canada has, essentially, an open door policy when it comes to immigration and it has one of the most liberal interpretations of the UN asylum convention in the world.

Sweden also embraces immigrants and has a very liberal policy towards asylum (they've given an American asylum!).

So, once again, you were wrong.

BTW, Egypt and Sudan notwithstanding, Africa is a continent of migrant workers and there is, in fact a book out there that says the mobility of the population, aided by organized religion, is one of the most significant factors in the spurts of economic growth the continent experiences, and, IIRC, Botswana has the highest economic growth rate in the world. Historically, Botswanans have worked in the mines in South Africa, and return to Botswana with the money they earn, and colonial powers never took over their land -- so mobility, plus fair distribution of land ownership has helped them. Africa is continent with many problems, and its poorer today than it was 40 years ago, but a mobile labor force is one of the bright spots.

[barb162]

302. Sweden, Canada, etc are simply NOT taking in the numbers or %

of illegals that the US is anually, even proportional to their size.

Sweden has about 100,000 illegals out of 9 million people; 1 out of 90 people is an illegal. In the US it is 1 out of 15 or less. Same story with Cananda, very few illegals % like Sweden. I think we have a true crisis going on in the US with this problem on so many levels; employment, social services, driving wages down, breaking unions, etc. Unless every American citizen who wants and can do a job HAS a job, no more immigration.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/271dgkju.asp?pg=2

"But in a country where, as the sociologist Åke Daun puts it, "people like being like each other," there is evidence of profound exhaustion with immigration, whether the reasons for this exhaustion are rationally well-founded or not. In the moral-superpower context, it is the equivalent of "imperial overstretch." Swedes tell pollsters they want no more asylum-seekers. (A common complaint is that prospective arrivals have figured out how to "game" the rules of asylum applications, and that the best way to render one's story unchallengeable under the law is to destroy one's identity papers.) A very low rate of mixed marriage is an indication that Swedes may not have been crazy about this immigration in the first place."

snip

SWEDES HAVE LATELY GROWN ATTENTIVE to their neighbors' policies on immigration. They note that Finland's tight immigration policies have resulted in lower social burdens. But ever since the Öresund bridge brought Malmö within commuting distance of Copenhagen, it is to Denmark that Swedes have looked with most anxiety. There, the rise of the anti-immigration Danish People's party--which has never entered government but has thoroughly spooked the other parties of left and right--has succeeded in winning passage of Europe's most stringent laws on immigration. Denmark now restricts asylum admissions, welfare payments, and citizenship and residency permits for reasons of family unification. Danes under 25 who marry foreigners no longer have the right to bring their spouses into the country. Many such half-Danish couples now live in Malmö.

Denmark's crackdown has left Swedes wondering what is to stop everyone in the E.U. from coming to the most generous welfare state, even if such worries are couched in human-rights language. Shortly after Denmark passed these laws in 2002, Sweden's Social Democratic integration minister complained that the policies were inhumane. The Danish People's party leader, Pia Kj rsgaard, replied to the Swedes in a newsletter: "If they want to turn Stockholm, Göteborg, and Malmö into Scandinavian versions of Beirut . . . then that is up to them." It would be surprising if the way the E.U. is organized did not produce a "race to the bottom"--the same dynamic that leads American states to try to undercut one another on social programs for fear of becoming welfare magnets.

snip

Even though it's the Weekly Standard I can source this to more mainstream media. When I googled Sweden and illegal immigration, I was seeing a lot of sites from Sweden with "No More Immigration "T-shirts. Hell, and they have so far fewer illegals than here and people are getting fed up. Look what Denmark's doing. You think France is not rethinking things after the riots this past fall. I think all of Europe is rethinking immigration

Turkey is a discussion and a half. Why do you suppose they were thinking for years about letting Turkey In the EU?

[1932]

305. You just cited the Weekly Standard and lauded "lower social burdens"

through national purity.

That is so right wing.

Right now, I am very comfortable being on the opposite side of the fence from you.

Hey, and let's hope that Sweden doesn't give in to the neo-nazis. Just because the weekly standard and racists think immigration creates chaos doesn't mean it has to (or that it does).

And what the hell kind of evidence is a racist web site? I could find many of those for you in America. It doesn't mean smart, compassionate progressives who understand how the world works believe those things, and it doesn't mean they'll let their govrement enact racist, xenophobic polices that make people miserable and shrink opportunity and the economy. And I'm definitely not interested in persuing public policy that makes the neo-nazis happy. Are you truly saying immigration is a problem in Sweden because neo-nazis don't like it? Are you really saying that we should do what they say? Don't you think we should appeal to them with reason and not appease them with xenophobic laws.

Why isn't it more obvious to you that racist anti-immigration polices are phenomenon of societies making the wrong choices?

Incidentally, Canda has 12 million people. How many illegals do they have. The percentage might actually be higher than the US. I'd love to see the number.

[barb162]

329. national purity? Gve it a break, This is not about race

We have probably the most diverse population on the planet, which is a real strength for the USA IMHO. Again, Race is not what this is about. It's about what I mention in my posts; union breaking, American citizens having jobs, etc. It's about economics and illegality. If someone wants to emigrate to this country, it should be done through the proper legal channel, the State Department. I am really glad I am on the other side of the issue than you.


And BTW you were a bit off on Canada's population by a teeny bit ( Yours:"The percentage might actually be higher than the US.") .

