In the next few days and weeks, I strongly suspect that the growing political consensus will be that the “Day without an Immigrant” march/boycott backfired. I list the reasons why, in no particular order:
1. Americans will not appreciate the association with May Day, communism, ANSWER, other left-wing groups like MECHA, and groups that go around shouting, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us!”
2. It’s one thing to wave your country’s flag at the World Cup or on Cinco de Mayo; it’s quite another to wave the Mexican flag when you’re marching to demand citizenship in America.
3. Americans are turned off by the entitlement mentality these marchers were exhibiting; most Americans’ ancestors came here humbly and doing everything they could to be in good graces with the law and to secure a better future for their children. In contrast, these illegal immigrants were boycotting work, pulling their kids out of school, and demanding they be handed a piece of the citizenship pie after cutting in line ahead of all the legal immigrants. Americans do not appreciate feeling like they must “appease”, although certain politicians are more than glad to offer promises of government largesse in exchange for political support and votes (this is typical of liberals, but increasingly Republicans like Bush are engaging in this mentality as well).
4. Americans don’t respond positively to protests and boycotts. The Civil Rights movement led by Dr. MLK Jr. was an exception: although the majority of white Americans did not support ending segregation and granting equal rights to blacks at first, they were forced to see the brutal evil of Jim Crow in the South on TV. MLK Jr. said all the right things and asked for opportunity and equality, couching his demands in religion and appeals to our nation’s highest ideals. No other major movement has followed that tactic, and thus no other major movement has gained the implicit support of “the silent majority”. The silent majority were turned off by the Vietnam protesters and and reelected Nixon in a landslide; the silent majority defiantly crushed the anti-globalization movement in the 1990s; the silent majority only gave more support to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and rallied behind President Bush when protesters filled the streets; and the silent majority will now turn against yesterday’s protesters and deal a fatal blow to their goals. Solid public support will now swing in favor of strong border enforcement, more employer crackdowns, and a strict path to citizenship (if any form of amnesty is accepted at all).
5. The boycott failed in its stated purpose: To show that “a day without an immigrant” would hurt the U.S. economy. Not only were the economic effects slight, the areas hardest hit were the ethnic immigrant enclaves, as many stores that serve and hire members of those communities were closed and/or lost money. As for the rest of society, Americans saw traffic ease, commutes shorten, 911 calls decrease, emergency rooms empty, and gang activities quiet down. For American educators in the inner cities, class sizes were advantageously smaller for the day, and the students who came to school were disproportionately more eager to succeed and learn than their peers whose parents pulled them from class. For most average Americans, yesterday had precisely the opposite effect of that intended by the organizers.
Republicans have an excellent chance here to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and pass immigration reform that heightens our nation’s security, severely cracks down on the incentives to come here illegally by going after employers, and bring 10-20 million people out of the shadows in a way that pays for itself by making illegal immigrants not only earn their citizenship, but pay monetarily for the right to live here, receive government services, and/or remit income to their families abroad. The path to citizenship is key: Make the process difficult enough and bound with enough strings, and you’ll separate the wheat from the chaff. Simultaneously though, Republicans would be doing this nation a great disservice if they did not overhaul completely the process by which we let in immigrants legally. A great deal of face can be saved if Republicans do these two key steps:
1. Show their pro-immigration bonafides by making legal immigration much easier, smoother, fair, and better designed to help strengthen America; and
2. Make the path to citizenship for illegals sufficiently difficult that only true Americans will take that path, humbly and willingly paying restitution for coming here illegally for the right to be a part of our great nation.
