If it weren’t so potentially destructive, I’d wish a motherfucker would uphold the Arizona anti-immigrant bill:
Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.
The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.
You know the drill: Democrats are grandstanding, using the politics of division, Reagan and Tip O’Neil never would have allowed this kind of thing blah blah blah.
When Halperin and Politico say you’re grandstanding, you’re winning.
Also too, the only way we’ll get reasonable immigration reform is when the Republicans have been beaten into submission on the issue.
I was actually pretty impressed by this move. Good for them.
The Moar You Know
Nicely done. Back your enemies into jumping off the cliff.
This would put Mittens on the spot wouldn’t it?
“they only let him slip away, out of kindness I suppose”
I’m not sure even this crazy Supreme Court can reason its way out of invalidating the Arizona law.
Don’t hold your breath. You have noticed how quickly they have rallied around Rubio’s half-assed DREAM act, right? Does he have a single co-sponsor yet? Or is it going to be in a permanent state of ‘review’?
Well, I’ll just be honest here. The Republicans were catering to a bunch of racist, xenophobic asshats in their party’s primary and pivoting to the center on immigration won’t help Mitt much.
However, I’m not going to go around distributing laurels to the Democrats. A higher percentage of undocumented immigrants have been deported since Obama came into office. In the meantime, there has been no meaningful legislation at the federal level to create a path to citizenship.
The whole Rubio thing has been making me positively sick, but I’m not sure the Democrats deserve any better consideration on their record on immigrants rights issues.
It’ll never get past a cloture vote. This is brilliant politics. I think the Dems should do this with Citizen’s United, Obamacare, the whole smash. Make the GOoPers own the fact that they want to deport every brown person that doesn’t have a valid ID, that they support Nixonian slush-funds, and allowing health insurance companies to drop you just when you get sick. Fuck. They’ll lose state-house’s everywhere.
I love how Democratic politicians *responding* to moves by Republicans are somehow interpreted as the Democrats raising this issue for political purposes. As though they up and started grandstanding on this BEFORE the GOP started grandstanding on the other side.
These guys seem to enjoy being the stupid refs who flag the second guy in the fight and never the guy who started it.
Yes the Democrats are grandstanding. Yes they are using the politics of division. When Republicans are whining, we’re winning.
@Paula: So Democrats having failed to overcome a party “catering to a bunch of racist, xenophobic asshats” warrant no “better consideration” than the party “catering to a bunch of racist, xenophobic asshats.”
@Baud: In an post on how there’s no way the Democrats can actually accomplish anything on this, she complains that the Democrats have accomplished nothing on this.
I DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE! YESTERDAY!
It’s pretty much black letter law in the constitution that the federal government has domain over border protection, and immigration control duties, legal or illegal. I don’t see how the SCOTUS could spin this into what the wingnuts want. Which is a green light because they aren’t happy with the feds for dealing with illegal immigration. Where would something like that stop, if the door is opened? States could pretty much become their own little countries if they don’t thinks the feds are doing it right. I’ll be surprised if the AZ is left standing by the supremes. But who knows these days? Anyway, it’s nice seeing the senate dems doing this kind of kabucki, who gives a shit what Halperin thinks?
I don’t get how the OP is about Democrats accomplishing “nothing” — obviously, they’re trying to do “something”. But it does seem curious that all of the major Senate actions on immigrants’ rights legislation (like Harry Reid’s vote on the DREAM act in Oct 2010) come around election time. And then is curiously invisible the rest of the time.
Don’t award the white knight hat, is all I’m saying.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
its a sad world when you have to legislatively cockblock the scrotus.
um, the Supreme Court isn’t going to uphold this law.
9 zip. Yes, even Clarence Thomas.
(That and $5.00 will get me a Starbucks whatever.)
DougJ, Head of Infidelity
I’m not arguing with you on this one, I have no idea.
Not so much, they also voted after the 2010 election, in december 2010, and of course the wingnuts filibustered.
@eemom: I wouldn’t bet 5 cents on Clarence Thomas’s vote on anything. But 8-1 works just as well.
I’m so disappointed with the current administration on this issue. There’s been a couple of executive orders over ICE stuff (I’d have to google them again) that seemed moderately encouraging, but the situation on the ground looks worse than it used to. It’s not just the Obama Admin, it’s congress.
It’s also a largely nativist electorate (even a bunch of lefties) that push back against things like Guest-Worker, and the DREAM act. Stop being racist assholes and please just embrace the fact that we’ve ALWAYS relied on immigrant labor, FFS. How many times to we have to fight this kind of crap throughout our history, until we finally learn from our continuing mistakes?
