Amnesty? What amnesty? Critics substitute fear for facts

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure - but I'm not sure I understand the objections to securing the southern border (which not only is an entry point for illegal immigrants, but is also a major route for drug trafficking) and enforcing Labor laws forbidding companies to hire undocumented workers.

There are powerful political interests that are opposed to both (1) effectively securing the southern border; and (2) enforcing and strengthening sanctions on employers that hire illegals.

If there weren't, both would be law by now. The American people, by and large, would support both measures.

I should have made it clearer - I was meant that in relation to certain comments in this thread.

I'm not sure I understand the objections to enforcing the borders and employment sanctions. As far as this thread goes - that's all that has been suggested (enforcing the law), but already the race argument has been tossed in there as has talk of mass deportation. Ad hominem is right - though not, I think, in the way Pedroh intended it. Seems to me that this topic in general (rather than this thread) is continually being derailed and into issues of presentation and rhetorical political correctness.

From the original post...

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., displays the word prominently on his presidential campaign website and describes amnesty variously as a "travesty" and a "catastrophe." CNN's Lou Dobbs invokes the word so often (six times in the introduction of his Wednesday broadcast alone) you'd think his anchor seat was under imminent threat from border-jumping TV hosts.

Such is the politics of fear, and if it is deplorable, it is also effective.

Without digging up the bits and pieces of how this thread's discussion got into mass deportation, it wasn't an invented notion here. It's not like everyone is saying, "Of course the idea of mass deportation is irrational."

The original post specifically addressed the emotional rhetoric that drives these discussions and it is so common speak I don't think that people are actually aware they are participating in it. Calling illegals 'lawless' is said so many times (in this thread even) by so many people, if you challenge anyone on that notion, they get flabbergasted that anyone could possibly see illegal immigrants as anything but lawless. That to me is being dogmatic with opinion.

I ask again, just what is the crisis outside of the issue of legality? I understand that some consider being here a cardinal sin, but if we could set aside that element of immigration - just what is the crisis against mass migration that people feel action must done now? I'm not against, nor do I think Pedroh is either, with curbing illegal immigration, but is it possible to leave the emotions out of the argument and actually explore reasonable solutions? Where's the middle ground?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but I'm not sure I understand the objections to securing the southern border (which not only is an entry point for illegal immigrants, but is also a major route for drug trafficking) and enforcing Labor laws forbidding companies to hire undocumented workers.

There are powerful political interests that are opposed to both (1) effectively securing the southern border; and (2) enforcing and strengthening sanctions on employers that hire illegals.

If there weren't, both would be law by now. The American people, by and large, would support both measures.

I should have made it clearer - I was meant that in relation to certain comments in this thread.

I'm not sure I understand the objections to enforcing the borders and employment sanctions. As far as this thread goes - that's all that has been suggested (enforcing the law), but already the race argument has been tossed in there as has talk of mass deportation. Ad hominem is right - though not, I think, in the way Pedroh intended it. Seems to me that this topic in general (rather than this thread) is continually being derailed and into issues of presentation and rhetorical political correctness.

From the original post...

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., displays the word prominently on his presidential campaign website and describes amnesty variously as a "travesty" and a "catastrophe." CNN's Lou Dobbs invokes the word so often (six times in the introduction of his Wednesday broadcast alone) you'd think his anchor seat was under imminent threat from border-jumping TV hosts.

Such is the politics of fear, and if it is deplorable, it is also effective.

Without digging up the bits and pieces of how this thread's discussion got into mass deportation, it wasn't an invented notion here. It's not like everyone is saying, "Of course the idea of mass deportation is irrational."

The original post specifically addressed the emotional rhetoric that drives these discussions and it is so common speak I don't think that people are actually aware they are participating in it. Calling illegals 'lawless' is said so many times (in this thread even) by so many people, if you challenge anyone on that notion, they get flabbergasted that anyone could possibly see illegal immigrants as anything but lawless. That to me is being dogmatic with opinion.

I ask again, just what is the crisis outside of the issue of legality? I understand that some consider being here a cardinal sin, but if we could set aside that element of immigration - just what is the crisis against mass migration that people feel action must done now? I'm not against, nor do I think Pedroh is either, with curbing illegal immigration, but is it possible to leave the emotions out of the argument and actually explore reasonable solutions? Where's the middle ground?

But that's just the thing - I don't understand what is so unreasonable about border enforcement and enforcing labour laws to deal with a fundamentally economic problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure - but I'm not sure I understand the objections to securing the southern border (which not only is an entry point for illegal immigrants, but is also a major route for drug trafficking) and enforcing Labor laws forbidding companies to hire undocumented workers.