Below... Canada; It appears about 1 in 320 people is an illegal immigrant. Canada has 32 million population ( per United Nations 2005)

http://apmp.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/agworkvisa/canada111503.html

[1932]

335. Please. The Weekly Standard. Foreign borns = disharmony. BTW, did you read

that article you cited?

That was a pretty good argument for legalizing illegal immigrants, eh?

mmigration Minister Denis Coderre announced an unprecedented program this week that would grant these undocumented construction workers legal status -- although he was careful to note that this is not a blanket amnesty for all illegal immigrants.

The initiative is the first official acknowledgement of the illegal population since a 1986 amnesty. Although the census doesn't track the number of undocumented people living in Canada, industry studies and experts put the figure at somewhere between 100,000 to 200,000.

Ontario's construction secretariat says there are about 76,000 in the province's construction industry alone; at least 36,000 failed refugee claimants have never been deported; and of the 800,000 foreigners issued work, student and visitor visas last year, experts estimate at least 8 per cent typically overstay their time limit (64,000).

...


Unions, academics, community groups and immigration lawyers in favour of such a program say it could save the country billions of dollars.

"We've been pressuring the government for years and we know Paul Martin recognizes this is a problem," said Andy Manahan, spokesman with the largest construction union in Toronto, Universal Workers Local 183, who met with Mr. Coderre this week. "There are as many as 20,000 construction workers in the city who don't have status.

"They should be recognized by Ottawa as legitimate and needed workers. If they were to leave, it would hamper the productivity of the building industry across the province."

...


"It is wasteful and costly to have to go through hearings if they're economic migrants," he says. "We should offer this class of people another process, recognize the fact that they're contributing to the labour economy."

...

Mr. Waldman believes that it is not possible to stop the flow of people in search of better lives from reaching Canada: They will come as long as there is work for them.



BTW, were you stunned by that number of visa'd and asylum seekers. 820,000 EVERY YEAR! That's a lot of people for a country with a population of 32,000,000.

[barb162]

365. Are we even "talking" the same subject? Would you please

advise if we are talking legal versus illegal immigration? Because I have no problem of any kind with LEGAL immigration. If there are large numbers of immigrants on VISAS, WORK PERMITS, etc., in Canada , the USA or anywhere else, who cares?
Do you have a problem with the university article I linked on Canada. Have you linked anything to prove your points or do you have anything to link to disprove the Weekly Standard article? Can you prove any of your points because I don't see you proving anything in your posts...you provide no backup, no links, etc.

Edit PS. I have to take back one point and that is I do have a big problem with work permits issued in the USA for companies who lay off US citizens and then hire foreigners at far lower pay. What Bill Gates does... He fires his qualified USA citizens and then goes on TV saying there aren't qualified USA workers and he needs foreign workers / work permits. Yeah, right, Bill Gates. Yeah, Right, Microsoft.

[ZapaPaine]

215. I smell fear...

Pure and simple, fear of the unknown, ignorance of those different than you, and using "brown" people as scapegoats for the troubles afflicting the nation. I didn't know this thread brought out the brown shirt, minute man, trailer park wing of the Democratic Party.

Blaming undocumented workers for all ills is convenient because they have no political power and no voice. It's like the bully picking on the nerd, it's a symptom of deep insecurities. Go after the real problem, the corporate world, the Bushies, those who exploit and enable the suppression of wages for greater profit. Blame NAFTA (yes, Clinton). As I recall, the wave of Latin American immigrants began with the introduction of NAFTA back in the mid 1990's. Blame neoliberal policies, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, all American controlled instruments of exploitation. Are most of you so blind as to not see through this?

Seems we reap what we sow, and never ever blame ourselves for what we help create. War on Drugs? Fight Supply, not demand we say. War on Poverty? Fight the poor, not the system that creates it. War on Terror? Fight the reaction to unjust imperialistic policies. But I forget, we are America, incapable of wrong. And so the undocumented workers are at fault. Never us.

This is so typical America: in times of problems the scapegoating of those with no power commences. Just read up on history, you are now part of it. And you call yourselves Democrats? Go join freeper land, where ignorance needs strength in numbers to maintain its head above water.

In a nation of immigrants, and all of our parents, grandparents and great grandparents were immigrants, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Immigration brings in new blood and new life to a nation. Embrace it, it is positive to a country and its people. Look outside the box, not inside the television monitor where you get your opinion and stats, from those with vested interests.

You are being used, feeding your ignorance of the subject and the hidden layers of closeted bigotry and xenophobia.

You are the descendants of those Americans who did to the Irish, Italians, East Europeans, South Europeans, Russians, Germans what you are now doing to the Latin Americans. Shame on you for perpetuating the same repeat of times past.

[imlost]

231. Thanks for standing up for those with no voice!

[nomatrix]

235. If you are so concerned go to their/your country

and change the laws.

I take it you are not an american.

The U.S. has homeless veterans, who can't get healthcare, we have Katerina victims who have no where to lived, and can't get work. Native americans have 40% unemployment and highest poverty.

How's that for kindness?

How about taking the "we" out of the equation like this mass illegal immigration hasn't been happening for 30 years.

Study history. They stopped mass immigration after the 1924 immigration act. Edit date from (1929)

You need to get up to date with the state of the union since * took over.

http://www.citymayors.com/features/uscity_poverty.html

[1932]

255. Or stay in America and vote to change our laws.

We can start with NAFTA which is polarizing wealth across borders (and giving people incentives to wade rivers and climb fences). We can also vote for Ohio senators who don't want to criminalize people who are trying to improve their lives and their communties with their labors.