I think the concept of the “captive voting bloc” is useful here …
A lot of the Obama Admin domestic policy over the last 3 years has been about using their capital on passing the health care reform at the expense of, well, everything else (with perhaps the exception of some major gay rights legislation and Lily Ledbetter).
As liberals and progressives look towards the election, it might be useful to think about how to prioritize what happens if/when Barack Obama is reelected.
Immigrants rights activists are particularly cognizant of the growing demographic power of Latino voters, and may use this particular moment to determine whether or not they are still, indeed, captive to the Democratic party if the party continues to take their votes but give very little back in the way of immigration reform.
“Also too, the only way we’ll get ANYTHING WORTH HAVING is when the Republicans have been beaten into submission on the issue.”
That makes no sense to me. Latinos are “captive” only in the sense that supporting the Democratic Party is far and away the best choice for them. You can’t just wish better choices into existence.
In any event, there is no chance that the Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2012, so unless political forces can be brought to bear on Republicans, you’re not going to get comprehensive reform anytime soon.
All I have to say is: Reconquista bitchez!
/speaking as a latina immigrant myself
This doesn’t mean much without more context. The Obama Administration has focused efforts on illegal immigrants with criminal records. On the other hand, the administration has backed variations of the Dream Act, e.g., supporting college loans for high school kids whose immigration status is problematic, illegal immigrants who serve in the military, etc.
The Democrats have not done much here, but no legislation could come from the GOP controlled House, and the refusal of Republicans to cooperate with Democrats guarantees that no bipartisan effort will come from either the House or the Senate.
But you can rely upon the GOP to turn to the cruelty option,such as proposals to deny the child tax credit to illegal immigrants who work and honestly file their tax returns.
The news and some public radio programs today have focused on the recent PEW study indicating that illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, is slowing. Although there are a number of factors at work here, conservatives will seize on this as a sign that cruel, draconian laws are working. And with the economy still soft, there is less enthusiasm from some voters for a path to citizenship for anyone who might compete with citizens and legal residents for jobs.
Well, that is pretty much the definition of a captive voting bloc.
However, I am positing that with not just the sheer numbers of [email protected] voters, but also the fact that they are being catered to in very obvious ways right now, whether immigrants rights activists will start shifting away from lobbying primarily liberal politicians after 2012 and start maneuvering between parties if they don’t feel like the Democrats are honoring their votes.
@efgoldman: No argument here on ending the filibuster rule, but you can’t just end it for immigration and not everything else.
@Paula: Well, I’m not about to abandon our two party politics. I do what I can to give 3rd party presidential runs some of the popular vote. I vote 3rd party in the presidential elections. Obama will not get my vote this year, but it’s not over anything he did or didn’t do. It’s about giving a 3rd party some recognition.
Anyway, I feel that it’s probably more constructive to pressure the Democrats from the left flank. I think largely, their problem is one of lacking courage, and not having political capital. It’s not a fundamentally xenophobic position, though it’s arguably a cowardly one. We can create political pressure and political will to affect change. I know this because we’ve done so locally in my community – even the conservatives here are mindful of our large mexican-american and undocumented mexican worker population. They don’t dare rock the boat, for fear of political annihilation. The large farming community here would ride them out on a rail. I’d be hard pressed to say we couldn’t do something like this nationally. We’d need to be able to organize around it on a larger scale than we’ve been able to do so far. Racism/Tribalism plays a part, as do our demographics. Those are changing. It’s going to get better, but we can’t hamstring our cause politically. We’re not a large enough power bloc to abandon the democrats. I’m pretty sure we can make them play nice though. Some even want to.
Love this. LOVE. THIS.
As a white Arizonan who actually does have Latino friends (like the kind whose numbers are in my cellphone and have held my hair back when I was puking and to whom I would give a hundred dollars and not care if I got it back or not), I would freaking COME to see our community college graduate of a governor get her ass handed to her on this issue. What this has done to my community and my state has brought me to tears at times and any humiliation is long overdue.
To be perfectly honest, it would be great for the country if both major parties competed for everyone’s vote.
All I ask is that the Democrats be held to the same standard as Republicans in that contest. What I too often see is that a little moderation by Republicans is treated as more valuable that a strong (albeit often imperfect) progressive Democratic stance.
If you read, say, Colorlines’ coverage, the blanket sentiment is that the sheer number of deportations means that the whole policy is being applied in egregious ways. Obv, that’s debatable, but here’s a recent Huffpo article saying that, to a certain extent, the Obama admin has been sensitized to the issue:
I’m bringing this up because immigration activists have been VERY critical of Obama, but you didn’t hear about it as much, because immigration was never a hot blog topic that way, say, civil liberties/war on terror/gay rights often are.
@efgoldman: @Baud: Why not just push for turning the filibuster back into what it used to be. The kind of thing where you had to stand and read crap for hours on end, and camp in the chamber.
