Jul 05 2006
Drudge Makes News Like MSM – He Fakes It.
What in the world is going on with our political discourse? Have we been scraping the bottom of the barrel for so long all we have are variations of Kerry and Dean and Tancredo and Buchanan??? Why in the world would Matt Drudge claim that NY City Mayor Bloomberg said we need illegal immigration when he said something totally different?
The economy of the country’s largest city and the entire nation would collapse if illegal immigrants were deported en masse, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a Senate committee hearing Wednesday.New York City is home to more than 3 million immigrants, and a half-million of them came to this country illegally, Bloomberg testified.
“Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders … our city’s economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported,” he said. “The same holds true for the nation.
Drudge changed this easily understood concept that we need a large immigrant work force for both seasonal and temprorary (3-6 year) jobs to keep our economy rolling ato something totally different. Drudge’s banner headline: “NYC MAYOR: WE NEED ILLEGALS”
The hard liners are now using deceiptful tactics learned by the liberal media to make their continuing unsustainable position that exposed borders today are better than immigrants who came here illegally ever possibly earning a right to be a citizen (even through military service). This headline is as accurate as “Bush lied and people died”. Drudge is one step away from being a non-source in my opinion. I left the Democrat party because of their complete reliance on hyperbolic rhetoric. And the use of deceipt on the right has become a tall barrier to me ever being willing to call myself a Republican. Right now that possibility is very unrealistic.
In other words, the border fence doesn’t fix anything. It is a straw man that is put up to deflect attention from the real problem and used as a condition that people know will never be met in order to prevent any other actions from being taken.
I really don’t want my country turning into East Germany. I lived in Berlin for several years surrounded by a wall.
I am no saying anyone should feel sorry for me. I am simply pointing out that people do not want to work in hay fields. It is a fact. And if you can not understand that then I pity you.
As for who did this work before. Well Mexicans have been coming up to work farms California for a long long time. In fact for many years there was a thing called the Bracero program which existed for the purpose of bringing migrant workers in to do field work because there was a need for the labor. Americans were not doing it all. Of course those were the days when oranges at Christmas were a treat. Now people expect fresh fruit and produce every day, so those workers are not just seasonal anymore.
People seem to be oblivious to the fact that for our whole history immigrant labor has been there. It is said that hundreds if not thousands of Chinese laborers died working on the railroads. The Homestead Act represented the largest land giveaway in history and a great many of the people who got that land and worked it came over here on a boat before there was an Ellis Island. They just came.
And as for mass deporation being a straw man I disagree. Over and over agin hardlines insist that all these people have to be deported. There can be nothing that even looks like amnesty for any of them. All of them have to be tracked down, picked up, processed, detained and hauled off. Well what is that if not mass deporatation? We are talking about millions of people, many of whom have been here for years and years. So don’t tell me that anything short of rounding them all and deporting them is completely unacceptable and then say mass deporation is a strawman. Unless of course the whole thing is just a political stunt designed to rile up the base for the midterms.
Sally Vee:
I agree. I wonder if these folks have any idea how many of us voted for Bush in spite of and not because of them.
Once he is gone…..
retire:
I said gas station convenience store. it is a small pizza place where they sell pizzas. gas and milk. Surely you have seen them.
BTW, I do not bring up the issue of the woman who can’t find anyone who wants to work in her place of business or the fact that I had to start using machines to replace people to evoke a response of pity..the point is there are not enough people available who want to do these kinds of jobs. That is why a lot of these folks come here, there is a market for their labor. Complain if you want, but it is a fact.
Enough With The Deportation…
Has anyone found an immigration proposal in the House or the Senate that proposes rounding up 11 or 12 million illegals and physically removing them to Matamoros? No, I don’t think so. But politicians still talk about it that way,…
Well, looks like we need our borders less secure! We have NO ONE working hayfields and convenience/pizza/gas stations.
Now Drudge is getting bashed, along with us haters of brown people. Why? Gee, even Pres. Bush has changed his tune. Secure the Border. Less illegal immigration.
Retire05 hits every nail on the head. People should open your eyes and see what is going on. Come to California, a teenage kid cannot get a job in fastfood UNLESS HE SPEAKS SPANISH. Wake TF Up.
