Once the GOP agrees to amnesty, they will self-emasculate their base's favorite moral argument: "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?"
But that won't get the media to stop telling Hispanics that Republicans are evil white men who hate Latinos because look how they didn't give the undocumented the vote! That campaign of anti-white agitation will then go on for years until the GOP gives in on The Path to Citizenship, too.
Thus, the New York Times prepares Phase 2 of the immigration campaign:
From Shadows to Citizenship
INTRODUCTION
Immigration activists last spring called for a special path to citizenship. Alex Wong/Getty Images
One of the contentious points in negotiations over comprehensive immigration reform is a House Republican proposal that would allow for a form of legal status to immigrants who are in the United States illegally, but would not include a clear path to citizenship.
But is it sensible to make citizenship hard to obtain for someone who is allowed to live and work here after years of residence? Would it be in the national interest for them to have the rights and responsibilities of citizenship?
READ THE DISCUSSION »
Posts
30 comments:
Blacks may be catching on.
Agenda Report, News and Commentary from the black left.
“Operation Afro-Dilution”: Michigan’s Plan to Flood Detroit with Upscale Immigrants
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/%E2%80%9Coperation-afro-dilution%E2%80%9D-michigan%E2%80%99s-plan-flood-detroit-upscale-immigrants
That campaign of anti-white agitation will then go on for years until the GOP gives in on The Path to Citizenship, too.
Make that: "That campaign of anti-white agitation will then go on for hours until the GOP gives in on The Path to Citizenship, too."
Don't create a permanent underclass?
We didn't create it. We've been trying to un-create it by having illegals go back home.
They break the law and then say we must change the law to serve them?
It's like 'gay marriage'. Homos attack the meaning of marriage and then accuse of not respecting marriage by bending over to homo demands.
Notice that as usual the comments -- from the Times' gay marriage loving and gun hating readership no less -- are for the most part strongly opposed to amnesty.
What is this "shadows" bit? I wish I knew where these supposed shadows were where I could hide from the government.
A Swede manages to obscure an immigration realist opinion enough to get it printed in The Guardian.
More troubling is the enduring commitment to a national welfare state that is de facto limited to citizens and legal residents. In an age of migration and globalisation this brings to the fore a potent conflict between rights of citizens and human rights. It constitutes a deep challenge to democracy as we know it. And Swedes are currently no more successful in handling this than anyone else.
'The grim truth behind the Scandinavian miracle' – the nations respond
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/05/scandinavian-miracle-denmark-finland-iceland-norway-sweden
Evil Sandmich:"What is this "shadows" bit?"
Yeah, who crafted this particular trope? Whoever it is, he deserves a apt on the back for crafting a phrase that has become damn near inescapable.
RE: Immigrants in the "shadows":
what's it like living in the shadows, and how dies it differ from being in the shade (which, as I understand it, is a pretty comfortable place to be)?
How does living in the shadows compare to livin in a river of darkness, beneath the neon lights?Better? The same?Worse? Cooler?Less cool?
If I live in the shadows, do I get to be the Shadow? That would be pretty cool.
Living in the Shadows:
Pro: less need for sun block.
Con: might lead to vitamin D deficiency.
syon
"Few democratic principles are more elemental than that those subject to government authority have rights to influence the exercise of that authority." - so he is against illegal voting rights I take it?
The undocumented Mexicans in my (former) neck of the woods, Farmingville, Long Island, were not in the shadows at all. In fact, they could often be seen, wandering around the neighborhood in broad daylight, drinking a refreshing malt liquor beverage in a paper bag (known locally as "a forty", for 40 ounces) at 11:00 o'clock on a weekday morning.
Really gave my wife the willies, big-time, and I don't blame her.Women do not like to be around drunk strange men.
I hope that's not the favorite moral argument of the base. It's weenie legalism.
The two key points are:
1) Ethnic diversity erodes trust and cohesion in communities.
2) Supply of labor up, wages down, which widens inequality.
Neither point depends on the immigrants being legal or illegal.
Along the lines of Evil Sandmich: I would like to ask Dan Tichenor where I might find my ability to influence the government might be located.
"A Compromise Worth Accepting"
Let me borrow a headline from Mr. Vargas.
I believe we are stuck with the illegal immigrnats we have now.
I'll tell you what would be a compromise I'd probably go along with:
In exchange for eventural US citizenship, we get rid of automatic birthright citizenship for children whose parents are here illegally or temporarily.
If we could get rid of the biggest jackprize on Earth -- US citizenship just because you mother happened to be here when you were born -- we will remove one of the big draws.
None of the ethnic pressure groups would go for that though.
Or would they?
Would they be willing to sacrifice the ability people from their home country to get something in the future that they don't desrve, in exchange for giving themselves citizenship they don't deserve either, but is on the table, ready for the taking?
They just might say yes.
We know they'll start pushing for full citizenship next if some bill that's only forbearance of deportation and work visas is passed.
But even if they don't, passing a bill that's only forbearance of deportation and work visas is still bad, still wrong, and will still hurt us.
Evil Sandmich:
Yeah, what shadows? This is an NSA world.
Arguing with the immivasion extremists is pretty much pointless. They are not arguing in good faith. They do not even believe their own arguments. Even if you disprove those arguments, vigorously, unquestionably, and to their faces, they will be back tomorrow arguing the exact same points. The New York Times does not believe that illegal aliens "live in the shadows" or 'deserve citizenship.' They do not believe that Schumer-Rubio is anything other than an amnesty (not to mention a reward) for having broken the law.