If it’s possible, I don’t see how it would be a bad thing. And if we * really * need to filibuster the GOP, we can count on Bernie Sanders. Have I mentioned that I love that man. Today?. Well, I do.
ETA: Aside from the above: (Friday, Dec. 10, 2010)…
I read somewhere that that is a myth — that it was always possible to filibuster without reading from a phone book.
In any event, I’m fine with your idea. Like I said, I don’t like the filibuster rule, even if it means that we are less able to stop offensive Republican actions. That’s what elections are for.
@efgoldman: Agreed. That’s why the ongoing hang-wringing about whether to fully support the Democratic Party boggles my mind.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Yes, we’ve always relied on cheap, or free, slave labor. I’ve always figured the best way for the laws to change is for all of the illegal immigrants to go back home for a year. I’d even sponsor an American child for the year.
@Baud: I like the filibuster in principle, because it offers at least a modicum of protection from the “tyranny of the majority”. I think it’s valuable in a democracy to have some checks against this kind of thing.
Fine by me
ETA: to address the myth – yeah – you don’t * have to * speak. But you have to camp out (or sit =) .. ) . Senator “can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can’t be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time.”
Harry Reid’s office said that while looking into revising the filibuster situation. He was speaking about the old-school filibuster rule.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Baud: The phone book thing was never required. The rules didn’t change. The only reason Strom Thurman made the big show he did over the Civil Rights Act was to show his constituents that he wouldn’t help blacks.
But how does one get politicians to play nice unless you’re threatening to withhold a vote?
It seems like the [email protected] voting bloc are coming close to some demographic point where they CAN threaten Dems that way.
@gaz: I understand, and I’m sure I can come up with many examples of the filibuster stopping some really bad stuff. I’m just not sure that it doesn’t more often stop the “will” of the majority to do positive things than the “tyranny” of the majority to do bad stuff.
Anyone even thinking that latinos should withhold their vote this election from the dems is not in touch with how latinos actually feel about who is looking out for them in this country. Though not uniform in their opinions any latino will tell you they know who Kris Kobach is, and his disgusting self deportation bullshit embraced with both barrels by Mitt Romney. Let him try to get away from that. We don’t forget.
Ben Cisco (onboard the Defiant)
@efgoldman: Which means “maneuvering between parties” is fairly suicidal for the time being.
A lot of groups (not just Latinos) ask that question, but I think that strategy results in failure far more often than it results in success.
ETA: The xenophobic right did not take over the Republican Party by withholding their vote.
@Paula: There are plenty of ways, including threatening to withhold a vote, but not limited by that.
In extreme cases, primarying a pol with someone who identifies from the same party who aligns closer to your views can work (at least at a state level, maybe for congress sometimes too).
Good old messaging, protesting, etc, sends a message too.
And yes, threaten to withhold votes by all means. But forming a 3rd party – or even latching on to a minor party, is a bit of a non-starter. <- it tends to make people ignore you and further marginalize you.
Also, call and write your representatives. A lot. I can't stress this enough. Hell, maybe write to them in spanish. To make a point. Either way, I can't stress enough how important popular feedback is. The idea is to make oneself HEARD, not to marginalize oneself by aligning with a minor political force. my $0.02 anyway.
DougJ @ Top:
I don’t know, DougJ. Republican support and passage of Prop 187 did a lot of damage to the GOP in CA, but Republicans are still there — albeit holding fewer offices — and just as xenophobic as ever.
I think GOP bigotry has become a defining trait for it members, and Republicans would rather be replaced as a mainstream party long before they would ever become reasonable on the issue.
Strike Three! You’re outta here!!
hit the showers, chump. We’ve got no use for you here.
I think it does.
As laudable as “protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority” is, in our political system, it seems like those safeguards are most often used to protect elites from any kind of accountability to the people they fuck over, rather than to protect powerless minorities actually at risk of being screwed by the majority.
I’ll likely be voting third party, too, but it will be for Obama on the Working Families ballot line instead of the Democratic ballot. Not so much because I want to support 3rd parties, but because I want Obama and the Democrats to know my support is coming from the left, not the center.
You can’t vote for Obama on an alternate ticket in your state?
@magurakurin: What are you even talking about. Have you heard about the electoral college? Do you know how it works.
Hint: I live in washington state, chump. I’m not going to throw my presidential vote away on either of the major parties because it’s pointless. I’d actually like my vote to accomplish something, however slight. Obama doesn’t need my individual vote, the state is solid blue and has been for decades.
Well, I meant withholding a vote from DEMS, not withholding a vote in general, which I agree is a stupid fucking thing.
I mean, immigrants rights activists might try directing voters to non-Dems (and even Republicans) if they don’t think Dems are doing enough.
