MyDD :: Republican Immigration strategy

Republican Immigration strategy

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 04:43:23 PM EST

There's your Rovian strategy for you, bait and switch, while all the while the Republicans build a bigger bureaucracy (via Atrios linking to Raw Story).

First, talk tough; then cast liberals as oppossed to enforcement; then having framed the debate, open the borders to guestworkers and create a permanent second or third class group of "residents", not citizens. Come to think of it, with Bush having lifted the requirement of minimum wages in the Gulf Coast, I'm sure we are going to see alot of "residents" arrive in the Gulf area to work for those low wages...

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment

Rovian (none / 0)

I think this is something that happens to you when you do a mathematical transform and are cheating with a calculator instead of doing it in your head. You know, take the rovian of the third derivative, divide by 2, etc.

Hm.. lets see.. propaganda .. blossoming evil .. racist .. narrow minded... deceptive... fascist ..

What about "Nazi".

Oh yeah, that was Rove's grandfather. Sorry. Lets see.. "Lame" is too kind.. "Assanine" is too harsh ..

Vampire sucking the life out of Bush and the Government..
"Karl-off"

Rovegistic - logistics designed to suck life out of good people.

Got it!
Since he's connected to the power of divine light, of an angel that radiates divine light - from the fiery pit -

"Rove-elations"

Hmm.. still not there. Don't want to encourage him ... lets see... how about ..

"Rove-edict"
Thats it! After all - nobody gets to discuss this kind of policy, and you know the first thing he's going to do is try to get Ahhnold elected.. which would make him...

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:13:11 PM EST

Re: Rovian (none / 0)

PS Bonus points, anyone remember what happened to the traitor in the revolution..?

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stronger borders, but also stop offshoring.. now.. (none / 0)

The Dems need to make offshoring American jobs illegal..

Also, we should enforce immigration laws, not desbite, but BECAUSE it will also drive wages for legal workers up somewhat...

But the bottom line is that unskilled (nontechnical) jobs are dissapearing for good.. and they wont come back..

twenty years from now, 50% of Americans wont be able to find any job at any price.. thirty years from now, probably more like 75%.

Computers do scriptable work far better than people do.. thats unavoidable..

We better start talking about that.. NOW..

by ultraworld on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush that was (none / 0)

'Hitler's Angel' (investor)

Maybe Rove too? But I heard that he grew up poor.. so probably not..

Prescott Bush was indited under the Trading With The Enemy Act in 1942, but they really only slapped his hands..

See http://tarpley.net and http://john-loftus.com and others..

Its a very disturbing story..

by ultraworld on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 11:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're in your own little world... (none / 0)

...aren't you?

by craverguy on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 05:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's just hope the Dem (none / 0)

Leadership can get ahead of the game on this one because if you don't think immigration is going to be the Republicans pet project for the 2006 election, you have another thing coming.

The subject on its face looks somewhat dangerous politically. How do you attack illegal immigration and guest worker programs, thus gaining traction among most Americans, especially white ones, while at the same time not angering Hispanics? But really it is not difficult. I think a good message is to hit home at the problems that illegal immigration presents - lower wages, loss of jobs, draining of resources; these are problems that ofcourse exist because of illegal immigration. Then you turn to solutions to the problem by asking for tough measures to protect the borders and to protect critical financial resources. Intertwined in this message is the fact that we are a country of immigrants and that we should welcome new people to our country, as we have for the past 150 years. You stress that immigrants have the opportunity to go through the common channels of gaining citizenship, and these channels must remain open and unfettered.

This is a very brief overview and probably not very well thought-out. What do you guys think our message should be because we need to form one quick, and I haven't heard a thing from our party leadership about it.

by Eric11 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 06:48:48 PM EST

I think you nail it (none / 0)

with every word of that post. Hopefully the Dems will catch up.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 07:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems and illegal aliens (none / 0)

I've always wondered: why should liberals not be concerned about illegal aliens? Labor rights, wage levels, work standards and welfare systems... they're all under stress.

Democrats should take a firm, populist stand against illegal aliens without using racist rhetoric. It's both a winning position and a correct one.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 07:07:19 PM EST

Re: Dems and illegal aliens (none / 0)

I agree. This is an open and shut case in my view. Are we actually afraid we may offend someone here?

by Eric11 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 07:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems and illegal aliens (none / 0)

Doesn't seem like it, I think this is one of those cases where the Repubs don't have a clue as to what the other side is thinking; case in point of Napalitano and Richardson.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 08:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems and illegal aliens (none / 0)

Please explain. What are their thoughts on this?

by Eric11 on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 10:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems and illegal aliens (none / 0)

I wrote a whole diary on this topic and I disagree with Jerome. Napolitano and Richardson's strategy appears rudderless to me.

http://risenmessiah.mydd.com/story/2005/8/14/33254/4274#readmore

Illegal immigration is completely misunderstood. These individuals come here to work and potentially settle and form a new life. If you take away their ability to work, they won't come. But no Republican is going to discourage someone from artificially diluting the cost of labor and the jobs being created by the "Bush Economy" are largely those jobs which most people living in America would be reluctant to take. Using undocument workers "solves" both problems. The only reason there is resistance from conservative circles is that there's inherent racism in having to deal with "them" as Latinos or other non-white ethnicites.