There are powerful political interests that are opposed to both (1) effectively securing the southern border; and (2) enforcing and strengthening sanctions on employers that hire illegals.

If there weren't, both would be law by now. The American people, by and large, would support both measures.

I should have made it clearer - I was meant that in relation to certain comments in this thread.

I'm not sure I understand the objections to enforcing the borders and employment sanctions. As far as this thread goes - that's all that has been suggested (enforcing the law), but already the race argument has been tossed in there as has talk of mass deportation. Ad hominem is right - though not, I think, in the way Pedroh intended it. Seems to me that this topic in general (rather than this thread) is continually being derailed and into issues of presentation and rhetorical political correctness.

From the original post...

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., displays the word prominently on his presidential campaign website and describes amnesty variously as a "travesty" and a "catastrophe." CNN's Lou Dobbs invokes the word so often (six times in the introduction of his Wednesday broadcast alone) you'd think his anchor seat was under imminent threat from border-jumping TV hosts.

Such is the politics of fear, and if it is deplorable, it is also effective.

Without digging up the bits and pieces of how this thread's discussion got into mass deportation, it wasn't an invented notion here. It's not like everyone is saying, "Of course the idea of mass deportation is irrational."

The original post specifically addressed the emotional rhetoric that drives these discussions and it is so common speak I don't think that people are actually aware they are participating in it. Calling illegals 'lawless' is said so many times (in this thread even) by so many people, if you challenge anyone on that notion, they get flabbergasted that anyone could possibly see illegal immigrants as anything but lawless. That to me is being dogmatic with opinion.

I ask again, just what is the crisis outside of the issue of legality? I understand that some consider being here a cardinal sin, but if we could set aside that element of immigration - just what is the crisis against mass migration that people feel action must done now? I'm not against, nor do I think Pedroh is either, with curbing illegal immigration, but is it possible to leave the emotions out of the argument and actually explore reasonable solutions? Where's the middle ground?

But that's just the thing - I don't understand what is so unreasonable about border enforcement and enforcing labour laws to deal with a fundamentally economic problem.

They're reasonable but those issues have been demonstrated that alone, will no curb illegal immigration down to a small amount, because they don't address the issue of why people are crossing the border in the first place. To really curb the influx of Mexican immigrants (the bulk of illegals the cross our border) it is going to take more broader measures (trade negotions, cooperation from the Mexican Gov't.), etc. What is disheartening is that when any broader measures are suggested, they are dismissed as irrelevant or nonsensical - at which point the slogans come back in full circle - "Who cares - they aren't our problem." "They broke law, now they must pay" etc, etc, etc.

How do you have a reasonable discussion when you constantly having to reply or respond to such rhetoric?

Edited June 10, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but I'm not sure I understand the objections to securing the southern border (which not only is an entry point for illegal immigrants, but is also a major route for drug trafficking) and enforcing Labor laws forbidding companies to hire undocumented workers.

There are powerful political interests that are opposed to both (1) effectively securing the southern border; and (2) enforcing and strengthening sanctions on employers that hire illegals.

If there weren't, both would be law by now. The American people, by and large, would support both measures.

I should have made it clearer - I was meant that in relation to certain comments in this thread.

I'm not sure I understand the objections to enforcing the borders and employment sanctions. As far as this thread goes - that's all that has been suggested (enforcing the law), but already the race argument has been tossed in there as has talk of mass deportation. Ad hominem is right - though not, I think, in the way Pedroh intended it. Seems to me that this topic in general (rather than this thread) is continually being derailed and into issues of presentation and rhetorical political correctness.

From the original post...

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., displays the word prominently on his presidential campaign website and describes amnesty variously as a "travesty" and a "catastrophe." CNN's Lou Dobbs invokes the word so often (six times in the introduction of his Wednesday broadcast alone) you'd think his anchor seat was under imminent threat from border-jumping TV hosts.

Such is the politics of fear, and if it is deplorable, it is also effective.

Without digging up the bits and pieces of how this thread's discussion got into mass deportation, it wasn't an invented notion here. It's not like everyone is saying, "Of course the idea of mass deportation is irrational."

The original post specifically addressed the emotional rhetoric that drives these discussions and it is so common speak I don't think that people are actually aware they are participating in it. Calling illegals 'lawless' is said so many times (in this thread even) by so many people, if you challenge anyone on that notion, they get flabbergasted that anyone could possibly see illegal immigrants as anything but lawless. That to me is being dogmatic with opinion.