If you think other working people are the cause of the problems of working people, you're wrong. Would you advocate a cull and forced steralization so that their is less unemployment?

What was the population of the US 40 years ago? Half what it is today? We don't have a bad economy because there are more people. We have a bad economy because we're screwing people who work and polarizing wealth, just like the US did before the Great Depression.

[ZapaPaine]

277. Actually am American as apple pie...

But I understand history, I don't distort it, unlike yourself who can't seem to bring up NAFTA since it was Bill who signed it. I have lived in Mexico for periods of time after 1994, and I can tell you the influx of Mexicans began thereafter, for obvious reasons.

I am an American who understands his government's disasterous policies, unlike you who seems to ignore everything I mentioned in my post. I realize how much benefit immigrants have on a nation, and on the economy, and I have no closeted bigotry guiding me.

You mention no healthcare for veterans, Katrina victims with no where to live, the troubles of native americans (since when does America care about them?)and they are all true. But who is to blame for this? Immigrants? Jesus! It's our elite corporate government. They don't give a shit about you, me or anyone else you mentioned. Stop blaming brown people for your insecurities, fears, ignorance and closet xenophobia. Educate yourself to the real culprits.

And as far as immigration, don't distort history, study it! Yes the curb was placed on immigration in the 1920's but the Latin American immigrants did not begin arriving here in mass numbers until after 1994, when NAFTA was signed into law. All those Hispanics you saw before 1994 you might wonder? They were already here, born in this country like you and me, descendants of all those Mexicans living from California to Texas at the time when the US used Manifest Destiny to bamboozle Mexico into "selling" the West to us.

Geez, for someone with a "nomatrix" name you sure have yet to escape it.

By the way, what corner of the globe were your parents, grandparents originally from before making their way over here? Does that give you the right to be a hypocrite??

[nomatrix]

314. It's about the Clenis? This is funny

Distory? Wrong

"But I understand history, I don't distort it, unlike yourself who can't seem to bring up NAFTA since it was Bill who signed it."

http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=201740&DID=223558

President Bush (Sr) signed the NAFTA agreement on December 17, 1992.

This is about $$$$ not about skin color.

There is nothing wrong with pursing more money legally.
There is everything wrong with pursing more money, illegally. If a U.S. citizen "works under the table," and is caught, they would be cited for tax evasion, punishable.

Or collecting unemployment and "working under the table." No skin color. No name calling. Against the law.

What you are advocating is undocumented workers should be above the law or else you will fuss and whine "you bigots, you racists".

If we traded dollar values, do you think the mass illiegal immigration would stop, even reverse?
I have said it is about mass illegal immigration.

Maybe you are missing the point because you seem to be ultra sensitive to the issue.


It is about the rule of law. I don't care what country you come from.

If I work in another country, I have to get a work visa, and leave when it's up or expect to be punished by their laws, not given citizenship to their country, just because I don't like the pay in the country I come from.

[ZapaPaine]

325. Convenient to use rule of law to cover for fear and ignorance

Last time I checked there were several laws mutually exclusive of morality. Hey, while we are at it, let's imprison two million lower income men because they smoked or dealt a little pot or used a little coke. Having no money for representation, they end up imprisoned for years. But crap, it's the rule of law!!

While we are at it, let's prevent the elderly from buying prescription drugs at cheaper rates in Canada and Mexico, making it illegal to buy across the border. Poor old folk, they will have to be raped of their money by the US drug companies. But crap, it's the rule of law!!

Hey, let's also cap punitive damages to an incredibly low amount in any award against criminal corporations who put profit over people so that those suing cannot recover and the corporation never gets punished the only way it will feel it. But crap, it's the rule of law!!

Let's distract the president of the US from his daily job by investigating him and later impeaching him for nothing but a DNA soaked dress, meddling into his personal life and making a mockery of the nation in the eyes of the world, getting him for lying to cover up his adulterous life. But crap, it's the rule of law!!

I have an idea, let's ban gays from marrying and getting partner benefits because the rule of law in this Puritanical nation will not allow them to the rights of others. Many states have "laws" banning gays from equal rights. Sadly, if you are for the rule of law then you are against gay rights.

If we would have your way, obeying the great rule of law, civil rights for blacks and discrimination against women would still be in the books, and in society, meaning millions would still not have the same rights to life as yourself. Segregation and apartheid would still exist. It was those who fought people like you that got civil rights, quashing the myriad of "laws" against equal rights for blacks and women.

Oh yes, the rule of law, we must obey it, we must cherish it, we must remain silent even if it is immoral and unjust. Hey, I think there's a law saying you must jump off the bridge....

By the way, preemption to invasion and occupation is now law. The Patriot Act is now law. Surveillance and spying and wiretapping are now law. The many laws now enacted in favor of corporations are now the laws of the land. Are we to stand silent to these as well simply because we must follow the rule of law?

Give me a break nomatrix, do yourself a favor and take the red pill. Or else quit hiding your fears behind the hypocritical utterance of the "rule of law".


(By the way, you are right that Bush Sr. signed NAFTA but it was Bill that was there for all the formalities, including being present with Salinas and the Canadian leader, when NAFTA was put into effect in January, 1994)

[imlost]

391. Much agreed.

I wish I could speak as you do.

[Bridget Burke]

249. Underfunded education, unaffordable health care, bad job market?

Blame "the illegals"! How handy to have a scapegoat.

I'm from Texas. How odd that most of the rabid folks here are from the more lily white states! Of course, racism has nothing to do with it. Yeah, right.