Again, because of demographic shifts, I don’t see this as a quixotic exercise.
You don’t know which state gaz is in.
Now as even handed as I’m trying to be here, that’s just stupid – I’m guessing you really can’t be serious about immigrant rights advocates voting for republicans.
Are you trolling now?
you’re fucking insane. What third party piker are you going to vote for? Did you vote for Nader, too? Did you vote for Nader after we all knew his main backers were the GOP?
and yes I know how presidential election work. And yes there is about a zero chance Romney wins. But anyone who is willing to allow even a 0.000000001% chance that these lunatics get back in the Whitehouse this November is out to lunch as far as I’m concerned.
There is no way anyone concerned about this election should be saying anything other than “vote Obama, vote Dem.”
@JGabriel: I haven’t looked into it this cycle yet. I’ll go with whoever has the numbers behind them. In the past that’s been the green party. Ironically I don’t really care about ideological foundation. I’d be happy with a glibertarian ticket if it meant the nation started taking the idea of more than two parties seriously. Of course, I’d rather see WFP or something get on board, but anything is a start. The numbers need to be there.
No, trust me, I’m not. But I also believe that Republicans are let off the hook about their bigoted shit and – despite Valdivia’s protestation – people have goldfish memories.
I mean, Republicans will probably not champion immigration reform any time soon, but maybe sometime in the future when numbers force them, they will?
@Paula: I understand but the Obama Administration has been implementing the law under the most savage GOP oversight/onslaught campaign on all fronts. Had the Dems taken the laissez-faire attitude of W, Obama would also have been savaged by the GOP.
That’s the savage right-wing political environment we live in. Damned if you do damned if you don’t. So let’s change that.
I N S A N E
@magurakurin: There is no chance that Washington state will go red this cycle. None.
FTR, I voted for Obama once in 2k8 because I was vaguely concerned that him being a Ni-CLANG might change the electoral dynamics in WA. It didn’t. Not even close.
Also, the remark about insanity from you is pure projection, as evidenced by your spittle flecked posts.
Yes. It has.
It’s one of the biggest things that turned me off from them so completely years ago. You try to tell yourself that it’s not all Republicans, that every party has its assholes (after all, Democrats used to have the Dixiecrat contingent but they still had their good points too, right?)
But you go on meeting Republican voters and every one you meet turns out to be a racist, a nativist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, a xenophobe, or some combination thereof. Eventually you realize that the sentiment really does run through the entire fucking voter base, and that while yes, technically, there are exceptions, there are far too few of them to matter in any meaningful way.
Yeah. I’m just not sure if I should be happy about that or not. Part of me says “yes” because given demographic trends, that should mean that they will indeed exile themselves to minority status – the other part thinks of the extraordinary lengths to which they’ll go to preserve their power and their privileges and goes “damn it, what have they got in store next?”
@eemom: I’ve already read (in several places) that Thomas is strongly expected to vote for AZ. In several articles. We’ll have to wait and see, but I believe it when I read it that Thomas is so whacked that he’ll vote against the Dems on this one, just cuz.
If they did, hell, I’d consider voting for them. But keep in mind, if they did, that’d mean that a whole lot of other things about the GOP would have changed as well. I assert, that if that happened, we’d be looking at no less a watershed shift in party ideology than we witnessed in the years leading up to and immediately following passage of the CRA. We’d be looking at a sea change – we wouldn’t be looking at the same party anymore.
@magurakurin: You do realize, that 15% of the popular vote doesn’t change their chances of taking the oval office or more than a few seats in the house, don’t you?
I thought you understood how electoral politics worked?
It turns out that you are just a rube with a pituitary problem.
Big surprise, there.
Have a nice day.
Don’t bother. The lack of a 3rd party has nothing to do with a lack of will or shenanigans by the current two parties. The lack of a 3rd party has everything to do with the technical specific of how we run elections. So long as we run first-past-the-post electoral mechanisms, you’re going to get this. We don’t win elections in this country, we fail to lose them. That’s why we have a ‘lesser evil’ attitude – because we aren’t rewarded for making a principled vote, rather we’re punished for making one. Until we shift to something like instant runoff or single transferrable, any efforts to generate interest in a 3rd party are completely pointless. Further, political parties could advance more than one candidate, establishing variation within even existing parties, so there’d be room for the hard liners and for the moderates, or for someone who’s stronger on economic issues vs social issues. If you really want to see diversity in politics, the problem is completely, utterly, due to the voting mechanism. That needs to change before anything else.
Ben Cisco (onboard the Defiant)
@efgoldman: All good, No worries.
Apparently you don’t understand it as well as you think.
sorry the vast majority of non latinos may have goldfish memories about this but if you are latino believe me we won’t forget about this. The fact they know who Kobach is, regular people who hear the nightly news or the radio, not blogger readers mind you, tells you all you need to know about forgetting about self deportation.
