Saturday, January 17, 2004
Okay, in three days the Iowa Caucus is scheduled. For those not politically active, it's the first step in the process of nominating a Democratic Presidential candidate to run against Bush. So I'm in a political mood.
I'm not, however, going to talk about the sorry lot of Democratic candidates. Instead, I'm going to respond to a silly article my dad sent me a link to. It was written for the New York Times by a columnist named Dick Morris. I'm going to do a point by point rebuttal here. Be warned: it's on illegal immigration.
The original article is in bold: my responses will be in italics
January 15, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush's immigration/amnesty proposal will probably be remembered in history as the idea that saved a political party.
By taking the lead in extending the benefits of legal protections to more than 10 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States, Bush has taken a bold and dramatic step to avert the extinction of his own party.
Ah yes, and I'm extremely proud of him for that accomplishment. After all, he swore an oath to uphold the beliefs and existence of the Republican Party, and he must do everything in his power to fulfill that oath.
Wait a minute, I apologize. Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the beliefs of the Republican Party. My mistake.
Until Bush acted, the grinding inevitability of demographic change was likely to doom the GOP to an early death. As America became 1 percent more Hispanic each year, the Republicans could not concede this growing group to the Democrats by 2-1 ratios without risking total annihilation down the road.
Some would argue that the rising growth in the Hispanic population is exactly why we should stem the tide so our culture won't be consumed. I won't make that arguement. I will however contest that the Republicans were 'conceding' the Hispanic vote. There's a difference between taking action that will annoy some Hispanics and giving up on their vote entirely.
The Republicans have got to break the solid demographic phalanx that sustains the Democratic Party: Blacks, Hispanics and single white women. Together, this group cast 25 percent of votes in 1990, 32 percent in 2000 and will account for 40 percent in 2008.
Why is the Democratic party viewed as the party of minorties? The Democrats are the ones with a former clansman vying for the Presidential Nomination (Gephardt, I believe). The Democrats are the party that is telling minorities that they can't succeed in this world without the goverment's help via affirmative action. Most Republicans care very much about minorities. In fact, they believe in the intelligence and capability of minorities so much that they're making the case that minorities no longer need any crutches to reach success. I agree.
But by embracing the cause of Hispanic immigrants and extending to them elemental civil rights and minimum-wage protections, Bush has struck a blow on their behalf that will resonate in their voting habits for generations to come. His legislative proposals are akin to the sponsorship of a sweeping civil-rights bill in 1963-65 by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and will have a similar effect in binding Hispanics to the Republicans as the civil-rights legislation did in linking blacks to the Democrats.
This is an absurd comparison. The civil-rights legislation gave the black citizens of this country the same freedoms as white citizens. This new legislation is letting people who broke the law in coming here off the hook. Whether you believe they should be let off the hook or not, to compare this to stopping the discrimination against those who had done nothing wrong is ludicrous.
And if Mr. Morris is arguing that the comparison is that both bills bounds ethnic groups to political parties....what in the blazing hell does that have to do with the merits of this proposal? The effects upon a political party SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION when making policy.
For decades, Republicans systematically alienated Hispanics by insisting on English-only initiatives, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants and demanding an end even to free public schools for the children of those who came here illegally. These measures drove Hispanics into the waiting arms of Democrats. Bush has now acted to reverse the legacy of these initiatives and to welcome Hispanics into the GOP.
You know, I really don't see what's wrong with asking people to learn the language of the country they immigrate to. Many immigrant peoples in the past have had to adopt America's language and culture. That being said, go ahead and teach Spanish in schools. However, teaching Spanish-speaking students English should be a major priority.
Uh, Mr. Morris? Those "free benefits" and "free public schools" you refer to? Well, they aren't free. All citizens of this country pay for benefits and schooling through taxes. I can understand the argument that every citizen of this country deserves a chance at an education. But people who break the law in coming here are entitled to nothing. You want an education for your kids? Great, I think your kids deserve it. But people from other countries also want their kids to grow up educated. They have to wait in line. And so do you: in theory, anyway.
As Catholic voters, who take their religion seriously, Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency. Recent data that closely links the frequency of church attendance to party-voting habits supports the theory that this very religious voting group is likely to adhere to the Republican Party once its platform stops repelling them at every turn.
Please. Taking the position that Hispanics do not have more rights than other immigrants or ethnic groups is not "repelling them at every turn". Maybe some of them see it that way. They shouldn't.
Republican efforts to win black voters have proven largely fruitless. Even the appointment of blacks to the two top jobs in the Bush foreign policy apparatus has failed to generate any significant African-American support for Bush in the polls. But candidates who appeal to the Hispanic vote - Gov. Pataki in New York, Gov. Rick Perry in Texas and the Bushes in Florida and Texas - have shown a real ability to get large shares of Hispanic voters.
Great, so the Republicans saw the Democrats bending over backwards to accomodate Hispanics, decided they want a piece of the action, and developed legislature designed to attract their vote.
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TO ATTRACT PEOPLE'S VOTES. Their job is to do what's best for *everyone*, not just a certain group of people.