My folks did come here legally. All they needed to do was show up at Ellis Island without any obvious diseases. They didn't need to hire immigration lawyers--as even educated immigrants must in order to stay, nowadays. Still, my dad was beat up for not being "American"--he was born here but his parents came from Galway.

[1932]

254. Divide and conquer: have working people blame working people for their

problems.

I'm so sure that the problem for people who work today is not other people who work.

[Inland]

317. Who blamed illegal immigrants, much less brown people, for all problems?

Who blamed illegal immigrants for anything beyond breaking the law?

Who said the illegal immigrants did anything wrong besides breaking the law?

Now that you have defended illegal immigrants from the accusation that they downed the Hindenburg and cause bird flu, maybe somebody will address the real issue of what it means to be here illegally.

It means exploited labor, it means unguarded borders. Simple as that.

[jonnyblitz]

216. Hackett will have the "minuteman" vote all locked up I guess

what a sad thread to have to read through on a progressive discussion board.

[Maestro]

219. Agreed -nt

[sendero]

218. Wow.....

... so Hackett thinks we should uphold the law! That's revolutionary! That's off the hook! That's plain crazy!

Hey, I work with illegals all the time. I am totally sympathetic to their plight. But we should either make them legal or send them home.

Any time you have a set of laws of the books that nobody is interested in enforcing, you should repeal them or enforce them. Otherwise, you just give the "government" too many options to create havoc.

[Ksec]

225. Hackett is my hero

Screw illegal aliens. They steal my job, take up all my tax dollars and IM supposed to welcome them?

Not.

[High Plains]

276. Screw ignorant rednecks who blame undocumented workers

for the ills of this society.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

285. It's a time honored American tradition.

America: Land of Hypocritical Assholes.

[Ksec]

294. And screw aholes who think they

know my life better than myself.

I know , I know. You have all the answers. Just ask you.

Of course millions of illegal immigrants coming into the workforce, undercutting labor, is good for America. They bring down wages that weve fought for years to get . But you keep dreamin in your little world/

[SemiCharmedQuark]

296. No, hiring people at hideously low wages on the sneak is bad for America

Not a bunch of poor people trying to improve their lives.


But the people that do the hiring are so much harder to complain about! Let's just blame the weak guys.

And boy how convenient for the NeoCons. It's not their fault that minimum wage earners struggle. It's the immigrants! It's not their fault health care is shit. It's the immigrants!


And also, America doesn't revolve around *your* life. That's how economists and such can make predictions and assesments without talking directly to you. You know, just in case you were waiting for them to call you.

[Ksec]

297. So lets make ourselves third world

for the good of the third world. Sounds smart.

Any other great ideas?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

298. You're right, it's not like America every was a nation for poor immigrants

looking for a better life before...

:eyes:

Oh right, but those immigrants were white right? And we hadn't designated their homelands "third world".


On Edit: If those that hired at those low wages were prosecuted properly, then wages would not be the issue. So what makes it a third world? That there will be a lot of brown people living here?

[Ksec]

300. Nothing else works, may as well make this about race.

Immigrants who enter legally and join this country and its workforce like everyone else is not the problem (even though you guys like to try to cheaply steer it there)

Illegals who enter illegally, undercut the wage structure (that weve worked years to get to a living wage) are a problem . The aholes who hire them are a problem. Theyre both a problem but you guys keep giving criminals the thumbs up. I could care less if theyre poor. So are millions of Americans theyre putting out of work.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

301. lol, you haven't made one point!

We talk about the legal workforce because it is the very "closed borders" situation that has resulted in the current problem. Economics 101 will teach you all about it.

Why can the people that hire migrants get away with the cheap price they do? Because the migrants are so afraid of getting turned in they dare not say anything. Why do they stay? Because if they go home, they know they might never get another chance at work here.


Thinking "more immigrants = bad" is such simplistic thinking it should be embarrassing.

Also, it is very much about race. How do I know? because my husband is an immigrant, a British legal immigrant. And I get more shit than he does because I am an American who happens to be of Mexican descent.

[Ksec]

303. Oh so you had a problem makes me a racist.

I get it.

Im done. I cant debate that kind of logic.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

304. Uh...what?

I didn't call you a racist. But um...ok. Great "debate".

:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

368. Why isn't anyone here concerned about immigrants--

or their safety?

I read on these boards (from a link someone provided to an article) that hate groups had focused in on immigrants, most if not all of which were undocumented. They don't report the hate crimes from fear of being deported. :(

From everything I've read and seen, it doesn't seem like the people in these situations are living some grand lives.

Being targeted by the KKK-neo nazis and other hate groups, working in some sweatshop for little to no money, selling oranges by the freeway--sounds like a great life... NOT.

How about some compassion? To come here and to be willing to endure such, as illegal and undocumented--how must things be where they are from?

[baldguy]

228. This is an issue without an opposing view. Meaning its a Republican issue.

[msgadget]

243. Isn't that the law?

If we truly wish to uplift the down-trodden we can't allow immigrants to be treated as disposable, cheap labor with no rights. Obviously it's an issue that has to be addressed head-on and this is the only way to do it.

[Skidmore]

245. I agree with Hackett.

May I repeat something I've said before on these boards? If you are sneaking across the border at night in the wilderness, buying faked documents, and sneaking around using aliases while you are here, you know you have broken laws. There is a legal means to come to the US--it's called a visa!!! Novel idea that that might be. Come legally and I have no problem with your presence. Yes, deport illegals. I have no problem with that. But while you are deporting them, arrest and charge employers who seek to circumvent the law to obtain cheap labor. Put pressure on ole Vincente to clean up the labor practices in his nation, and put pressure on any other nation from which people come without using the designated avenue to make similar improvements in their labor practices.