Now, I know matching fed funds is probably a non-issue anymore, in light of CU, if nothing else, but what about inclusion in the debates, etc?
If you think I necessarily am shooting for an Oval Office victory or such, I’m not. I’m shooting for more options to waylay the goddamned two parties that have an actual chance at the position into moving on issues. Choice creates a challenge. It creates a way for me to beat up on Romney, or better yet, beat up on Obama when he deserves it. If he had to look over his shoulder for the green party (for example) he might be a little fairer on immigration and corporate health care giveaways.
I wouldn’t be against a 3rd party president, but I’m not advocating for it at all. I want pressure points. I want more options to pressure the parties at the federal level the way WFP can at the NY state level, for example. That’s what I’m after.
I think it is sort of nuts to think that one vote for Obama couldn’t possibly make a difference in your state but one vote for a third-party candidate somehow matters. But whatever. I’ve learned that a whole lot of people imagine they’re making some kind of “statement” with their vote and I’m not going to be the one to persuade them otherwise. Heck, there are people who think they make a “statement” by staying home.
@Valdivia: Not to mention you folks watch more international news, and more latino news, and even latino oriented news from Americanized latino outlets like Univision. Your zeitgeist is a bit different, generally. You can’t help but notice immigration issues, even if you just tune into univision once in awhile.
ack: the proper word around here is hispanic, and latino is uncouth.. i’m a west coaster.. arg. trying to respect the many east coasters here, but it just had to go and be all complicated and stuff. =)
(From wiki – Third Party)
I just want one to get 15% of the popular vote, preferably shaved from safe states. Not asking for much, but it’s about the popular vote. I’m not making a statement, I’m executing a strategy.
this is true. also this is THE topic for the hispanic/latino population. Very hard to just forget the guys who are out to get you…
Well, if you’re ONE of the politicians, it helps.
I think a lot of the problems is thinking politics is divorced from the average voters–that disconnect leads to the current situation we’re having.
@Valdivia: Despite being astoundingly, blindingly, white my wife and I are attached at the hip with our community, which means our mexican neighbors, both mexican nationals and mexican-americans. They’re rather distinct groups in my experience, but with a lot of common ground on the big issues. My wife spent several years in central mexico, mostly michoacan and oaxaca. She speaks mexican spanish fluently and studied it in mexico. It’d be fair to say we’re sympathetic to immigration issues, I think. We’ll be moving to querendaro, michoacan within the next few years. We’ve bought property from one of the local politicians (former mayor, PRI party – i know right, but he’s still nice enough to buy land from!), so.. it should be fun. I’ll finally be able to learn spanish properly the only way I can – total immersion – so yay. I’m looking forward to it. Plus we have some close friends who moved back there last December, and we’re really starting to miss them =)
Romney at the Arizona debate on Feb 22:
Recent Romney (via campaign staff)
Scott Pelly on CBS Evening news (paraphrase)
He went on to say that CBS had stated Mitt’s first position as true when actually his newer position is Romney’s actual position.
I know it is just one of many attempts to cover for Romney’s as he performs his general election pivot, but apologizing for an accurate quote seen by millions of people during a debate is just so obsequious. I am surprised Scott didn’t get on his knees and beg for forgiveness.
this is so exciting. moving there. you must keep us up to date on how that goes! see I told you guys Reconquista, now we got you to move there ;)
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you understand which party is primarily responsible for that.
Also, don’t worry. We aren’t the mormons.
ooooh. ouch. (Hey, Romney, mexico thinks you mormons and your polygamist exodus was pretty weird and kind of maybe not all that cool, you know this right, Mr. Romney?) hehehhe
You won’t get it. Seriously, process drives results. You can wish for all the pressure points on earth, but strategic voting will always defeat the effort. Nobody fucking cares what Kucinich or anyone else has to say if the cost of even giving them airtime is the risk that McCain beats Obama. Look at how impossible it is to get an honest debate within the parties without the feeling that you’re ceding some electoral ground simply by participating.
People aren’t stupid. They fully realize the consequences here, and they’re not going to fuck around and risk getting an unacceptable outcome only to have some alternate views aired. You need to provide a process where the alternate views are at worst neutral to the resultant outcome (positive to the outcome would be even better). Our system doesn’t provide that, and trying to force a result out of system that is specifically hostile to that result – and has been for two and a half centuries is a waste of time and energy. Focus on changing to a process, that even when conducted on computer touch screens demands a tabulation system no more complex than pencil and paper, because that’s all that existed two and a half centuries ago. Fix that, and the other thing will happen naturally.
ha ha ha. :)
Given what the Republicans have done to the IRS enforcement budget, there would be little or no downside to undocumented immigrants claiming the credit even if this proposal becomes law. They’re not going to get caught, and even if they do, they will have spent the money and can file an offer in compromise based on doubt as to collectibility. Law school tax clinics and public-spirited members of the tax bar will be overjoyed to handle those cases pro bono.