As Hispanics follow the traditional paths of upward mobility that immigrant groups have trod before them, they are likely to lean more and more toward the Republicans - just as Irish and Italians do these days, abandoning the Democratic orientation of their ancestors.
Hispanics hold the key to the political outcomes in many major states. California, Texas and Florida are heavily influenced by their participation as are New York, New Jersey and Illinois. These are the key battleground states that hold the balance of power between the parties.
Apart from the politics of the issue, the merits also dictate the Bush initiative. America has 4 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its wealth. It is incumbent on us to open our doors to those who seek upward mobility.
Our doors are already very open. We have the most lenient immigration policy in the world. Anybody who wants opportunity can come here and take it.
However, they have to do it by the rules we have laid down. If they are not willing to do even this, then they are not willing to do what it takes to gain the benefits of living in the greatest country in the world.
Now, if you want to reform those rules, then do so. I think they need to be reformed so that every person who wants to work here, can work here. However, we have the right and the obligation to control who comes into our country. It is not anti-Mexican to exercise that right.
The only thing standing between subsistence and starvation in Mexico, and much of Central America, is the money sent home to needy families by hard working men and women in the United States who tend our gardens, wash our dishes and clean our floors. It is not American workers who they are putting out of jobs, it is American robots. The alternative to their low wage work is not American labor but machines
I don't know if this claim has any merit. If it does, I'd like to see Mr. Morris give evidence to support it.
The United States needs the skills, energy, savvy and willingness to work hard of our illegal immigrants. They are illegal only because our laws have been nativist and short-sighted. Now Bush is setting them right.
If you believe our laws are nativist and short-sighted, then change them. Don't circumvent them.
"Well hey, I know it's ILLEGAL for me to take this lady's purse, but damnit I shouldn't have to obey such short-sighted laws. Why didn't those snobby politician people realize that my boss would make me tell him to go fuck off?! I have kids to raise, damnit!
If President Bush wants foreigners to have the right to walk into our country and work here, then he should change the law to allow them to do so. Since he has not, it is his duty to enforce the laws of this country. He has essentially said that he will not. Therefore, he is not performing his duty.
Look, if you want to argue about the state of our borders, our immigration policy, and any changes we should make to accomodate all the Hispanics who want to work here, we can and we should. If we decide the law should be changed, then let's change it. But
Vincente Fox and the government of Mexico does not have the right to tell us what laws their citizens will and will not obey. The Mexican people do not have the right to tell us what laws they will and will not obey.
Why is this being considered an anti-Mexican stance? And why are some Republicans being called racist for wanting changes in immigration to be done through the lawmaking system?
Absurd.
Dig The D
I'm not, however, going to talk about the sorry lot of Democratic candidates. Instead, I'm going to respond to a silly article my dad sent me a link to. It was written for the New York Times by a columnist named Dick Morris. I'm going to do a point by point rebuttal here. Be warned: it's on illegal immigration.
The original article is in bold: my responses will be in italics
January 15, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush's immigration/amnesty proposal will probably be remembered in history as the idea that saved a political party.
By taking the lead in extending the benefits of legal protections to more than 10 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States, Bush has taken a bold and dramatic step to avert the extinction of his own party.
Ah yes, and I'm extremely proud of him for that accomplishment. After all, he swore an oath to uphold the beliefs and existence of the Republican Party, and he must do everything in his power to fulfill that oath.
Wait a minute, I apologize. Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the beliefs of the Republican Party. My mistake.
Until Bush acted, the grinding inevitability of demographic change was likely to doom the GOP to an early death. As America became 1 percent more Hispanic each year, the Republicans could not concede this growing group to the Democrats by 2-1 ratios without risking total annihilation down the road.
Some would argue that the rising growth in the Hispanic population is exactly why we should stem the tide so our culture won't be consumed. I won't make that arguement. I will however contest that the Republicans were 'conceding' the Hispanic vote. There's a difference between taking action that will annoy some Hispanics and giving up on their vote entirely.
The Republicans have got to break the solid demographic phalanx that sustains the Democratic Party: Blacks, Hispanics and single white women. Together, this group cast 25 percent of votes in 1990, 32 percent in 2000 and will account for 40 percent in 2008.
Why is the Democratic party viewed as the party of minorties? The Democrats are the ones with a former clansman vying for the Presidential Nomination (Gephardt, I believe). The Democrats are the party that is telling minorities that they can't succeed in this world without the goverment's help via affirmative action. Most Republicans care very much about minorities. In fact, they believe in the intelligence and capability of minorities so much that they're making the case that minorities no longer need any crutches to reach success. I agree.
But by embracing the cause of Hispanic immigrants and extending to them elemental civil rights and minimum-wage protections, Bush has struck a blow on their behalf that will resonate in their voting habits for generations to come. His legislative proposals are akin to the sponsorship of a sweeping civil-rights bill in 1963-65 by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and will have a similar effect in binding Hispanics to the Republicans as the civil-rights legislation did in linking blacks to the Democrats.
