Pajamas Media

29 Comments

1. lee:

If Obama supports drivers license for illegals and legalization through college education, why wouldn’t Latinos vote for him? He can potentially lock up a base that will vote for him again in 2012.

Of course, he risks revitalizing the conservatives with that move. Illegal immigration is highly unpopular here in California, which is as blue as you can get.

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:25 am 2. vivo:

Immigration loses its luster in a Depression. Just wait for things to improve and it’ll be the next hot potato. But if politicians and legislators are smart, they should find a good, permanent solution NOW!

Oct 31, 2008 - 3:30 am 3. Chuck:

The 800 pound gorilla still goes unnoticed. Illegal immigration threads all other issues into one. National Security, Economy, Social Welfare, Jobs, you name it. Both McCain and Obama hispander and both are pro-shamnesty. Neither one deserves the Presidency for selling their political souls to Mexico. We’re Screwed ‘08.

Oct 31, 2008 - 4:54 am 4. Valerie:

This is an issue, like “gay marriage” and “abortion” on which normal people display a wide range of consensus, while the loud-mouthed screamers on both sides are hell-bent on preserving them as signature issues.

Immigration works like this: we need a guest worker program. That would solve the problem, and then we wouldn’t need to build a fence.

Gay marriage works like this: the vast majority of people in this country are willing to allow people to have all the rights and privileges they ask for, if only they will call it a “civil union” instead of marriage.

Abortion works like this: Roe v. Wade took decisions about abortion out of the hands of Congress, and placed them, on a case-by-case basis in the hands of the people most affected. That decision protects us from a Congress that might one day decide to compel abortions. That decision also outlined a clear framework for enacting restrictions on abortion, if the states wish. So, the so-called Conservatives keep writing highly intrusive laws they know won’t pass Constitutional muster, and the so-called Liberals insist on no restrictions at all.

Color me unimpressed.

Oct 31, 2008 - 5:03 am 5. M.P.:

Current immigration is one of the most vexing issues we face. No one wants to deny hard working people looking for a better life but nor do most want millions using very expensive social services without paying the income and property taxes required to support those systems. All but the wealthiest directly feel the burden of higher taxes to pay for all these services without seeing the benefits of immigration in their own lives.

Oct 31, 2008 - 5:07 am 6. Jonesy55:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free”

Actually no, scrap that, this is 2008 and the USA is no longer the shining city on the hill, just another flawed country like the rest of the world, let’s try:

“Give me your doctors who have been trained at your country’s expense, give me your wealthy merchants, if you don’t fit into either category go for the green card lottery”

It’s strange how many on the right-wing oppose any sort of state interference in the market until it comes to immigration when they suddenly look to a big government solution as to who can and can’t live in the country. Why not just let the market decide?

The market will always provide the most efficient solution that is in everybody’s interest after all. If wages are high in the US compared to Mexico, let them come, this will lower US wages and make for a more efficient economy which in turn will reduce immigration as the wage gap narrows.

Alternatively, if you recognise that government intervention might be desirable to prevent negative social consequences despite the effects on economic efficiency, why not extend this logic elsewhere, the free movement of capital across borders for example?

Or is intellectual consistency too much to ask when personal convenience is at stake?

Oct 31, 2008 - 5:30 am 7. MarkD:

Jonesy55,

It’s my country. My representatives passed laws that define who can come here, and who cannot. It’s not up to some market to set its own rules. I’m not free to choose the laws I will obey, nor are illegal immigrants. If I go to Mexico, I don’t expect to be allowed to do what I want.

Absent a world government, your argument is not logically consistent. You are arguing for free riders, not free markets.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:25 am 8. Ken Hahn:

Okay, I had some hope for Mr Navarrette after a recent post but we’re right back to the BS again.

Immigration has never been the issue, ILLEGAL immigration has. I could repeat that ten thousand times and Mr Navarrette and his allies would ignore it. They know immigration is popular and illegal immigration is unpopular. Almost no one wants to stop immigration. I don’t. I want the border controlled. So long as there are 20 million illegals in this country ( many of whom are taking advantage of lax laws and ACORN to register and vote ) all immigration is endangered.

Immigration has not been an issue in this campaign because both major party candidates are open border types. They both see the invasion as potential voters rather than as an uncontrolled flood of people who distort the political process.

Never let McCain, Obama or Navarrette claim immigration is the issue without the word illegal.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:48 am 9. Jarhead:

Union Voting
Finishing the Job in Iraq
The Global Warming Scam
Free-Trade
States’ Rights
AMT
Term Limits
Tax Code simplification

Lot’s of forgotten issues 5 days before the election.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:09 am 10. Bullfrog:

I see 2 reasons for this issue not being addressed:

1. The Latin vote
2. McCain and Obama agree on the subject, at least if you check their voting records.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:15 am 11. Bullfrog:

Jarhead: Don’t forget protecting marriage. But I suppose if asked, both candidates would defer to the states.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:16 am 12. Bill Perron:

JONSEY55: You have got it all wrong, what the right wing wants is enforcement of our very reasonable laws on immigration already in the books. … And your comment about the market deciding is lamentable, if the market was to decide our laws then pot would be legal….. Which by the way may not be such a bad idea, if it is legal it can be taxed, and what a great fun way to raise billions of dollars. Perhaps previous pot smoker Obama could then use those taxes raised to pass around the wealth along with the joints.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:58 am 13. cfbleachers:

I was just wondering. Can 30 million Americans who make over a certain amount of income, go down the coastline of Baja California and begin to live on the coastline?