Burbank,
If you are going to be welcomed on this site then do not misrepresent my positions. I have been for a secure border in any flavor or form. I am for ‘managed’ immigration. That is enough immigration to cover our seasonal migrant worker needs without swamping the indeginous labor force (which is well employed right now). I am for tougher laws on employers and a way for employers to know if a worker is ‘legal’ under a guest worker program. Trust me when I say these two need to go together to work. Current identification is can be spoofed. A guest worker program provides the opportunity for tamper proof IDs and a national database of allowed workers which cannot easily be spoofed. I am for allowing people here who have jobs, do not commit any serious crimes and assimilate. Therefore I am against criminals and those who sit on welfare – they cannot stay. I am not for amensty but for earning back an opportunity for citizenship at the back of the line (unless injured in the service of this country on the battle of field). Do not even once think I will allow you to misreprsent my views on my blog. The hard liners left our borders unprotected in a stint of stubborn petulance and are going to feel the heart for it.
AJ said:
“I am not for amensty but for earning back an opportunity for citizenship at the back of the line”
What back of the line?
The back of the line is waiting in your native land to gain legal entry into the United States. It is not being allowed to work here, earning more money than you ever dreamed you could in your native land, being able to buy things like cars, homes, decent clothing and having your kids get an edcuation that was unreachable in your native land. You want to call that “the back of the line” because it will take 11 years to reach citizenship? Give me a break. That is “jumping” the line.
You can parrot all the pro-illegal talking points you want, but it is still a pig in lipstick. Ask all those who are trying to enter the United States legally if they think that allowing the illegals who did not honor the law in order to come here and letting them stay and continue to work here is going to the “back of the line”.
So what exactly is to be done about illegal immigration?
First, the flood of people coming in:
A 1500+-mile fence will supposedly cut the flood in half, but how quickly can this thing be built, especially if it’s supposed to be next to impossible to climb for most of its length, and deep enough to make tunnelling beneath it impractical? And if the worry is that, if present trends continue, we’ll have (say) another ten million illegals here in 20 years, then if the wall goes up today, we’ll only need to deal with five million new illegals in 20 years. OK, so the wall is up; how do you block off the rest of the flood?
I think we’re going to continue to experience this flood as long as (1) Mexico is a corrupt Third-World $#@!hole of a country, (2) America looks like the Promised Land in comparison, and (3) America and Mexico are neighbors. I think a long-term solution to the problem would require shrinking the difference between the two countries.
I’ve read some things from hardliners that imply that the solution should be to try to make the lives of illegals tougher in America than it was in Mexico, namely by making it difficult or impossible for illegals to get work — by imposing on businesses fines onerous enough to persuade businesses that the cheap labor just isn’t worth the expense. Of course, one reason that the cheap labor is so tempting to employers is because of all the benefits that employers are required by law to pay to employees — minimum wage, medical and dental coverage, and all the rest. So I imagine that the punishment for employing illegals would have to be high indeed; occasionally I read a comment to the effect that businesses that hire illegals should be shut down. (One comment I read on another website, on a thread about an illegal being deported, an illegal who had actually started his own trucking firm while here in this country, is that not only should the company be dissolved, but that the CUSTOMERS of this company ought to be charged. I sincerely hope this kind of thinking is not widespread. :-/ )
So the reasoning here is to make life harder for businesses that hire illegals. Hmmm…First of all, one of the “hardliner” arguments is that illegals are costly because they’re going on welfare. Well no doubt some of them are. But let’s say that of 15 million illegals, five million are working (and the bulk of the rest are dependents). If five million people are put out of work, then that’s another five million who might be going on welfare soon. (**Maybe** some of them will turn around and head back to Mexico, but if Mexicans are coming here to go on welfare, then they won’t be going back to Mexico just because they’re out of a job.)
And when you’re talking about numbers of illegals as large as these, then either (1) the government raids only a small number of businesses, making only a dent in the problem but hoping that businesses start worrying about the chance that they might be next, or (2) the government raids a very large number of businesses, which could have unintended consequences for the economy. If we were talking about fifteen **thousand** illegals instead of fifteen **million**, I wouldn’t even bring this up as an issue.
I think the better long-term solution is to help, encourage, and pressure Mexico to clean up its act, to encourage companies to invest in Mexico, to provide job opportunities for the people living there. This is a long shot too, but I really think it has a better chance of working in the long run than trying to put up barriers to people coming here and working here.