I’d love to. But, PONIES!
as efgoldman said it’s not going to happen.
also, while you make a couple of vague points, you didn’t actually answer some fairly specific questions I asked you, nor did you really address how my voting outside the 2-party system would be “hostile to the process”. I mean, you basically stated that, but you back that up with admittedly your strongest point, that it hasn’t worked, but see that doesn’t really address how it’s hostile.
I go out of my to ensure that my vote will not interfere with my state’s electoral vote. In fact, in 2k8 I suspected it might, and I voted Obama. I guard the D vote.
So what then. I was awaiting your response, because you do seem thoughtful, and I’m open to a compelling argument. I’ve no problem changing my voting pattern in light of evidence of it being “hostile to the process”. As much as I value your opinion (and I do) you haven’t remotely made that case.
So because Republicans might champion immigration reform at some point in the future, Latinos should vote Republican in 2012 rather than voting for the Democrats who are trying to pass legislation like the DREAM Act right now?
If, as you’re claiming, Latinos are going to end up voting for politicians who won’t do much to help them no matter which party they vote for, why do you think they should vote for the party that actively insults and belittles them rather than the party that at least pays lip service to immigration reform?
@Mnemosyne: To be fair, she was arguing in the context of a protest vote against the Democrats. I didn’t agree either, but I didn’t see her so much as staking the specific claim that the Latino vote would go to the Republicans, so much as would go to not-dems (which could include republicans). So while I agree in general, I think you overstated her position.
ETA: Then again, she did sort of double down on it, so I see your point.
So is this the part where I chime in with “better a KKK member than an “educated” racist, because at least there’s no confusion where the first one stands.”
I’m just yanking your chain, in case you were wondering. =)
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
So how many Mixtec children should literally starve and die for you to make this point. How many would be acceptable to you?
Do you have any idea what this crap is that you are talking about? I hope not, because if you do it’s a horrible thing to wish for, and you are not a nice person.
Have a nice day.
@gaz: ETA: Fortunately for you, you are privileged and have the luxury of standing on principle.
For many people in the 3rd world it’s a choice between principle and watching your kids starve to death right in front of you. I don’t exaggerate. To say the indigenous peoples of mexico are poor is a gross understatement. Like saying somalians are poor. You’d do well to remember that. The people that work our farms are not in the same class as the spanish speaking/non-“first-nations”/non-indiginous mexicans. They are dirt fucking poor, and starving. Not coming here means not eating.
Also too, the only way we’ll get reasonable
immigrationreform of any kind is when the Republicans have been beaten into submission on the issue.
Fixit for us.
Only a handful of states still allow fusion tickets, so probably not.
I don’t see how you are wrong on this one but as I’m constantly disappointed about most shit these days I’m not holding my breath for a positive outcome.
Any questions on the “starve and die” assertion I made above, or just an illustration of what the hell I’m talking about, Matt Black did a reasonable job of putting together a decent video.
This is what immigration looks like.
They endure poor working conditions here (we have no accountability, because this entire setup has no legality to it, so there’s no protections – GUEST WORKER)
They’re much worse off back home, because Mexico basically is (and this is impolitic, but true) very institutionally racist towards most of it’s indigenous people when they aren’t ignoring them entirely.
They have the land nobody else wants, nothing grows, and they starve.
It can cost $5000 USD to cross the border, and even then there is huge risk of death and injury to do so. $5000 is more money than these people would see in their entire lives back home. So they borrow from a zillion relatives who are already up north, and take the trip. They bring their families because THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO COME UP HERE FOR JUST 9 months – GUEST WORKER PROGRAM
These are the people that pick our berries. The other mexicans almost always get better jobs, the ones that require spanish. Drywalling, insulation, mechanic stuff, etc. Indiginous people work in the chicken factories, and pick the berries, and occasionally milk the cows.
They have no food back home, they live in the mountains, where nobody else wanted to settle. They are nearly universally illiterate. Most have rarely if ever seen indoor plumbing and don’t know how old they are. They don’t have clinics where they live, people generally just die – most doctors don’t like to treat them anyway – even if they travel 20 or thirty miles to the nearest clinic (if lucky)
Get the picture yet?
You doing it isn’t hostile. The goal of getting 10% to do it is hostile. 10% will swing an election. So it’s a catch-22 – if you want to shift the debate, getting a handful of people doing it isn’t going to achieve that, but getting enough people to shift the debate is going to Nader some elections. The moment you succeed at your goal, you fail the larger test.