[1932]

251. Why don't liberals on this board have more sympathy for people working

and trying to make their lives better -- people who are the very bottom of a very polarized distribution of wealth.

And also, say the US turned into a banana Republic and Canada somehow figured out a way to use its economic power to exploit the US and ship all its wealth north of the border. Say you had a family and you had two choices: stay in the US and be miserable and impoverished, or move north ILLEGALY, and give your kids a chance at a decent education, decent health care, and yourself an opportunity to shovel the snow off the sidewalks of the CEOs who were making so much money from exloiting the US.

Ok, say that happened. What would you think of Canadians who were saying things like you just said in your post?

[Skidmore]

252. I have nothing against people working to make their lives better.

Why is breaking the law the only choice that impoverished people have in your estimation? So staying in the US to be exployed as part of a subculture is somehow more desirable than be exploited in their own nations? Why doesn't changing the economic infrastructure of their own nations or seeking social justice at home part of the solution? Or why isn't enforcing the laws relevant to employers on own own books part of the equation either for you? Tsk, tsk, tsk, let's all just break the law all the time--everytime we've been a victim of some injustice, the is is fair to break the law.

[1932]

253. I presume that you'd steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family.

I presume that you'd walk across an invisble line dividing two countries to give your children a chance at a good education and healthcare, if that were the only chance they had for a better life.

And, one big difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family and crossing a border to work is that work actually creates value in the community in which you perform it (people are rarely paid more than their labor is worth, and even if are, they tend to reinvest that money in the community). Working is not stealing a loaf a bread. It's sharing a loaf of bread.

I'm all for doing what you can to make foreign countries treat their workers better. However, you must recognize that one reason they don't is because of things we do in the US. Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly, everyone gets one chance on this planet. I'm not in favor of policies which make people miserable just so that you can use them as pawns to make their government behave. Can we encourage Haiti and Indonesia not to exploit people without uprooting them from their lives here and making them miserable?

We have a thing called political ayslum, right? We recognize that people escaping oppressive governments shouldn't be sent back to those countries. I'm all for a much more broader definition of political asylum. And I'm all for the US making policy changes at home which will make it much less likely that Haitians will want to escape the economic oppression in Haiti.

BTW, I said above explicitly, and it's clearly implicit in my argument, that I believe that employers should treat employees fairly in the US regardless of a persons nation of origin.

[Skidmore]

256. Political asylum is meant as a mechanism for people

who are the target of political persecution. Now I suppose you could argue that at some point economics and politics are one and the same. But it is not intended as a mechanism by which people at economic disadvantage can immigrate.

Borders exist--like it or not, and there are laws concerning citizenship and travel over borders in ALL nations, like it or not.

Either we enforce the laws we have or we change them.

[1932]

257. We should emulate France's treatment of German economic migrants.

We should take down walls and barriers, like they have between every nation in the EU -- a continent with a long history of bloody conflict. We should not be putting up barriers and walls, like, say, the way Prague put a wall around the Gypsy neighborhoods.

[Skidmore]

258. Well, then work to change the laws that hurt, enforce the ones

that don't, but don't encourage a whole subculture based on the breaking of the law. That in and of itself contributes to exploitation and abuse.

[1932]

261. Like, say, vote for Sherrod Brown. BTW, if Hackett is talking about

spending as much money as possible to round up illegals and deport them, then he is talking about passing new laws (or at least implementing new regulations) in order to spend to create an aparatus to implement that plan. I can definitely say that I'm agains that allocation of resources and those new laws because I think 1) they would have severely negative economic implications (and would be a very bad allocation of resources), and 2) I think they would increase the net misery in the world.

[Skidmore]

264. You do whatever your little heart desires regarding this issue

or any other. And I'll follow my own beliefs. How about that?

I will repeat that if you are illegally, then you are subject to the law. Right now, deportation is one of the remedies for this. All I've said is that laws should be obeyed, by all concerned--the individual, the employer, and the government.

[1932]

265. Compared to othehr posters, fairer to say "big heart"

or at least bigger heart. I'm stunned by the lack of compassion and the hostility towards working people.

And, as I said above, I think you'd break these laws if the shoe were on the other foot, and your family would justifiably consider you a hero and you'd think anyone making the arguments you're making was dead wrong.

[Skidmore]

266. I think you'd be surprised at what I'd do if the shoe were on

the other foot.

I grew up in extreme poverty and my parents taught us to respect the law and to obey them. I was not taught that it is okay to steal something because you do not have it--whether that be a loaf of bread or the status of citizen. Nor was I taught to flaunt the law because it did not do what I wanted it to do. I've since worked my way into the middle class, and have lived abroad for some time--legally. I've also been married twice--both times to immigrants, who came here legally. I have children by one of them. We do not break the law. We work harder--both to make our ways in this nation and to change the laws.

But if breaking the law is what floats your boat, do what you need to do. I'll stick with what has worked for me and mine.

[1932]

267. Wherever you went -- to whatever community you gave your labor --

you'd be doing them a favor and you shouldn't feel bad about being a hero to your family by providing for them and providing for that community.

You'd be engaging in a noble act of civil disobedience with social benefits and personal benefits accumulating to everyone around you.

[Skidmore]

268. What is noble about being exploited as part of a subcuture

by a dominant culture which is also breaking the law?