This is an absurd comparison. The civil-rights legislation gave the black citizens of this country the same freedoms as white citizens. This new legislation is letting people who broke the law in coming here off the hook. Whether you believe they should be let off the hook or not, to compare this to stopping the discrimination against those who had done nothing wrong is ludicrous.
And if Mr. Morris is arguing that the comparison is that both bills bounds ethnic groups to political parties....what in the blazing hell does that have to do with the merits of this proposal? The effects upon a political party SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION when making policy.
For decades, Republicans systematically alienated Hispanics by insisting on English-only initiatives, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants and demanding an end even to free public schools for the children of those who came here illegally. These measures drove Hispanics into the waiting arms of Democrats. Bush has now acted to reverse the legacy of these initiatives and to welcome Hispanics into the GOP.
You know, I really don't see what's wrong with asking people to learn the language of the country they immigrate to. Many immigrant peoples in the past have had to adopt America's language and culture. That being said, go ahead and teach Spanish in schools. However, teaching Spanish-speaking students English should be a major priority.
Uh, Mr. Morris? Those "free benefits" and "free public schools" you refer to? Well, they aren't free. All citizens of this country pay for benefits and schooling through taxes. I can understand the argument that every citizen of this country deserves a chance at an education. But people who break the law in coming here are entitled to nothing. You want an education for your kids? Great, I think your kids deserve it. But people from other countries also want their kids to grow up educated. They have to wait in line. And so do you: in theory, anyway.
As Catholic voters, who take their religion seriously, Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency. Recent data that closely links the frequency of church attendance to party-voting habits supports the theory that this very religious voting group is likely to adhere to the Republican Party once its platform stops repelling them at every turn.
Please. Taking the position that Hispanics do not have more rights than other immigrants or ethnic groups is not "repelling them at every turn". Maybe some of them see it that way. They shouldn't.
Republican efforts to win black voters have proven largely fruitless. Even the appointment of blacks to the two top jobs in the Bush foreign policy apparatus has failed to generate any significant African-American support for Bush in the polls. But candidates who appeal to the Hispanic vote - Gov. Pataki in New York, Gov. Rick Perry in Texas and the Bushes in Florida and Texas - have shown a real ability to get large shares of Hispanic voters.
Great, so the Republicans saw the Democrats bending over backwards to accomodate Hispanics, decided they want a piece of the action, and developed legislature designed to attract their vote.
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TO ATTRACT PEOPLE'S VOTES. Their job is to do what's best for *everyone*, not just a certain group of people.
As Hispanics follow the traditional paths of upward mobility that immigrant groups have trod before them, they are likely to lean more and more toward the Republicans - just as Irish and Italians do these days, abandoning the Democratic orientation of their ancestors.
Hispanics hold the key to the political outcomes in many major states. California, Texas and Florida are heavily influenced by their participation as are New York, New Jersey and Illinois. These are the key battleground states that hold the balance of power between the parties.
Apart from the politics of the issue, the merits also dictate the Bush initiative. America has 4 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its wealth. It is incumbent on us to open our doors to those who seek upward mobility.
Our doors are already very open. We have the most lenient immigration policy in the world. Anybody who wants opportunity can come here and take it.
However, they have to do it by the rules we have laid down. If they are not willing to do even this, then they are not willing to do what it takes to gain the benefits of living in the greatest country in the world.
Now, if you want to reform those rules, then do so. I think they need to be reformed so that every person who wants to work here, can work here. However, we have the right and the obligation to control who comes into our country. It is not anti-Mexican to exercise that right.
The only thing standing between subsistence and starvation in Mexico, and much of Central America, is the money sent home to needy families by hard working men and women in the United States who tend our gardens, wash our dishes and clean our floors. It is not American workers who they are putting out of jobs, it is American robots. The alternative to their low wage work is not American labor but machines
I don't know if this claim has any merit. If it does, I'd like to see Mr. Morris give evidence to support it.
The United States needs the skills, energy, savvy and willingness to work hard of our illegal immigrants. They are illegal only because our laws have been nativist and short-sighted. Now Bush is setting them right.
If you believe our laws are nativist and short-sighted, then change them. Don't circumvent them.
"Well hey, I know it's ILLEGAL for me to take this lady's purse, but damnit I shouldn't have to obey such short-sighted laws. Why didn't those snobby politician people realize that my boss would make me tell him to go fuck off?! I have kids to raise, damnit!
If President Bush wants foreigners to have the right to walk into our country and work here, then he should change the law to allow them to do so. Since he has not, it is his duty to enforce the laws of this country. He has essentially said that he will not. Therefore, he is not performing his duty.
Look, if you want to argue about the state of our borders, our immigration policy, and any changes we should make to accomodate all the Hispanics who want to work here, we can and we should. If we decide the law should be changed, then let's change it. But
Vincente Fox and the government of Mexico does not have the right to tell us what laws their citizens will and will not obey. The Mexican people do not have the right to tell us what laws they will and will not obey.
Why is this being considered an anti-Mexican stance? And why are some Republicans being called racist for wanting changes in immigration to be done through the lawmaking system?
Absurd.
Dig The D
Comments:
Post a Comment