And getting IRV isn’t impossible. It’s actually getting traction here in the US in a variety of contexts. CA has already shifted to top two open primary, which isn’t as good as IRV, but represents a sort of intermediate approach. And IRV was considered.
But my main problem with your idea is that, lets say it really does help – it doesn’t address the need for candidates to adhere to party doctrine as you’re seeing in the GOP. IRV would permit parties to forward multiple candidates. Let’s say we limit it to two. Then you could have both Obama and Clinton move on to the general, or Romney and Santorum. By not mandating a strict first across the post result within the party, candidates would be permitted to agree on policies and focus instead on honest differences in policy, and because you’d ideally want both of your party candidates to get picked in the 1 and 2 slots, there much less of an incentive to tear down your opponents because you’re likely to need those 2nd and 3rd choice selections to win.
Well, I think it’s because I am skeptical of viewing one party as categorically standing FOR and the other party as standing AGAINST immigration rights. Historically speaking, immigrants have often been used as the wedge between different voting blocs by parties on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide. Just because one group is being vilified at a particular moment doesn’t mean they won’t eventually be replaced by an even more vilified group, which is usually how one of the vilified gain entry into the “properly assimilated”:
The Irish, the Chinese, Italians, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, etc.
Of course, there’s Americans’ racial polarization: being a religious minority is not the same as being of a minority race in the U.S. I can see where many people are skeptical of the conservatives’ ability to NOT be bigoted in terms of racial politics. But I am skeptical of the idea that a lot of the other small c conservative aspects of American ideology will change significantly once brown people become a “majority”. (Ideologies related to corporate capitalism, rugged individualism as opposed to reliance on the state, American exceptionalism.) I often think that the ideological structure will stay the same, but the people who are susceptible to those views won’t necessarily be white. I mean, my parents are brown, but they, like many Asian American immigrants are much more susceptible to the “by your bootstraps” idea because it mirrors how they acclimated to American life. As white collar English speakers when they landed here, they don’t understand the experiences of other immigrants who don’t share the same background. This kind of backlash also appears in a lot of [email protected] who are as fervently anti-immigration-reform as any Minuteman because, dammit “they came here and followed the rules, why can’t other people?”.
But obv that’s all speculation in the theoretical weeds at this point. For the moment, Valdivia, I still think it’s very clear which party hates immigration reform. BUT I am also saying that I am, personally, skeptical that conservatives want their ideology to go out of style and will adapt their talk to the changing demographics. It WILL be a different Republican party than the one we see now, but within neoliberal society its entirely possible to accept multicultural values while still promoting economic practices that produce inequality, that necessitate an underclass of people.
Honestly, the most important immigration reform needed is to just properly fund and staff the agency. This is the trap the GOP sets every time – let’s support immigration policy and then cut funding for the agency so it’s impossible to implement. It’s criminal how hard it is to get through the existing policy, how long the backlog is, and so on. If a reformed policy is going to make that better, then bring it, but if it’s only going to add cases to the existing policy, then it’s little more than a scam against those that are most desperate to immigrate.
@Martin: I have no interest in strengthening the enforcement of most of our immigration policies as they stand, particularly towards Mexico. They are unrealistic, in that they fail to acknowledge our very real dependence on immigrant labor. They are also inhumane. They are racist (in that Mexicans are singled out for excluding a path to citizenship over those from many other countries). I find them personally to be morally reprehensible. From a pragmatic standpoint, they are inefficient and backwards.
On all levels, they fail absolutely. No sir, I have no interest in strengthening enforcement of broken policy.
the whole illegal immigration issue is honestly more complicated than simple latino race-baiting. (see wal-mart on the east-coast and importing illegal eatern europeans as “contract cleaners”)
or the importation of Chinese labor to the marianas championed by Tom Delay
and the Rush to import labor from Mexico post-Katrina under Bush coupled with attempts to suspend federal wage rules.
For the likes of Romney, and Bush’s base “the have’s and have mores” the race of the people they exploit is less relavent than being able to exploit someone, anyone. The race angle is played up for the teabag racist voter, and it helps keep people from figuring out their ecconomic interests coincide.
the race-baiting can’t be ignored, the consequences to real people, and real families are inhumane, and much of the push to immigrate here can be tied to the consequences of NAFTA on people living in Mexico. Our policies as a country helped start the fire.
and then you can have right wing radio hosts explain you have 40 kids in a kindergarten class because of the mexicans, and that it has nothing to do with taxes being the lowest since about 1929.
Having draconian immigration enforcement makes for cheaper migrant labor.