Second, dealing with the people already here:
We basically have three choices as far as the illegal immigrant is concerned: deport him, naturalize him (i.e., allow him to become a citizen, an American and not a Mexican anymore), or leave him in the country as a non-American. Unfortunately, proposals to naturalize illegals have been branded “amnesty” and treated as absolutely beyond the pale. This one baffles me. I know it’s galling to know that somebody’s committing a crime and it appears that the government is proposing allowing him to get away with it, but look at the nature of the crime: being here in this country. That’s still only a misdemeanor. Witnessing the conservative movement digging in over “amnesty” is a bit like watching people screaming that every person, every person without exception, who parks in a no-parking zone needs to have both his car and his driving license taken away from him for life — because I keep reading comments to the effect that providing an illegal with any, absolutely ANY, path to citizenship, no matter how arduous or how long it takes to follow that path, is amnesty, and therefore utterly unacceptable. Of course this means that if naturalizing the illegal is irretrievably off the table, and at the same time “no one is proposing deporting millions of people” (as some of the more vocal posters on this thread have claimed), then, well, that leaves only suffering the illegals to remain here in this country as non-Americans. I’m not sure that’s the best solution to the problem. :-/
Personally, I think (based on some of the things that employees of USCIS have posted elsewhere) that it is our legal-immigration system that is broken and needs to be fixed. The process is apparently random and arbitrary, so that if two people do exactly the same things required by the USCIS to become a citizen, one of the two is sworn in quickly, while the other one might not get in for years, even decades. This kind of Kafkaesque system only encourages people to flout it; it could be one big reason why Mexicans have not been going through the system as they’re supposed to.
Crosspatch, u said:
“Okay, so you secure the border and that reduces the influx of illegals by 50%.”
Only to a Crosspatch could securing the border mean do a half assed job. Hey, securing the border to me means a mathmatical 100%
And I don’t care if one dime is spent “building a wall” as long as the border is secure. Once the border is secure, I don’t think you could then consider any money “wasted”.
There’s a real world ahead. Watch for the road sign.
Terrye, you said:
“I am simply pointing out that people do not want to work in hay fields. It is a fact.”
Just to set the record straight, the last time my friend said he was goiing to cut and bale hay, I VOLUNTEERED to go out and cut the hay and drive the tractor to rake it while he baled. got that, Volunteered, free, no pay. because I enjoy doing it. Got that. So just because you don’t like to work in a hay field doesn’t mean other people don’t want to. I’d recommend you get out of the damn business if you don’t like working in a hay field.
and then this:
As for who did this work before. Well Mexicans have been coming up to work farms California for a long long time. In fact for many years there was a thing called the Bracero program which existed for th
You know where you got that info, from the comments that Retire05 just posted. If you didnt it just shows that you write about others comments without paying any attention to what you’re writing. You just babble on, making totally incoherent arguments.
You also keep talking about these “hardliners” wanting to round up people, but you never quote anyone or link to anyone. I think they only exist in your mind. And those early immigrants, they were legal.
I agree. I wonder if these folks have any idea how many of us voted for Bush in spite of and not because of them.
LET’S FACE IT, you voted for whoever you voted for because you thought in your opinion, it was the best choice.
that’s why George Bush got elected. More people felt like he was the best choice.
Anybody that votes for someone they don’t consider to be the best choice is probably doing it because the pay is good.
Crosspatch, you are getting incoherent
I really don’t want my country turning into East Germany. I lived in Berlin for several years surrounded by a wall.
Is somebody proposing building a wall around San Jose?
AJ also says:
I am for allowing people here who have jobs, do not commit any serious crimes and assimilate. Therefore I am against criminals and those who sit on welfare
but is well aware that the Senate bill, which he supports would allow guest workers that have been convicted of one felony and 3 misdemeanors, to enter the country.
And that is not misrepresenting his views.
Aitch748 said:
“I’ve read some things from hardliners that imply that the solution should be to try to make the lives of illegals tougher in America than it was in Mexico, namely by making it difficult or impossible for illegals to get work”
Look, it’s very simple and I’ve pointed this out before, and nobody takes it seriously, but here is the solution.
Tell every illegal immigrant in the US today, to mail to the US Treasury a card containing their name and home address in Mexico, or whatever country they are from.