You want to end illegal immigration tommorrow without declaring some bs emergency? Find a state attorney general with a spine to roll into a Wal-mart, Outback Steakhouse, or any other low-wage job bonanza and arrest the manager for state tax evasion. After the first round of litigation sticks, other states would pile on just like Microsoft and the tobacco suits.

But best of all, the lack of foreign income would cause the economies of many Latin American countries to collapse and real reform could finally take place in those nations. It would be a bitter pill, but at least it would cure the disease. The reforms then would offer a place where lower cost structures could compete with nations like China where wages are artificially low and help bring about real labor reform not just in the United States but the world at large.

The Democrats have to frame this issue correctly however. They want enforcement of labor laws. They want to protect those who come here legally and those who work hard for little pay who are native born. But using other forms of coercion like denial of civil services or chasing workers on the freeway at rush hour....good TV but bad policy.

by risenmessiah on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 03:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems also need to come out against US (none / 0)

corporate rape and pillage of the Third World..

Behind many of the bloodiest conflicts in the Third World, there have been US aid or intervention.. often behind the wrong side..

For example, the US supported Saddam Hussein for many years.. his bloodiest years.. The US supported Pol Pot against our enemies, the Vietnamese.. in the terrible Khmer Rouge era in Cambodia.. The US supported Osama Bin Laden - giving him his start - in Afghanistan.. overthrowing a (Soviet-sponsored) government that, with its many faults, was still much, much less repressive than the Taliban.. (During those years Afghanistan had a functioning university, women did not have to wear those shapeless bags.. etc..)

The US supported the Indonesian (Suhuarto?) government in its incredibly bloody takeover of the former Portugese colony of East Timor, in which hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered.. We have sponsored many, many coups and counter-coups in Latin America.. as well as in Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania...

We overthrew popular, elected governments in Iran (1953) and Korea (1949?) to install fascist, right-wing dictatorships that inevitably, proved immensely unpopular and often, which gave a previously unpopular Communist party an opportunity to seize (really) the 'moral high ground' from torturers in the same way that right wing governments often follow (for a time) Communism.. out of reaction to brutality..

In fact, I left the biggest mistake out.. China..

We supported the brutal and megalomaniacal 'Nationalist' Chiang Kai Shek (who openly admired Adolph Hitler and whose incredibly corrupt government set new records for theivery..) in China AGAINST THE RECOMENDATIONS OF ALL OF THE CHINA HANDS IN THE US INTELLIGENCE SERVICES..

Chiang's soldiers - acting under orders.. thoughtfully blew the bridges - the only way out of China's then-capital, Nanjing, up behind them as they retreated from the advancing Japanese fascists.. TRAPPING THE ENTIRE CIVILIAN POPULATION INSIDE THE CITY TO BE SLAUGHTERED..

The US continued to support him for years after that! Wasting a historic opportunity to instead, promote democracy.. by setting a standard of human rights.. The result, a Communist victory.. and indeed, at that point, after the fascist and brutal Nationalists and the fascist and even more brutal Japanese - they were an improvement!

A similar situation occurred in Korea, where the US shoehorned a right-wing nut who had been out of the country for something like 20 years.. (Syngman Rhee) and helped - or at least did not stop.. assasinate moderates who were beginning to unify the Korean Peninsula under a fledgling democracy..

many other facts are in dispute, but nobody these days disputes that Syngman Rhee's brutality and lack of willingness to protect the rights of the common people - the overwhelming majority of the people- of Korea from the landowning class.. (who had all colaborated with the Japanese) gave Kim Il Sung an opportunity he would not have had otherwise in the North.. and in the South..unfortunately..

There are many other examples of this idiotic embracing by the US government of fascists and brutality in the Third World.. with tragic outcomes..

Too many more.. too many to describe..I wouldn't even know where to begin..

by ultraworld on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My point was - If the US didn't do this.. (3.00 / 1)

many Third World countries would have done much better economically, allowing their nationals to stay there, to have futures there, instead of forcing them to leave - looking for work.. i.e. the means of survival.

We share some of the responsibility for their poverty when we overthrow their governments (or prevent the overthrow of dictators)

Typically, the democracies are overthrown for the 'crime' of trying to strike better deals with US corporations who are trying to (buy? steal?) their natural resources.. and labor... Iran in the 50s was a good example.. To replace the overwhelmingly popular Mossadeq(?) - (who was promising to nationalize the oil industry in Iran, I think)..the CIA installed the Shah.. (and his still-infamous SAVAK secret police) who killed perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iranians.. ushering in the mullahs on a 'red carpet' of sorts.. of blood..

Are we seeing a pattern here..

If we want to stop illegal immigration, we need to stop meddling in the Third World.. and that means we will need to accept that the US will not be able to tell other nations how to run themselves.. even if it means 'US' corporations will have to pay more for labor, raw materials.. etc..

Why not? ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO..

'Live simply, so that others can simply live'

by ultraworld on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop Meddling in the Third World (none / 0)

Or as others might say

do not defecate where you sleep. If we come for them, eventually they come for us.

Oh wait, they already did.

by risenmessiah on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 09:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Taking on Smith is... (1.50 / 2)

John Courage, who's running a great central Texas campaign against the man. Courage actually was the guy who inspired me into politics 4 years ago when he ran in the old TX-21 when Dean came down and blockwalked with him before he ever thought about running for President. We had a Texas Conference call last night and John is also in the top running for the DFA endorsement.

by KTinTX on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:48:17 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.