Anything short of those two options risks ceding the middle to Democrats who would gladly offer amnesty to illegals and change the Pledge of Allegiance to Spanish to pick up a quick 10 million votes nationwide. Republicans are also at risk of alienating their base, and when the base doesn’t show up to the polls, GOP victories like we saw in 2002 and 2004 simply will not continue in 2006 and 2008. Doing the first step will satisfy the concerns of the American middle, while the latter will craft a balance between the sympathetic Center with the angry anti-illegal immigration base of the GOP.
|
Categories: Immigration, Election 2006
|
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:14:46 pm
Wow! the cosmic fabric of reality is coming apart. I actually agree with all of Andrew’s points.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:45:32 pm
I think it was well said too.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:47:09 pm
I don’t mind anyone boycotting jobs or Starbucks or McDonald’s or whatever–so long as they boycott emergency rooms, voting booths, public education venues and 911 services.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:00:14 pm
I more or less agree with your two points, Andrew. In fact, some sort of difficult path to citizenship is absolutely inevitable, so the sooner we begin down that road, the sooner we can move on to other problems.
What do you mean, inevitable, Jazz? What about the people that advocate rounding up the 13 million illegals and sending them home? Why can’t we do that?
People will talk about the “send them home idea” AD NAUSEAM, but it simply can’t happen, for the following reason:
I heard an interesting stat: companies that use lots of illegal workers, for example meat packing companies such as Tyson Foods, closed several plants yesterday because of the huge population of illegals that were away protesting.
So let’s suppose we go down the “all illegals must go home” road. Once we so commit, its a triviality to put a government agent outside every Tyson processing plant and force everyone to show their papers. All illegals will be sent home, putting a small dent in the problem.
Of course, Tyson’s labor cost goes way up in that situation.
Then, the entrepreneurial Jazz gets this bright idea. Hey, he says, there are still many many illegals floating around. The feds don’t know me. I’m going to put up a shingle and call my shop “Jazz’ bail bonds, cell phone kiosk (and occasional meat processing facility)”.
Unlike Tyson, I won’t have the Feds outside my door. So I might hire illegals and have unit costs much lower than Tyson.
Who will WalMart buy their chicken from?
Keep in mind, Tyson is an S&P 500 firm - the policy of sending all aliens home would effectively crush them at the hands of numerous opportunists running smaller, more transient shops paying illegals that remain.
Attempting to send the illegals home will only make a dent in the problem, but the policy would end up crushing big companies (such as Tyson) that rely on illegal labor inputs.
A path to legalization would still force Tyson to pay more. But it might limit the population available to the entrepreneur to sabotage Tyson - and that frankly is the answer that makes the most sense.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:10:43 pm
Why CAN’T we deport all the illegal aliens? Look how easy it was to ship out Elian Gonzalez :-)
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:21:52 pm
I don’t know how other entities get away with it. I’m the hiring authority of all adjunct instructors at my college, and when we hire someone we have to jump through a half-dozen hoops: Xerox driver’s license (or state-issued alternative), Xerox Social Security card, I-9, W-4, and every few years our accrediting authority comes around and checks out our files eight ways to Sunday.
Clearly the Bar & Grill up the block doesn’t have the layers of administivia my college does. But clearly enough employers look the other way: paying off the books, hiring day-to-day, accepting obviously forged paperwork. Ross Perot’s “huge sucking sound” is actually sucking toward El Norte. Much like drugs, othing will happen until the US deals with illegal immigration on the demand side, and impose onerous penalties ($10,000 per illegal worker?) on US companies.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:30:09 pm
Texasyank - the problem is not the law, its the enforcement.
$10,000 fine per illegal worker? Easy to levee against Tyson Foods. But Jazz? Dude sells bail bonds! Or cell phones. Even if the feds make the connection to the meat packing activity, the entity would be set up as a LLP, and once it was discovered by the authorities it would reorganize or fold or reappear in some other form. Of course it probably isn’t quite that easy to move in and out of meat packing, but hopefully my point is made nevertheless…
Large institutions must necessarily get the short end of the stick with aggressive enforcement against illegals.