[1932]

278. So what's your point? Ruin their lives for their on sake?

They came to the US because things were worse back where they came from. Others just came to be with their families. The choices aren't that you decide to not criminalize them and they stay and get exploited or you kick them out.

You can actually work to protect their labor here, and if you do that, a lot of people born in the USA will have their boats lifted on that rising tide.

[1932]

dup-

licate

[1932]

262. trip-

licate

[1932]

263. quad-

ruplicate

[Inland]

318. dupe

[Inland]

319. They just put the walls in a different place, that's all. It's still law.

That's the point of people who say that the laws should be changed, if wrong, rather than ignored.

All countries, including France and Germany, have controls over who comes in and who doesn't. Some have liberal immigration, some don't, but there's always going to be criteria of SOME sort. France and Germany have open borders between each other, but have restrictions between other non EU nations. To escape all restrictions by foregoing enforcement is dishonest, and it evades the discussion of whether one really wants unlimited immigration, the argument that nobody makes and nobody feels they have to make, seemingly.

To equate a national border with a walled ghetto is, of course, meant to be a calumny. Unlike minorities mistreated in other countries, no American is being defined as non American. Rather, non-Americans are being treated like, well, foreigners and non citizens. If you really think that restricting entry to foreigners is equivalent to restricting movement of citizens, go ahead and make the case. But until you can, please lay off the ridiculous analogies before you start saying that green cards are equivalent to Stars of David and deportation equivalent to a trip to Dachau.

[1932]

337. No EU nation can impose restrictions on citizens of other EU nations.

They have a very different idea about the social value of mobile labor. And they're talking about expanding to include countries with very different standards of living. Their criteria for joining isn't homogenity of race or class. They want homogenous legal systems so that countries can't exploit citizens, but they don't think that class and racial homogenity is the precursor for fair laws.

[Inland]

352. And California has to let in Okies. But there's still an outside and wall

In fact, the EU nations have their own requirements, once they define who is inside and who is out, a process that involves a huge debate. The analogy would be if the EU determined not to admit Turkey but let Turks immigrate anyway by intentionally foregoing enforcement of immigration laws, that is, an irrational and bizarre flipflop.

Anyone who wants to argue that immigration into the US should be freely made or on different criteria can say so, but there will always be criteria and those criteria, once decided, should be enforced.

[1932]

363. Did you know that Canada has 200,000 illegal immigrants, but they

grant asylum to half of applicants (many of whom are from countries that aren't engaged in civil wars and are democracies) and they give out 800,000 entry visas a year, and many people, including union leaders want to legalize the 200,000 illegals.

That's almost like having no walls at all, and it's like treating wall-jumpers as having done nothing wrong.

Countries can have radically differnt perspectives on immigration than the ones expressed by Hackett and by a lot of posters here (one of whom is using the Weekly Standard to support her point of view).

[Inland]

366. Countries can, by why would the US? Will you ever tell us?

Of course, we could change the law to let in anybody, or we could continue in the pretence of having laws that are sporadically and unfairly enforced. All we need is for someone to tell us why it's better than the laws on the books. Buehler? Anybody? Buehler?

Unless that somebody in the Weekly Standard wouldn't want easy immigration is proof enough that we shouldn't enforce the law.

By the way, I know from our blue state discussions after the 2004 elections the criteria Canada has for immigration, and most Americans wouldn't qualify. One needs employment prospects AND a goodly net worth. Like I said, all countries have SOME rules.

[QC]

311. Why don't liberals on this board have any sympathy for the poor who are

already here? Some of you remind me of parents who invite the neighbors over for dinner while their children roam around hungry.

[1932]

312. Because you don't lift up some poor people by punishing others.

Right wingers divide and conquer by pitting working people against working people.

The reality is thate we're all better off when we're all better off. When you lift up some people on the bottom who just want to work, you're lifting up all people.

[QC]

313. You don't help poor people by dropping their wages into the basement.

Someone above referred to drywall as one of those "jobs Americans won't do." Well, my sister used to do it and got good pay and benefits. That wasn't very long ago, but it was before the bosses had an infinite supply of cheap labor with which to push down wages. The same is true of meatpacking, which used to be a really good blue-collar job but now pays about seven bucks an hour and no bennies.

Of course, DUers are a far more affluent bunch than the nation at large, so I'm sure that few here can imagine that anyone might consider *any* blue-collar job a good one, but I can assure you that many people--like most of my family--do. And people like them have been getting kicked in the teeth for years, since long before white-collar workers started getting the shaft.

Mass immigration is an integral part of the ongoing war against the working class in this country: export what jobs you can and import cheap, easily exploited workers to do the remainder. The working class in this country knows that, and if we allow ourselves to be painted as the pro-illegal immigration party, as I fear we will, then we will be sitting around here come November stunned and wondering how we got our asses kicked again.

[1932]

326. Culling the heard doesn't lift wages. Wages can and do increase with pop-

ulation growth.

The reason wages drop is because the powerful wield political power to, for example, destroy unions and convince Americans that the foreign born are the source of their problem.

[QC]

328. The bossman is not going to pay $15 an hour to do a job

when he has people lined up around the block willing to do it for $8.

[1932]

331. Culling the heard doesn't solve that problem

Furthermore, with fewer people, there is less work.

[QC]

333. So the law of supply and demand has been repealed?

Having lots and lots of workers doesn't save the bosses from having to compete for their services after all? Fascinating....