The only thing they truly believe is that immivasion is good for them - economically, politically, and in their ongoing war against this country's historic ethnic majority, of which they do not consider themselves a part.
It is a terribly bad idea in a democracy, in a welfare state, to reward people for breaking the law. It undermines the moral order of the entire nation. It increases cynicism and reduced trust in government. It rewards the corruption of those who brought them here and those who hired them.
But if, for whatever reason, society decides to grant such people legal residence, it has no moral or political obligation to make them citizens. If the amnestied don't like being denied citizenship they are perfectly free to leave. If amnesty proponents think that a large body of non-citizens is a threat to the idea of self-government then they shouldn't support amnesty and they shouldn't oppose enforcement.
Notice the barely-veiled extremism of the douchebag Oregon professor: "Few democratic principles are more elemental than that those subject to government authority have rights to influence the exercise of that authority."
This is no less than an argument for eviscerating the concept of citizenship and granting the franchise to anyone who happens to live here or, hell, just happens to be passing through. Anyone on US soil is "subject to government authority." Anyone. It's like saying that anyone who happens to be in your house is a part-owner - a guest, a handyman, the neighbor's kid, whoever. What's lacking in our understanding of the concept of citizenship is that it is effectively a form of joint ownership. A nation's citizens are its owners. In many ways it's a different type of ownership than that of owning a car or business. In other ways it is exactly the same - the federal, state, and local governments of this nation own tens of trillions of dollars in assets - assets paid for with blood and/or taxes.
Their blurb from the DREAM Action Coalition guy is priceless. The diverse viewpoints editors assembled by the editors there reminds me of the George Carlin bit about having 4 oil companies but 40 brands of breakfast cereals
Tichenor, if voting really changed anything they'd make it illegal.
Willis, that's the point. They're not dilluting citizenship, they're disenfranchizing current citizens, and stealing their assets, the whole country as real estate and its public buildings, its infrastructure and whatever is left in federal coffers.
It's possibly the greatest swindle in human history.
syon said "How does living in the shadows compare to livin in a river of darkness, beneath the neon lights?Better? The same?Worse? Cooler?Less cool?"
Nice! Glenn Frey reference.
Living in the shadows might also be like living with your back against the wall, nothing grows and life ain't very pretty, no ones there to catch you when you fall.
Rod Liddell has a great article in the Sun here in GB. He says there are more than 83 nations more homophobic than Russia. Of course, the PC idiots that run our country wouldn't dare criticise nonwhites. Rather manufacture a bogus peripheral non-issue as a way of beating Putin for not letting the Scots-Irish asset strip Russia.
agnostic wrote:
> 2) Supply of labor up, wages down, which widens inequality.
The reasoning that leads leftists to support Mass Immigration while calling for a Higher Minimum Wage would be delightful to contemplate.
Except that it's the future prosperity of my kids, neighbors, colleagues, and fellow citizens that is being tossed in the dustbin.
Progressivism's motto: Sucks to be you. (But don't worry, we're having fun, here on the top!)
What happens if they don't pass amnesty? Nothing whatsoever will happen, things will just go on as they are now. The issue will be debated endlessly with the various factions congratulating each other on their momentary victories. The illegals themselves will die of old age and leave behind all their anchor children who of course are full citizens.
>Blacks may be catching on.<
When will Republicans catch on?
Willis wrote:
Notice the barely-veiled extremism of the douchebag Oregon professor: "Few democratic principles are more elemental than that those subject to government authority have rights to influence the exercise of that authority."
I respond:
But only if you're an illegal alien. Native born white non-leftist citizens don't have that right. If they think they do and try to exercise it, then they are instantly guilty of terrorism, hostage taking, teabagging, anarchy, Nazi-ism.
I recommend we give these fine folks a path to citizenship. No, really! Enlist in the military, make it through a hitch, and you're a US citizen.
If they're willing to fight for the US, I'll take them.
I think it has been mentioned here before, but if you haven't seen it, please see this NY Times editorial on amnesty from 2000.
The primary problem with amnesties is that they beget more illegal immigration. Demographers trace the doubling of the number of Mexican immigrants since 1990 in part to the amnesty of the 1980's. Amnesties signal foreign workers that American citizenship can be had by sneaking across the border, or staying beyond the term of one's visa, and hiding out until Congress passes the next amnesty. The 1980's amnesty also attracted a large flow of illegal relatives of those workers who became newly legal. All that is unfair to those who play by the immigration rules and wait years to gain legal admission.
It is also unfair to unskilled workers already in the United States. Between about 1980 and 1995, the gap between the wages of high school dropouts and all other workers widened substantially. Prof. George Borjas of Harvard estimates that almost half of this trend can be traced to immigration of unskilled workers. Illegal immigration of unskilled workers induced by another amnesty would make matters worse. The better course of action is to honor America's proud tradition by continuing to welcome legal immigrants and find ways to punish employers who refuse to obey the law.
"They're not dilluting citizenship, they're disenfranchizing current citizens, and stealing their assets"
Exactly it's a massive robbery.
.
"If they're willing to fight for the US, I'll take them."
They won't be fighting for the US. They'll be fighting for whoever bribes congress the most.
Shadows, my you-know-what!
Where were those horrible shadows when, during one of his SOTU lie-litanies, Obama had the assembled political mass - including the god-damn Attorney General who made no move to arrest - applaud the celebrated illegal alien in the House gallery?
Where are those frightful shadows in all the U.S. burgs that have patted themselves on their backs for their being "sanctuary cities"?
Where are those pitiless shadows in all the states that have granted in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.
Shadows, my ass.
Post a Comment