Which is certainly fine as a thought experiment, but no one wants to live with the real life consequences.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:38:53 pm
If stores, restaurants, gas stations, etc. can determine in short order whether you’ve given them a valid credit card number, then it’s certainly feasible for employers to take some time to figure out whether you’ve given them a bogus SSN when they hire you.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:39:52 pm
Jazz–you’re probably right. But Keeryst, to have paperwork on an employee held up internally because he used the wrong color ink on his W-4 (not kidding), and THEN pass the cluster of day laborers near the train tracks waiting for the pick-ups to roll by . . . ah, I give up.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:46:21 pm
I was with the post until the list of suggestions. We do not really need additional laws, and any form of amnesty - whether called that or not - would have a devastating impact. Whatever it’s called, it would be seen as amnesty around the world. That would mean two things:
1. Millions upon millions more illegal aliens would come here for amnesty. They would know all they’d need to do is march in our streets and we’d capitulate.
2. We would look weak to enemy countries and terrorists.
The better - albeit more difficult - solution is to discredit and marginalize those who support illegal immigration.
In fact, that’s a necessary fundamental step: if we don’t do that, then we’ll continue to have illegal immigration no matter how great the plan.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:47:57 pm
Since this site strips out URLs, visit lonewacko.com for hundreds of posts with background information on this issue.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:57:40 pm
You make a bunch of assertions but with no documentation to back up your points. Do you actually have stats that show that crime went down and that kids were more eager to learn?
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:36:39 am
So how does one square the fact that Mexicans are predominantly Catholic and very family oriented, some being fairly conservative in their values, with the claim that these demonstrations were “hijacked” by groups like A.N.S.W.E.R.?
There was no “left-wing conspiracy” to hijack these demonstrations.
Yes, some lefty groups turned out to promote their causes and support the Mexicans. But anyone who saw the news knows the lefty groups were generally white people who were dwarfed in number by the Mexicans.
But OVERWHELMINGLY these demonstrations were ordinary Mexicans who work here and want better lives for their families.
This has to be one of the dumbest claims I’ve ever heard.
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:28:52 am
Andrews and others, love that you think those immigrants ought to behave more humbly and stop demanding anything and appreciate what they’ve been given. Harks back to those ‘uppity’ negroes doesn’t it??
I believe that immigration reform is important and necessary, however, the alarming degree of racism, resent, and us-vs-them mentality that runs rampant through discussions on this issue (in many, many venues) is disgusting, and that is what I will always fight against and hold as far more important than the actual immigration issue at hand.
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:39:06 am
Are we going to make people born in the US earn their citizenship? It always seemed odd to me that a girl I knew in high school, born in Poland but living here since she was 5, completely acculturated to American life, had to take a test to be a citizen, while any idiot born here didn’t have to know a thing about the Constitution or American history. You could believe that our Founding Fathers were Evangelicals who wanted this to be a Christian Nation that ruled over every aspect of our lives, and you’re a citizen as long as you were born here. Don’t seem right…
But then, letting people immigrate doesn’t necessarily mean letting them be citizens.
This was probably an attempt to recreate the movie “A Day Without a Mexican.” Of course, since there was no mysterious pink fog to actually take them all away (the legal and illegal in the movie), it obviously didn’t actually create the same effect.
I’m not even gonna touch the fact that you never have evidence to back your claims. Others have alreafy taken you to task.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:31:10 am
desolate_angel,
I agree.
Besides recognizing that it’s impractical to deport 11 million workers already here in the USA, people ought to recognize that human beings will do things– including breaking immigration laws– to imporve the lives of themselves and their families.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:41:07 am
Nun -
Who here is calling out for deportation?
The simple fact is that reform of the immigration process cannot happen until control over the border is established. And once illegal immigration has been significantly reduced, THEN we can reform the immigration process to reduce the absurd lengths and time needed to go through the process.
“people ought to recognize that human beings will do things– including breaking immigration laws– to imporve the lives of themselves and their families.”