@Martin: Thanks for that response, particularly I found the points you made in the last paragraph to be interesting. I’m kicking it around, and thanks again for your response. That’s definitely food for thought. I may ask you about it later after I’ve read a few more things about CA’s process and IRV in general, which I currently know depressingly little of.
@Gian: Not to piss in a Democrat’s Wheaties, but the main problem I see coming from the left is the attitude of wanting to target employers (particularly farmers) for hiring undocumented workers.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is a bitch.
For more information see post #96.
Guest. Worker. Program.
The virulently anti-immigrant Joe Arpaio and Tom Tancredo are both descendants of Italian immigrants. My aunts, who are about the same age, can remember being taunted as “dagoes” when they were children, and yet they’re all Republicans.
History shows us that once “ethnic” people are accepted into the culture as “white,” they immediately start doing to others what was done to their parents. So, no, I don’t have your faith that the Republican Party will have to change its xenophobic stance. They’ll just add Latinos to the “acceptable” list along with Italians and Irish and keep doing the same thing.
ETA: Shorter me — Republicans accepting Latinos as “white” may be good for Latinos, but those benefits won’t extend to any other ethnic/minority group.
@gaz: I’m not talking about enforcement. Everyone treats enforcement as the only part of immigration that matters. I’m talking about processing – just clearing the backlog of applications. Adding to that pile isn’t particularly helpful if the pile can never be cleared. The GOP is determined to make sure that whatever policies they might sign onto in order to win votes, that they never, ever fund the staffing needed to actually implement the policy.
@Martin: oh, I misunderstood what you meant. mea culpa.
ETA: The republican’s primary interest is to maintain the status quo. That way we can get our berries for cheap, there’s no regulation on working conditions (since it’s all pretty much illegal), barely any on pay, and we can deport any of them whenever the hell we feel like it. You can tell a republican is lying about immigration reform by virtue of the fact that they are talking about it.
We will NEVER get anywhere until people grasp that witholding a vote means nothing.
You have just given your power away.
We can give our vote to a Democrat or to a Republican or even a third party candidate if we want to make a useless gesture. But we have to give our vote to someone. Not using it means it is a withered leaf in the winds of fate and it has zero weight or influence. NONE.
The only power we have is our vote.
@gaz: The problem with guest-worker programs is that even a lot of Americans who recognize the existence of a more-or-less permanent de facto caste of abject exploitables within our borders are going to have a hard time stomaching anything that officially codifies said caste. It simply runs counter to too many cherished myths we hold about ourselves as a country.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us? (formerly MarkJ)
That post heading is from one of the best songs ever written.
Living on the road my friend,
was ‘sposed to keep you free and clean,
but now you wear your skin like iron
and your breath’s as hard as kerosene.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us? (formerly MarkJ)
That post heading is from one of the best songs ever written.
Living on the road my friend,
was ‘sposed to keep you free and clean,
but now you wear your skin like iron
and your breath’s as hard as kerosene.
@Chet: You can apply your assessment TO ANYTHING having to do with improving the immigration situation. While you’re right on the basic fact of the situation, it’s hardly a reason to argue against GWP specifically.
The fact is, white people can’t seem to help themselves when it comes to being inhumane, evil fuckwits. That’s not the fault of GWP. Nor is it specific to GWP. Again, your statement can be applied to ANY realistic immigration reform, and it’s hardly a reason to shelf the idea.
And this is why we can’t have nice things.
Stop being assholes, whitey!
Yeah, I agree with you, but here’s the thing: before that becomes a problem, Latinos have to be accepted as white in the first place. And that’s not up to the elites, that’s up to the base. I seriously doubt if the current group of assholes is forgiving enough to allow that to happen on their watch.
@gaz: gaz is shrill
@Valdivia: Cool – does that mean we get to keep Rodrigo y Gabriela for ourselves?
But now they will either have to engage in identity theft and steal SSN numbers or override the credit on the tax return. If they go to a paid preparer, it would be easy for the IRS to bring the due diligence hammer down on the preparer, even with a smaller enforcement budget.
And if Romney wins, I can easily see the IRS cutting back audits on millionaires and corporations, and focusing more on illegal immigrants and poor people who are supposedly abusing credits.
Apparently you don’t know how this works. (Most people don’t, I guess – it’s not like anyone really wants people th know how this works). Undocumented workers already forge an SSN#+card. A ton of undocumented work is W2. Maybe most. They don’t get tax refunds though – they get what’s called an SSN mismatch notice in the mail instead.”. The “refund” is dumped back into our coffers, and those unpaid refunds are a significant assist in keeping SS itself afloat.
ETA: Before burns or someone chimes in I should add that it’s possible, but difficult, if not impossible in most cases for them to get a tax-ID number, which they can use to receive their refund. The overwhelming majority don’t have one.
Well, as it turns out, we’ve just taken different routes to the same conclusion.