Tell them that beginning one week after the Treasury receives the card, they will begin to receive a check at their home address, in Mexico, once per week for $500.00
Do not check on the person, if it is a sorry ass non working American and he wants a check for $500 weekly, with no strings attached delivered to him weekly in Mexico, so be it.
Mexico will then have to build the fence, the US won’t have to.
Mexico will then have the illegal immigrant problem, the US will not.
For all those people that say 11 million people can’t be deported, you better get out of the way of the stampede.
This would not cost the US government one dime. All the savings from supporting these Illegals will be used to pay for it and have money to spare.
OK, tell me why that won’t work.
AJ,
I cannot figure out why you think I misrepresent what you have written, I was referring to Terrye with my last post.
I know I havw gotten posts pulled, and that is fine, it is your blog. But please, point out where I hae misrepresented your writings and/ or opinions in a post, and I will apologize.
I will not apologize for the apologists who think our Country is too damned spoiled to work for a living. I find that repulsive.
Hey, here’s a novel idea.
because I keep reading comments to the effect that providing an illegal with any, absolutely ANY, path to citizenship, no matter how arduous or how long it takes to follow that path, is amnesty, and therefore utterly unacceptable.
Why not make it exceedingly simple. Go to your home country, apply , get accepted.
That simple enough?
FE,
I am temporarily breaking my boycott of your comments to point out again why your side is on this is criminally negligent. All the House had to do was force that correction into the Senate Bill. But no, they ran away from the issue and left the borders unprotected. Running away was not the answer and they had plenty of leverage to make fixes
I’ll also teach you a little bit about how things our done in my home town up on the Hill. If there needs to be a conference compromise, the last chamber passing the law will leave warts in their Bill they know and expect the other Chamber to take credit for removing in order to give the other chamber some bragging rights on the final product. It is called face saving. Something the ranters on the right have no concept of because they could care less if they save their own faces, let alone others they need to pass legislation.
The hard liners on the right neglected their duty to pass something to address the security risks and they loudly and proudly did it. Don’t come running back pretending this all about security BS. That canard was killed with the failures we call the House leadership. Their stunt risked as many lives as any liberal publishing national secrets for their partisan jihads. Hard liners share two things in common no matter which side they are on: They are obsessed with marginal details to the point they never accomplish anything, and they do not care whether their personal obsessions hurt or risk hurting other human beings. That is why they are beyond useless in leadership positions.
Moratorium re-established. Talk to the screen.
Screen, thanks
“I am temporarily breaking my boycott of your comments to point out again why your side is on this is criminally negligent. All the House had to do was force that correction into the Senate Bill. But no, they ran away from the issue and left the borders unprotected. Running away was not the answer and they had plenty of leverage to make fixes”
Here’s where your thinking is outstanding.
As you well know, any attempt to get anything into the bill was defeated. Remember they just asked for : Secure the border and then do the rest. defeated. English the official language, defeated
So the dems weren’t going to let ANY change get in that would let the Repubs look good.
But, and here’s the problem, even if the bill had passed both houses just as it is, it wouldn’t have done a damn thing to secure the border.
All it would have done is make everybody legal and on the path to citizenship, including the additional unknown millions in the next 20 years. So criminally negligent? No way.
Teach me something,
“I’ll also teach you a little bit about how things our done in my home town up on the Hill. If there needs to be a conference compromise, the last chamber passing the law will leave warts in their Bill they know”
I knew all that before you were born.
Now this is good, screen:
“The hard liners on the right neglected their duty to pass something to address the security risks and they loudly and proudly did it.”
You see Screen, them there hardliners recognized that the Dems were throwing up a smoke screen, putting all the issues into the Senate bill that they knew the Repubs wouldn’t buy because there is not and would not be any security benefits to the country. All it would do is repeat the fiasco from the last time amnesty was given and the Repubs would get the blame for it again and the Dems would get the Hispanic vote. but some of us “hardliners” weren’t fooled and decided that security was important. Loudly and Proudly, not nearly as Loudly and Proudly as it should have been.
The worst part is having to try to convince those that still haven’t seen through this smoke screen. But we’re still hoping.
Anyhow, screen, keep up the good works and we’ll keep trying to get you enlightened on this border issue. The only issue that you seem to not understand for some reason.
But then the 90% of your readers that disagree with you on this one issue may be wrong. Crosspatch and Terrye may be right. yea, right.