I know where this is going: you are going to tell me that with living wage laws and strong unions, the bosses will have to pay workers decently and thus there will be no race to the bottom. But, as you might have noticed, this is not a country with living wage laws or strong unions. So, as things stand, bringing in lots of cheap labor does have the effect of putting downward pressure on wages. Look at what has happened in meatpacking and construction, among other fields.

[1932]

336. America's problem isn't creating wealth. It's distributing it.

We have managed to create more and more wealth at an even greater rate than the rate the population has increased.

We just don't give it to people who work.

And this thread is a perfect example of how when politicians like Hackett make dumb comments like this, it convinces democrats that the problem is their FELLOW WORKING CLASS PERSON, which isn't the case. The cause of declining incomes isn't that there are more people. The cause is the way we distribute income in America. That's were Hackett and you need to direct your energies.

By the way, I firmly believe that if we distributed wealth more fairly, we could create a lot more wealth (I think the New Deal proved that that's the case).

[Freddie Stubbs]

323. The problem is that illegal immigration drives down wages of working people

Why pay someone $10 an hour to do a job that an illegal immigrant will do for minimum wage or less?

[QC]

324. Did you see that DU income poll last week?

It was a real eye-opener. People on this board are far more affluent than the norm. I suspect that's why working-class issues are about as strange and distant as the dark side of the moon for many here.

[incapsulated]

355. Nail meet head

Trying to argue this here is pointless because it seems that all illegal immigrants are either picking tomatoes or taking jobs "no one else wants". Well, jeez, a whole lot of them are taking construction jobs. Where I come from that is a good union job that helped build a middle class.

"Gracious, only desperate starving people would actually do work where their hands get all dirty!"

:eyes:

Next, only desperate people would work at jobs that are un-challenging, intellectually.

I don't want to cause horrible hardship to people here illegally. But I also put the needs of the working class and the working poor of my own country first, and I won't apologize for it.

[QC]

371. Yep, I remember when construction was considered a sweet job

in my blue-collar family. It paid enough to allow a family to live decently. My sister thought life had gotten a lot better for her when she got into an apprentice program with the carpenter's union. That wasn't very long ago, either.

[1932]

332. Applying that logic, we should clear out inner cities of poor black US

citizens.

Why pay the lazy son of a white person from the suburbs 15 bucks and hour when you can get a poor black kid from the city 10 bucks an hour?

And then we can clear the country of everyone with a public school educaton. Why pay a kid from St Paul's Episcopalian $50 an hour when a desperate kid from an underfunded public school with parents handing on to the middle class by their fingertips $5 an hour?

Your problem there is poverty, misery and allocation of wealth in America, and it isn't solved by culling the herd.

[Inland]

353. Quite the opposite.

His logic is to pay Americans, not foreigners. He isn't asking to clear the country of Americans and not pay them. It isn't culling the American herd. It's keeping foreigners out of the herd in the first place.

The poverty, misery and allocation of wealth in America as between Americans is his concern. Your concern is impovershed foreigners. Why are you talking about paying a white American vs a black American when your suggestion is paying a NonAmerican? There isn't anything in the poster's logic that distinguishes between americans at all and his solution to the poverty of Americans is to pay them a wage. Your solution is to not pay fifty to the private school kid and not pay five to the public school kid, and to pay even less to some adult who drops in from somewhere else.

It would be a little more honest if you stopped implying racism and simply acknowledged that some people put the welfare of their fellow Americans first. If you think that it's wrong to put Americans first, say so.

[AgadorSparticus]

390. I would say, who the hell in America allowed Canada to do that?

Since the American gov't is supposed to represent the people and hold the interest for the people.

The mexican gov't has a responsibility to their people and they shit on them over and over. They, the mexican ruling class, made deals with the greedy US corporations to make money at the expense of their masses because the rich in mexico don't give two shits about the poor in mexico. Kinda like right here at home--only we have safeguards (albeit slowly disappearing) that protect the people.

Instead of playing into the mexican elite's game of blaming for the impoverished state of poor mexicans, perhaps we should blame Fox and his corrupt elites for lining their pockets at the expense of their own people.

BTW, the wealth in Mexico is still in Mexico. It's just concentrated in the hands of a very few. And those few made deals with their northern counterparts to make even more money.

But US immigration laws should not be the scapegoat for the corruption problems in mexico.

[Freddie Stubbs]

269. So he's running as a populist...

[1932]

307. ...and an isolationist?

[Freddie Stubbs]

321. Populists often are isolationists

[LittleClarkie]

292. Thing is, if Pete Wilson is following the president's lead on this

Hackett is to the right of a liberal policy coming from a Conservative President.

[B Calm]

299. Be cheaper to put in prison the employers that hire them!

[Inland]

306. Amazing how quickly they turn on Mr. Straight Talker

So much for the people who say that what they really want is a person with the courage to take a stand and state it unequivocally. So much for pretending that speaking one's mind honestly earns respect. Well, maybe it does earn respect, but it also earns the big not vote.

Here's a guy, sees the law restraining entry, says to enforce it we should actually remove people entering illegally....it's not exactly the most shocking stance in the world that the law should either be enforced or changed. Sounds a lot like the criticism of Bush's argument that the FISA courts don't work for some reason, actually.

[QC]

310. People are either saints or devils around here--nothing inbetween--

and their status can change in seconds if they say something that doesn't meet someone's rigid definition of the one permissible "progressive" position on a given issue.

Not even the very best precision drill team can do a volte-face like this bunch.