Here’s something else they can do as well. Stay home in Mexico and exert all this political pressure they are trying to here on Vincente Fox to approve and push reforms. If just half these 11 million illegal immigrants stayed in Mexico and demanded a better economy and less corruption from the government, than that would help ALL mexicans.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:45:41 am
Desolate -
Know what else is alarming? The fact than anybody who even MENTIONS border enforcement is tarred and feather by a large bulk of the illegal immigration bloc as racists.
Is it racist of Andrew to ask them to FOLLOW THE LAW? Is the process screwed up right now? Sure. Doesn’t prevent a slew of legal immigrants from following it, including my step-brother.
I mean, what is your definition of racism here? We have only two land borders and only ONE of them is a serious problem with illegal immigration. Am I supposed to ignore that because of white shame?
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:47:41 am
Lojo,
That isn’t true, because plenty of liberals approve of having a tougher border policy.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:00:11 am
Plenty of liberals might approve of a tougher border policy, but the radical leftists and professional demonstrators like ANSWER — who never found a protest they didn’t like, and who most certainly DID do the most of any group to organize this week’s demonstrations in support of legal/illegal/we-don’t-want-you-distinguishing-between-the-two immigration — certainly DON’T.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:23:12 am
Andrew,
You make a lot of good points that don’t make sense.
Obviously, your post is an exploit of your inner beliefs you try to sprinkle onto all who read it. Nothing in life is black and white; you ought to know that as a student of the law–granted I’m correct in my assertion that you’re a student of the law.
At any rate, I can’t see any sustaining notes in your outrageous comments when you, as an educated person, fail to give depth and perception to a topic so controversial. For example, the many debates when slavery ended on whether to send all the negroes back to Africa. You will tend to say it is the wrong connection–or, is it?
Bea is right that the few radical groups are so loud they obscure the larger mass trying to make a possitive impact on something that is as important as it is symbolic to them. Speaking of symbols. Yes, to me it seems a farce to wave flags when Cinco de Mayo is but 2 days away. But, can you really condemn the act? Can you say with 100% certainty that these people, by doing so, are base people who deserve to be scorned? On average, how many people do you see carrying more *illegal* flags than American flags?
My point is that I don’t mind sound voiced opinion, but when it seems to me that yours lacks more pizzazzzz, I’m obliged to repute it.
And I don’t think they are demanding as you so abruptly effuse. I get a sense that they are looking for an opportunity to belong and to make a point that they are part of this society and their contributions should be noticed.
To Demand:
1 : to ask or call for with authority : claim as due or just
2 : to call for urgently, peremptorily, or insistently
3 a : to ask authoritatively or earnestly to be informed of b : to require to come : SUMMON
4 : to call for as useful or necessary
Besides the point. Maybe I’m wrong and my perception has faultered me.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:50:05 am
Nun -
I didn’t see where I singled out liberals in my post, but if I did, I didn’t mean to.
Most of the politicians in this issue are trying to handle it pragmatically and failing badly. Their all afraid to cut off such a large wealth of future voters, but are failing to see the forest for the trees. If you believe tracking polls, a huge number of currently registered voters are against the demonstrations and even as much as 40% support forced deportation.
Now, I’m not backing forced deportation due to the pain it’ll cause and the unfeasability of it, but Bush and others are really alienating themselves from their bases by pandering to a large bloc of non-citizens.
Some libs are approaching the problem wrong in that they want to reform first, enforce second. But their hearts are in the right place, if not their heads.
But groups like ANSWER, though not hijacking the protests, are certainly feeding off of them like a tick on a hound. May not seem like much, but once it gets big enough, its hard not to notice.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:52:36 am
Roger -
Not to quibble, but your posted definition of demand seems to acutely describe the protests currently going on.
