I disagree, you want to leave the words "legal" or "required by law" out of the question - that's part of what we need to know, whether people think a court order was legally required - many people may buy the President's line on this. The last one - "court ordered warrant" would be fine (although I personally suspect people would get the idea OK from the question as it's currently phrased).
I notice it's a little hard to find the word "Republican" on your web page there, Mike - hidden as it is down at the bottom of the front page, in a testimonial.
Brand a bit tarnished these days?
I think you'll find that social security privatization, illegal wiretaps, and vouchers aren't going to get you any voters or donations at MyDD. And if you really want universal health care, consider voting for a Democrat for the Senate. Mitch McConnell isn't interested; Harry Reid might be.
Lieberman is a pain in the ass. But he hasn't campaigned for Republican candidates or started caucusing with Republicans in the Senate, and he was fabulous and impassioned on the Senate floor on the ANWR issue (in fact, he largely led the successful Senate move to block ANWR drilling in late Dec.) I was watching that day; he won back some good will for me, even if it doesn't compensate for everything else.
He's still got virtues that make him better than a Republican. (Unlike Zell.)
One more on this before I collapse for the day. (It's late here on the East Coast, damn it.) This is still too glib, but the best I can pump out at 1am.
Just like the terrorism problem, the crime problem can't be seriously addressed when we're afraid that talking about "root causes" makes us wimps or soft on crime (the Europeans seem to be able to handle this discussion better, for some reason). I.e., there's no contradition between one one hand believing that criminals must be punished individually, and on the other hand recognizing that serious social problems breed criminal behavior.
I'd argue that illegal immigration is not a root cause of the behavior of these ethnic gang members. Marginalization of illegal immigrats is. We have to recognize that violent gang membership may in fact be a rational if completely unacceptable choice by people who live on the margins of society, because it provides physical and psychological security that people like Sensenbrenner work actively to deny them.
I'm not sure if Duke's plan has the answers, but it addresses three important principles as a starting point: there need to be pathways toward citizenship, a legitimization of the cross-border flow of workers, and an equitable sharing of burden and responsibility.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if immigration couldn't be a wedge issue to push for legalization of pot.
No way, not until the moral weight connected to that drug issue lightens up a little more. Otherwise, you're pushing the squishy middle right into the arms of the law and order crowd. Too many people still think that only bad, dirty people smoke pot. Stupid, yes, but I'd keep that issue as far away from immigration reform as possible.
Duke - I'm still trying to find the time to fully digest all the information you've posted (particularly the diary you linked from last year, which I hadn't been aware of). But just wanted to say thanks again for all of this. I've got some concerns about the policy you proposed back then, but first I'd be really interested to hear the refinements you've made, when you have a chance to post them. It's refreshing to hear this seriously discussed.
Have you considered condensing your ideas into the kind of policy paper that has more chance of getting read by advocacy organizations - a one page, bulleted deal?
You also should consider, if you haven't already, an editorial. I don't mean a letter to the editor, but a true editorial. You'd want it to revolve around your own stories (without naming names, of course) - much less technical - and describe how these experiences led you to a particular set of insights. You'd get it ready and select the paper(s) most likely to be interested, but then hang onto it until immigration reform is in the front page of the news again. Then, send, and see who bites.
If, that is, you haven't already done these kind of things. Not sure of your particular background, other than the mention that you've been in the restaurant business. My advice comes with a 100% cash back guarantee. ;)
I'm with Neuvo. This is such an important issue to get right from a policy standpoint - and quickly - that I don't care if they take credit that isn't due (or dodge blame that is) as long as the right policies pass into law.
On the run now, and your question requires a careful, not a glib answer; will try for more conversation on this point later. But I think your comparison between with the drug war is apt, and would love to hear a more detailed analysis; and my sentiments expressed upthread don't in any way signal a patience for people who become criminals in a broader sense.
The question you ask may have to be its own diary to get the attention it deserves, since I suspect this one is a short time from falling into the oblivion that (unfortunately) day-old diaries always land in.
This is great to hear, and really doesn't surprise me at all. California seems to have been one step ahead of the nation all along on this issue - both in terms of previewing the current historical cycle of the anti-immigrant backlash, and the push-back against that.
Things have been quieter here in Georgia. But building. Some folks may recall this story. Duke1676 has got it just right; this really is brewing everywhere.
Well, you weren't around, so someone had to be enough of a hardass to do it. ;)
If this dude was a garden variety troll, it wouldn't have been worth the effort, and probably just would have been as "vindictive" as he claimed. But amusing as his late summer romp through MyDD was, if we could eat wasted bandwidth, he would have fed a small nation.
Now, how long till he comes back under another yet user name, a little more cautious this time? But, Yea! by his arrogant and yet vacuous prose and bizarre narcissism we shall know him... LOL.
1. The tension between (a) the economic and cultural dependence on immigration, and (b) waves of anti-immigrant sentiment often coupled with a good dose of xenophobia, is a leifmotif of American political culture reaching back to our founding. It's never been thought out in practical terms, such as you suggest. There are a lot of countries that fail to reconcile anti-immigrant sentiment with economic dependence on immigrant labor. But what makes this issue particularly American is the conflict between isolationism/anti-immigrant sentiments and the powerful cultural ideal of a "nation of immigrants."
Incidentally, schema theory - which is now familiar to many on the left from George Lakoff's work in cognitive linguistics - has a great deal to say about how these cultural contraditions form and are resolved - or not - in practice. (More useful here, though, are D'Andrade, Strauss, Quinn, Nuckolls, Shore - psychological anthropologists who have used and elaborated on schema theory.)
As soon as I can, if this would be useful, I'd like to research and compile a diary on this historical context, because I'm not sure how widely understood it is. This whole debate brings on a sort of de ja vu.
2. Part of what makes what you're describing so powerful the strategy of "stealth nationalization." Here's what I mean. In a classic niche marketing sense, anti-immigrant messages can be tailored toward communities that are likely to be receptive in different ways, while less receptive communities don't hear them. E.g., the Republicans can market themselves to Latino communities using social and economic conservatism that omits anti-immigrant messages, while at the same time broadcasting anti-immigrant messages to Anglo neighbors.
If it's being nationalized as a strategy anyway, then sunlight is needed. Not only Latino communities, but also broader political constituencies that are unsympathetic to this kind of approach to politics, need to be aware of the full picture that you've laid out. What Republicans can most hope for - not only in the long term, but even in terms of efficacy in the current cycle - is that they are successful in making sure no one who is likely to be offended sees this as a big picture issue linked to the GOP.
Fundamentally this is a recap of the Southern Strategy. It is, and has always been, about ethnicity to a much greater extent than "respect for the law" and these other code words that are trotted out.
The question is: does it work for them in the long term? The Southern Strategy helped cement the almost overwhelming allegiance of the African American vote for Democrats, even though many Southern Democrats were cagey if not downright regressive on civil rights issues.
Do Republicans win some seats in '06 this way, and yet sabotage their own long-term strategy to improve their showings amongst Latino voters? If so, then they cut off their nose to spite their face.
Do you mean this in the sense that you're not optimistic for capital-P Progressives (in contrast to Democrats in general)? Or in the sense that you doubt the ability to take back one of the centers of power in '06? I'm trying to reconcile with: "Voters do not like Republicans, and they will vote against them, as they did in 2005."