[Inland]

330. The most common precision drill being the circular firing squad. nt

[QC]

334. Exactly. If we attacked the Republicans with half the fervor

we bring to bear on heretics in our midst, we wouldn't be sitting around wondering how such a pack of assholes as these ended up in charge of everything.

[incapsulated]

354. I'm not turnin' on him. :)

Hackett is the kind of Democrat.. no, the kind of candidate that can get elected or at least have a chance in a red state or district. Why? Because he stands by his positions and actually has clear positions. People care just as much about how sincere you are about your beliefs than whether they agree with you 100%, all the time. (This is why they vote for the "real republican" over the repub-lite, as Truman noted.) Only on DU or FR does any politician have to pass these "perfection" tests.

Hackett has my support, even if he isn't from my state. The party needs more like him.

[Inland]

357. I THOUGHT people cared that he was sincere.

That was the theory as to why he should compare Bush with Bin Laden: you know, let all his honest beliefs hang out and people will admire the lack of wishy washiness. But once he's sincere the wrong way, the knives come out, and while nobody is ccalling Hackett a racist directly, it seems his policy positions are born of fear of brown people.

Another race to the republicans.

[incapsulated]

367. I'm a "brown people"

And I think this charge that anyone who wants our borders secure and our immigration laws respected is a racist is absurd. Are there racists who are really just against brown people coming into the country, period? Yes. Is Hackett one of them? No. Not based on this or anything else I've heard or read.

[NuttyFluffers]

316. *sigh* ELECTED democrats should fixate their rage on republicans...

instead of inside their ranks. we put them in office so that they can worry about everyone else's lawns, and leave us, the constituents, to worry about our own. but here we have too many gardeners working on our one lawn and leaving the kudzu growing ass next door free rein.

look, i think the people can police their politicians if they think they are acting too far. so they need to shut their clap trap fretting over hackett and get their ass in gear and do what we put them in office for, to harass the other side who want to go against us. if the people think he's gone too far, fine, he then won't get elected. no need to do the republicans' work for them. meanwhile they are wasting breath harassing their own when they should be harassing the republicans. and this is why we get mad at these power establishment dems, we are yelling at democrats wasting precious energy and ammo shooting our own when they should be shooting republicans. instead, when we shoot back at these fool establishment dems, we get people who think we should stand together, silently, meekly, and obediently in the face of these fool dems assault. what for? to ball us up and keep us cowed to make it easier for the 5th column to mow us all down? screw that.

[Cobalt Violet]

320. The more I know about him, the more I like him.

:kick:

[foreverdem]

322. I would tend to agree with Hackett

If you are going to let anyone into this country, at any time, for any reason, why have immigration laws at all? They were put in place for a reason. There are millions of people who have come into this country legally. But to let anyone here who shouldn't be here, without any knowledge of who they are or why they are here, is not right or fair to those who did go through legal means to get here.

[PBass]

338. No matter what your position is on immigration

There is no 'perfect candidate' on every single issue.

I think the issues surrounding illegal immigration are very complicated, and I don't even know if I've decided what my own position is, exactly. I would hope that a compassionate solution is found.

If Hackett (or any other candidate) is generally good but on the wrong side of a certain issue, then one option would be to try to EDUCATE them, rather than throw them overboard.

If you want a "perfect" candidate then DU's need to run for office themselves! If you want something done right, then do it yourself.

[JI7]

346. not really surprised to see he has this view

considering some other things i have heard from him.

and more reason i hope Sherrod Brown wins the nomination.

[yurbud]

348. as long as they throw the employers over the fence too...

[newportdadde]

358. I agree with deportation and Hackett.

If your here illegally then you should be sent home. If business whines and moans then they are just going to have to come to the realization they will have to pay decent wages.. as it is now they still charge a lot and rake in all of the extra profit from the cheaper labor(ie construction work).

If you have ever known someone who had to go through the song and dance of coming to this country legally then you understand how long and time consuming it is. Not fair for one group to do that and another to bypass it.

[ZapaPaine]

364. Hackett is just a new generation of blowhard opportunist...

At least that person had the song and dance to go through to get here. What really isn't fair is granting more legal immigrant "spots" to countries from "white" Europe than to say, one from Latin America, like Mexico, full of "brown" people. The quota system sets the number of entries at a certain number (always for too few spots) so those "illegals" from Mexico have no recourse but to run, walk and jump across our deserts. Perhaps they would love to take the "legal" way here, but they are not wanted as much as those from Europe, and will never get any form of "legal" status. Left with no other option other than perhaps waiting 15 years for the red tape to be cut, I think I would do just as those from Mexico. Perhaps if you understood immigration law instead of simply ignorantly blabbering about it you would change your mind.

[proud2BlibKansan]

370. Amen

and welcome to DU :hi:

[democrattruth]

372. Deporting all illegal immigrants

is impossible.

[democrat_patriot]

386. I see NO problem with this.

Anyone is welcome here - just do it legally. my wife did, why can't others?

It is expensive though...which may preclude many from doing it.

[duperdog]

392. immigration

The idea that we can take in all the poor and political dissidents of the world is wishful thinking. How many people around the world would come to the US if offered the opportunity? A billion? 2 Billion? Do we really want to allow immigration to continue until conditions are so bad here that it limits itself? I have great sympathy for the poor but most people realize you can't let all the poor come live in your house, you have to help them in other ways. Imagine the possibilities if we were not constantly building new roads, schools and homes. We could put that money toward IMPROVING our lives instead of just trying to build enough capacity for the constantly increasing population.

[Sammy Pepys]

393. Cool with me. n/t

...