And that’s ignoring groups like La Raza who don’t want rights, but all of the Southwest US to themselves.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:04:36 am
So much for Bush not wanting the National Anthem sung in Spanish. From Drudge (by the way, there is a nice photo of Bush waving the Mexican flag during the 2000 campaign)…
“When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, George W. Bush he would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing “The Star-Spangled Bannerâ€? in Spanish, sometimes partying with a “Viva Bushâ€? mariachi band flown in from Texas.”
So writes author Kevin Phillips in his book AMERICAN DYNASTY.
Last week, at the height of the illegal immigrant’s boycott build up, Bush told reporters: “I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English.”
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:05:15 am
Andrews and others, love that you think those immigrants ought to behave more humbly and stop demanding anything and appreciate what they’ve been given. Harks back to those ‘uppity’ negroes doesn’t it??
desolate angel, not to good at the analogy game are ya? ‘dontcha worries’ everyone’s favorite starwars character is here to help.
There are just a few differences between those uppity negros and these uppity illigals. First, we imported the negros because we needed to (well effectively use them and abuse them.) Now maybe I missed it durring my time in San Diego, but I didn’t see any slave busses shipping anyone across the border against their will. Second, I can’t think of a large number of coutries that don’t have an established route toward citizenship. A route that my good friend and co-worker Jose followed dilligently. Now he is a citizen. A happy citizen. Yea! AND it is a citizenship (might I say) that he earned. (ps. He refers to the protestors as freeloaders.) The citizenship is a funny thing, you can get on the ship, it just takes time and effort. Now, those uppitty negos couldn’t just APPLY for equal rights. Are you implying that if silly Dr. King had just filled out the right forms, none of that would have happened? Now, as for the:
“alarming degree of racism, resent, and us-vs-them mentality that runs rampant through discussions on this issue… I’m not naive enough to think it doesn’t exist, but it seems to me that you’re going looking for it in everyone’s opinion on the issue, and that, dear dark angel warrior, doesn’t make you jacque cousteau.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:11:50 am
The simplest and fairest thing we can do is tighten border security. Both political parties can agree on that. I believe a 2,000 mile fence is actually a great idea. Will they did under it? Possibly. But right now there is nothing to prevent illegals from driving through the desert.
I also believe employers should be hit with punitive fines - $10K or so. The challenge is to put a system in place where legal immigrants aren’t discriminated against simply because they are Hispanic. Maybe a national work ID card that is virtually impossible to duplicate would be the answer.
Finally, there are existing laws that simply aren’t being enforced. Employers hiring illegals are breaking tax laws. These assholes should face prison time. Also, the mortgage industry has turned a blind eye to the amount of mortgage fraud going on with illegal immigrants. I wager we will see an S&L-type crisis in the coming months as the housing market starts to slide and all the illegals who have received bogus mortgages in the past couple of years start to walk away from properties as construction jobs dry up.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:34:41 am
Lojack:
Like I said…some groups take advantage to show their radical views and obscure what others would nobly want to accomplish. Please read my post carefully before accusing me. TKS
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:40:13 am
*points at Angrier*
He is the reason that the republicans are looking to squander all of Congress and the WH in ‘08 if they’re not careful.
Because what Angrier is saying is what the majority of Americans (legal) are saying. Regardless of party registration or even minority status. This should be the easiest political slam dunk for republicans and Bush especially, who REALLY needs it.
But because he’s been so chummy with Fox and temporary (laugh) worker legislation, he’s following a strong policy of, “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201805.html
I’m telling you, the first candidates who brighten up and REALLY start hammering Congress and/or Bush over this subject will end up in office. For God’s sake, NEWT is gaining political influence and approval ratings for his hard line on this subject and the dude is only somewhat more likeable than Cheney on the K Street food chain.
Its confusing, because on one hand, as a registered republican, I am crying at seeing the GOP congress willing toss out their majorities and Bush playing emasculated bandito. But on the other hand, as a conservative, I am enjoying watching the GOP take their base for granted and hope anti-government spending, anti-illegal immigrant candidates replaces them.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:43:24 am
Roger -
I’m not accusing you of anything. Just pointing out from all the coverage of the protests I have seen, ‘demand’ is not innaccurate or misleading.
