You still reading comments on this thread? Here is some more empirical evidence that shoots your silly analysis out of the water.
From the WSJ poll today:
"By 61%-35%, Americans say illegal immigrants within the U.S. should be allowed to stay rather than be deported so long as they pay taxes and pass security checks. By 68%-28%, they express support for a potential Senate compromise that would allow for different treatment of those who have been in the U.S. at least five years, those here for two to five years, and those in the U.S. for less than two years."Comment Posted By Tano On 27.04.2006 @ 15:49
Nice try, but no,,,sadly I am not in the nanny-landscaper class, not by a long shot. Not that I would ever hire someone else to raise my kids, even if I could, but thats another issue....
Anyway, you ask a couple of "how long" questions. How long can we consider ourselves a nation of laws if.....
Well, we've been doing this (hiring illegals) for a long time now, so, the answer is "quite a bit longer than you think...".
But I do appreciate your concern on some level. I dont think it is a good situation to have milllions of people outside the law. That is why I support regularizing them.
The problem is that the driving force in this country is the economy. And it has been, for a long time, a very vibrant, strong, growing economy. It demands labor. And the supply of labor has not been freely available to the economy, but rather regulated by politicians who write laws, establish quotas etc. with NO REGARD to the actual needs of the economy. Rather they simply respond to local political considerations. When something as amorphous as "the economy as a whole" demands X number of workers, but a congressman is running for election in a district where people are insecure about their jobs, what will the pol do? Restrict immigration, or fail to increase it to levels that the economy needs. For the pol, its a no brainer. Do that for a few decades and you have the present situation - "legal" levels of immigration that are totally our of whack with the needs of the economy. Market forces are powerful, and the labor market is no exception. People (workers and employers) will find ways around irrational limits.
Focusing your ire on the workers is not dealing with the issue. We need to align immigration policy with the needs of the economy. That means allowing those here now to stay - recognizing them under the law so that they can fully participate (including bargaining for better wages so they dont drag down everyone elses wages), and also demand of them the resoponsibilities we demand of all other citizens. And going forward, to have a mechanism in place to insure that future needs of the economy are met. Only then would enforcement work - you cant really expect to control a border if your own economy is pressuring people to cross in greater numbers than is allowed.Comment Posted By Tano On 27.04.2006 @ 11:55
Trite turns of phrases aren't all that convincing in the end. There are 12 million illegals here, and most of them working. Unemployment is low, some say down near the levels that indicate effective full employment (just ask any republican). So where is the problem with the illegals? Who is going to do the work if they werent here? And please tell, what would be the effect on the economy of millions of workers being removed from the workforce in times of such low unempoyment?
Rick is really playing the unthinking yahoo here. The reason that the administration supports guest-worker programs is that they know, absolutely, that trying to remove these people is patently absurd. So its either find some way to bring them out of the shadows, or leave them underground.Comment Posted By Tano On 26.04.2006 @ 20:21
C'mon man, get off your kool-aid. This is absurd:
"Rassmussen is the most accurate polling group around"
You want I nice demonstration of their accuracy? Just go to one of your RW sites, RealClearPolitics, and look at the Prez approval charts, updated daily. You can see that for every single day, Rasmussen floats along, 5-6 points above (pro-Bush) EVERY other polling firm.
Not convinced yet? Check out immigration numbers for other polling firms.
"The impact on Republicans who donâ€™t take an enforcement first position is much more pronounced because of the states where immigration is a hot issue"
Yeah, well thats not what you originally said. Here you make the argument that Repubs need to play to their base. Originally you tried to claim that they needed to appeal to the middle. Anti-immigration sentiments are clearly a GOP base issue period.
"When 40% of the electorate wants to send 11 million people home..."
Well, the reputable firms say 27%. But whatever. 27-40%, that your base.Comment Posted By Tano On 26.04.2006 @ 17:45
oops,Comment Posted By Tano On 26.04.2006 @ 16:36
Pew know how to add, my reading is off. That last number - "required to return home' is 27%, not 29
50% consider it an important issue. 2/3 of those favor tough measures. 50% X 2/3 = 33%. Thats your base.
You don't specify from where your numbers come from (except the first set - are they all from Rasmussen?). If you want real numbers from a reputable, nonpartisan firm, look at the extensive analysis of immigration attitudes done by Pew.
Illegal immigrants already here should be.....
Allowed to stay permanently - 32%
Granted temp worker status - 32%
Required to return home - 29% (that base again)
DK - 9%
Don't get me wrong here. I don't mean to discourage you from pushing this line. It will be disaster for Republicans in the short term, and guarantee long-term disaster for the GOP with the latino vote. Go for it!!!Comment Posted By Tano On 26.04.2006 @ 16:33
I think you are wrong about a few things here.
First off, your claim that the great American middle is against this is nonsense. Seems pretty clear that you are trying to persuade people of something by claiming they believe it already - typical basic propaganda move. Most Americans fully understand the need for these people to be regularized, identified and integrated.
Your whole analysis hinges on the political aspects. The obvious explanation for why Bush is taking this position is because, gasp, its the right thing for the country.
Your political analysis is way off. It may hurt him in his base, and that may indeed be very bad for him (given how his entire administration has been based on support from the base rather than building consensus), but the political problems will not come from the middle.Comment Posted By Tano On 26.04.2006 @ 12:42
Personally, I'm on the "peoples right to know" side. I would hang anyone who gave away info that could get our people killed, but revealing nefarious ops, like secret prisons is a good thing.
Its our country, and we have a right to know what is being done in our name, with our money. Not tactical details, but thats not the issue here. No doubt the administration is going to continue to try to crack down, but its probably useless. These are lifelong public servants, patriots, and they will probably continue to reveal things that their conscience tells that they must.
You are on the wrong side of this one Rick - your partisanship has landed you on the side of defending the indefensible, and lashing out at those who inform the citizenry of the things we have a right to know.Comment Posted By Tano On 24.04.2006 @ 23:31
Its Opensecrets.ORG, not com. Com is sleazy ripoff ad site that has enough windowdressing up to fool someone who has never been to the real site.Comment Posted By Tano On 24.04.2006 @ 23:23
Whatsamatter, Rick? The proprieter of the nut house is getting cold feet about the nuttiness? Whats up with this? This is your vision, isn't it? To encourage this kind of stuff?
There may be a little extra synergy today, probably because y'all been on the defensive so long, but it really isn't all that out-of-the-ordinary.
You guys sound as nutty as "the left" everyday. Why do you think it occured to you to call this place the nuthouse?Comment Posted By Tano On 23.04.2006 @ 00:39