I ask again, just what is the crisis outside of the issue of legality? I understand that some consider being here a cardinal sin, but if we could set aside that element of immigration - just what is the crisis against mass migration that people feel action must done now? I'm not against, nor do I think Pedroh is either, with curbing illegal immigration, but is it possible to leave the emotions out of the argument and actually explore reasonable solutions? Where's the middle ground?

But that's just the thing - I don't understand what is so unreasonable about border enforcement and enforcing labour laws to deal with a fundamentally economic problem.

They're reasonable but those issues have been demonstrated that alone, will no curb illegal immigration down to a small amount, because they don't address the issue of why people are crossing the border in the first place. To really curb the influx of Mexican immigrants (the bulk of illegals the cross our border) it is going to take more broader measures (trade negotions, cooperation from the Mexican Gov't.), etc. What is disheartening is that when any broader measures are suggested, they are dismissed as irrelevant or nonsensical - at which point the slogans come back in full circle - "Who cares - they aren't our problem." "They broke law, now they must pay" etc, etc, etc.

How do you have a reasonable discussion when you constantly having to reply or respond to such rhetoric?

Enforcing the law is the first step.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't understand what is so unreasonable about border enforcement and enforcing labour laws to deal with a fundamentally economic problem.

They're reasonable but those issues have been demonstrated that alone, will no curb illegal immigration down to a small amount...

Steven,

If the land border is secured in a meaningful manner, how can it NOT curb illegal immigration through the land border?

Your argument that greater issues exist which make Mexicans want to migrate here is true, but if they can't, then they won't. Desire is one thing and the ability to make it happen is another thing. Take away either and you've got the problem licked. It's easier to seal the border than it is to 'reform Mexico'.

[natty bumppo 293]

June 10, 2007

Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed

By JULIA PRESTONWASHINGTON, Mich., June 8 — The undoing of the immigration bill in the Senate this week had many players, but none more effective than angry voters like Monique Thibodeaux, who joined a nationwide campaign to derail it.

.......

"You got the sense of a deafening silence from the supporters, and the roar of the opposition," Mr. Sabatini said.

For Mrs. Thibodeaux and others on her side, the immigration debate was a battle for the soul of the nation because it seemed to divert taxpayer-financed resources to cater to foreigners who had not come to this country by legal means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/washingt...?pagewanted=all

oh ...

so those who support the bill didn't make their voices heard while hearing the "roar of opposition" being expressed?

could it be there wasn't support for the bill that there were no voices heard?

[JoeMama 0]

I don't understand what is so unreasonable about border enforcement and enforcing labour laws to deal with a fundamentally economic problem.

They're reasonable but those issues have been demonstrated that alone, will no curb illegal immigration down to a small amount...

Steven,

If the land border is secured in a meaningful manner, how can it NOT curb illegal immigration through the land border?

Your argument that greater issues exist which make Mexicans want to migrate here is true, but if they can't, then they won't. Desire is one thing and the ability to make it happen is another thing. Take away either and you've got the problem licked. It's easier to seal the border than it is to 'reform Mexico'.

Good point Gupt. It reminds me of the elements for fire: oxygen, fuel, & heat. Take one away and there's no flame

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't understand what is so unreasonable about border enforcement and enforcing labour laws to deal with a fundamentally economic problem.

They're reasonable but those issues have been demonstrated that alone, will no curb illegal immigration down to a small amount...

Steven,

If the land border is secured in a meaningful manner, how can it NOT curb illegal immigration through the land border?

Your argument that greater issues exist which make Mexicans want to migrate here is true, but if they can't, then they won't. Desire is one thing and the ability to make it happen is another thing. Take away either and you've got the problem licked. It's easier to seal the border than it is to 'reform Mexico'.

Exactly. I think many people, including myself, would be much more open to alternative ways of dealing with the illegal crowd if and when the government effectively demonstrated that it is dealing with the issues on the border and dealing harshly with employers of undocumented workers and those aliens ordered deported or convicted of other offenses. Once those basic issues are effectively addressed, under control and the laws enforced, then we can take a second look at what to do with those illegals that are (left) here - most likely those would be the ones with family ties in the US. Granting broad amnesty - even to those that are currently fugitives of the law evading deportation orders - while making more pretty promises that no government has yet kept since they or similar promises were first made in 1986 is putting the carriage before the horse. Just doesn't work that way.