My comment on La Raza is to illustrate that I am not including the fringe elements in looking at that assessment of the movement.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:55:50 am
YEOUCH!
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html
That’s the latest Zogby, with direct results and wording shown. I hate polls, but when you see them this skewed to one side, its hard not to general or extrapolate sentiment from them.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:09:52 am
Lojo-
Yes. But regardless of what happens with immigration, I will not vote GOP.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:11:09 am
One thing I will add, though. The Republicans were hoping to run on this as a wedge issue. Funny thing is is that illegal immigration is driving a wedge right through the heart of the Republican Party. Ha!
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:36:56 am
Angrier -
First Lesson of using a wedge issue: Its only effective if you are on the side OF YOUR CONSTITUENCY!!
Second Lesson of using a wedge issue:
Its not a wedge issue if EVERYONE is against/for it.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:27:00 pm
Yes. But illegal immigration is driving a wedge between the Republicans’ base and the Republicans’ funders - corporations.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:32:49 pm
It seems to me that, until the Mexican economy is significantly stronger, people are going to cross from there to here any way they can, in order to earn a much better living for their families than they could otherwise.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:33:06 pm
Wow, can anyone sound so stupid? I hope this author is a middle-aged white man that marched in Selma because if not, he sounds like an ignorant, sheltered little “I read all about the Civil Rights movement in a book” spoiled brat. Also, since when are the republicans possessed of “pro-immigration bonafides”? Idiot.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:38:52 pm
“Wow, can anyone sound so stupid?”
Geez, your post answers itself.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:27:30 pm
Angrier -
I would agree except an interesting analysis of the economic impact, or lack thereof, of the protests emphasize the sheer specificity (?) or niche quality of employing illegal immigrants. They are primarily farming and textile jobs, with meat packing and construction jobs in there as well.
I’m not saying your wrong at all about the split between voters and donors, but I’d say its worth taking a look to see how much those companies do contribute to the RNC, AND/OR the DNC as well. I can’t imagine much going to the DNC, but its possible.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:29:43 pm
the fourth one -
But those are exactly the people who would pressure their government for change if they didn’t have the choice to cross the border illegally. If only HALF the number of illegal immigrants were stopped for one year, the political impact on Mexico would be enormous.
That’s why Fox doesn’t want the US to enforce its borders. The minute he does, then there are all those angry mexicans demanding a living wage and less corruption from him.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:12:04 pm
Lojo
When did I say anyone here was calling for mass deportation?
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:16:17 pm
Nun -
“Besides recognizing that it’s impractical to deport 11 million workers already here in the USA,”
Other than fringe elements even feverent immigration enforcement supporters recognize the impracticality and infeasability of this.
I wasn’t implying you said someone here said this? I was attempting to show that very few, except for the Buchanan/Duke wing (or flipper considering their lack of significance), are demanding forced deportation.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:56:39 pm
Lojo-
Apparently you don’t stay in many hotels or eat at many fast food restaurants these days. The hospitality industry is going full-balls ahead on employing illegals, as are major retailers. In addition, there have been several busts of subcontractors to companies like Verizon and Halliburton who have been using illegals. It’s not as narrowly focused as you might think.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:18:35 pm
Angrier -
Well, that was what this particular economist is saying, but again, how does one judge based on numbers that are inherently inaccurate and wildly variable due to the situation of the people your trying to count.
And even though these industries are using illegal immigrants, the follow-up question is to what extent. I point out the farming one because in CA alone, they make up 85% of the farming workforce. An industry where they could have serious impact. The hospitality industry, though affected, will not likely have the same level of dropoff.
But again, most of this is off the cuff. I haven’t seen definitive numbers so I reserve the right to modify/adjust/reverse what I’m saying.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:40:30 pm
ENOUGH, already !
A&A - what makes *you* so certain that hotels only hire illegals ? Or are you simply assuming that cuz they look sorta brown and sound sorta spanish-speaking, they must be illegals ? After all, all them illegals look alike, don’t they ?
Illegal migrants are turning out to be the affirmative action for Latinos/Hispanics/etc … I have an ex-colleague who moved back to Alabama because he was fed up with so many liberals (at a major University) telling him how lucky he was that their support for affirmative action got him his job … he said that at least back in Alabama, the ones who had learned to respect people-as-people expressed that, and the rest didn’t pretend to be caring liberals but simply and openly expressed themselves and their bigotry …
Illegal migrants are causing problems for those legal immigrants who followed the required steps and immigrated into the US legally …
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:44:58 pm
Oh - I almost forgot …
Is Mendacious Mouse starting to channel Michael Hiltzik ?
Does A&A *really* believe that, when the President says that the National Anthem ought to be sung in English, he is saying that it must never be sung in any language other than English ? Should we refer A&A to some simple courses in Boolean logic ?
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:38:19 pm
Alasdair-
Regarding Bush singing the National Anthem in Spanish, the outrage seems to be coming from that well-known liberal Matt Drudge, not A&A.
As for whether or not hotels knowingly employ illegals, I think Bill Marriott recently said it best:
“Do you industry executives think of yourself as felons?” Marriott said in a speech. “It is the diversity of our work force that makes us great, yet some in Congress want to criminalize the undocumented and their employers.”
Here is a link to the actual news article, if you think I am making that quote up…
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2006/04/10/daily10.html?jst=pn_pn_lk
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:02:18 pm
An image for the ages…
http://www.jtf.org/kerry/ppp.george.bush.vincente.fox.mexico.mexican.flag.pledge.jpg
Bush loves Vincente…
May 4th, 2006 at 10:42:20 am
Lojo -
You make a good point. I think Fox is not (to my knowledge) significantly addressing the underlying issues in his own country because it is much easier for him not to do so. Maybe the kind of “semi-crackdown” you suggest would force him to do more.
I think that a major difficulty with the whole “illegal immigrant issue” is resolving it (at least in part) in a way that is effective yet humane.
May 4th, 2006 at 10:45:09 pm
I happened to see the Viva Bush! mariachi band in Philadelphia. Pretty harmless, IMO. Pandering, yes, but they weren’t shouting “Viva la Raza!” or singing the Anthem in Spanish or anything like that.
As for those who have dumped on my post, I just have a couple of clarifying comments:
1. This post was meant to gauge the political winds, not express and justify a policy position or analyze who was marching and what their motives were. My policy positions have already been expressed on this blog before, with substantial substantiation. Here I was merely trying to explain the political perceptions in the debate over “A day without an immigrant” and why it would backfire politically.
2. I used no citations or links because at the time I typed it, there was precious little I could find on the internet in the time I had allotted to type the post. I had heard a few things on the radio, but I needed websites and quotes, and Google failed to deliver quickly enough. On the other hand, my post was also a prediction more or less; the truth will be borne out in the next few days and weeks, and I’ll have plenty of opportunities down the road to measure how accurate my prediction was. Lojo already cited the Zogby poll, which is an excellent pictorial of where the electorate stands on illegal immigration. However, since my assertion was that the “Day without an immigrant” would hurt the pro-illegal immigrant side, and the Zogby poll doesn’t definitively show whether the movement in popular opinion, the Zogby poll–as helpful as it is to those seeking light on this subject–does not prove me right or wrong. I am supremely confident, however, that time will show I was dead-on accurate.
June 15th, 2006 at 8:33:41 am
I think that Andrew’s point that liberals pander to win votes more than conservatives is bullcrap. Although, if it will win his vote, I could profess another position :)
January 8th, 2007 at 8:44:28 am
great blog