I mean, I think it’s a fair tradeoff. The top 10% of our income earners can take their funds, entrepreneurial spirit and economic savvy and build up a beautiful coastline, hire a people clearly interested in finding work, improve the economic condition of a country that can use it and live in a society that doesn’t sue at the drop of a hat.

As long as the Mexican government is willing to impose no taxation based on hysteria and mythology of “fairness”, the entire tax base of the country would improve.

The new settlers would obtain beachfront property at a song, and turn it into a financial boom for a country that no longer would need to sneak across borders to find work, in a country that is bailing out its banks, propping up its insurance industry and is foreclosing more property than it is building.

It’s a fair tradeoff, I believe. Each side gets what they most need. The leftists here get mouths to feed and persons ripe for victimization. Our neighbors to the south get our best and our brightest, an elimination of fear of Obama tinkering with NAFTA and a shot in the arm for their entire economy and tax base. Would they suffer the infusion of so many gringo settlers invading their province? Would racism be a factor?

Could we demand that English be taught in the schools? If so, that gorgeous coastline looks pretty inviting. Especially with a tax reduction of about 50%. Any takers?

Oct 31, 2008 - 9:03 am 14. Immigration: The Forgotten Issue of Election ‘08 | Nursepod:Your Nursing News Authority:

[...] Click here to read more… [...]

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:03 am 15. Ditto:

cfbleachers, sorry to say that won’t work. Mexico, you see, doesn’t allow Americans or any other non-native to own beach front property:

http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/503786

The issue is not, nor has it ever been, immigration. If you want to immigrate, you should do so legally. The benefits of citizenship should be given to those who have done so legally, or who are born U.S. citizens.

It’s really not that difficult. When did we become a nation who insisted on not enforcing its own laws? We have a system in place to change laws that no longer work the way we want them to. So if there is a consensus amongst the citizenry that the laws on the books don’t work anymore, let’s get a discourse going about changing immigration laws.

But don’t pretend that any person who is against allowing citizens of other countries to come into the U.S. without following the legal process is “anti-immigration”. Not after what we’ve been through in the last 7 years, and what we face in the next decade.

By the way… here’s Mexico’s immigration laws. If you think ours are bad, read this.

http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm#1

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:10 am 16. vivo:

Some reasons for illegal immigration are that the process is cumbersome, long, expensive and very restrictive. 90% of applicants couldn’t qualify or make it on time.

On the reverse side, try to work in a foreign country. Americans would find it exasperating. So they may bypass it with business visas or plain bribes.

Oct 31, 2008 - 1:04 pm 17. urbanleftbehind:

Chuck,

you are probably right. I think Sarah Palin probably got further in VP vetting because instead of saying “Oh hell no!!” when McCain asked if she’d marshal the Senate support for a McAmnesty, she said, well I could live with it, figuring her native Alaska was one of the few places to gain – more demand for oil, skyrocketing real estate prices from all of the natives fleeing the lower 48. Besides with a family like that – pregnant teenage daughter/gang of siblings, how could she look down on a Mexican family?

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:36 pm 18. Scott A Joseph, MD:

Mexico’s birthrate has recently dipped below replacement, which means that, in about 20 years, the number of Mexican workers will start to contract, ending the immigration crisis.

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:46 pm 19. JackOfHeart:

One very important issue that both candidates didn’t really explain much is the issue of foreign policy. I hope “CHANGE” this time wouldn’t be just limited to the Economy and the health care system, but change should include changing our unethical and twisted foreign policies and treat other countries as friends, just like how Israel is our friend. I suggest that BOTH McCain and Palin go run for presidency in ISRAEL since they have proven to be more loyal to Israel than to America. They couldn’t speak clearly of a solid plan for America, but they had a clear plan to support Israel blindly without a question, even if they had to go against their morals and create more enimies around the world. Even if it ment invading Syria next. We really have stretched our ethics, lately, for Israel wich made us loose our leadership in the world economically, politically and morally. Not because we have so much in common with them but because Israel succeeded in making their enimies ours. Politicians in D.C have become the “big brothers” of Israel. And that was planted by extreamist-foreign-interest lobbies in D.C (AIPAC). I suggest that BUSH, McCAIN AND PALIN should be deported to Israel and run for presidency there. PEACE=FOREIGN INTEREST LOBBIES OUT OF D.C.

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:57 pm 20. cfbleachers:

Ditto, can’t we get them to change the laws…you know…if we give someone money to buy the property in their name, and then work to get the law changed…by making 30 million Americans indispensable to the economy or something along those lines?

Oct 31, 2008 - 3:09 pm 21. mike:

obama/biden 08 – they’re not wierd, its that simple

Oct 31, 2008 - 4:18 pm 22. john:

Who is C.F.Bleachers? Bleacher’s Gulch, Mexico?

Count me in, though I don’t qualify in income. If push comes to shove, I have a great credit rating I could burn a hole in if I decided to abandon ship. Just saying. Where’s my bailout? Hmmmmm.

Oct 31, 2008 - 5:04 pm 23. john:

Better, yet… Bleacher’s Beach!

Oct 31, 2008 - 5:29 pm 24. angry white dude:

I agree that this is the ignored story of the election. 20 million new Democrats changes the whole political spectrum. And don’t think that the Dims aren’t already planning to shower our new fellow citizens with our money! I wrote about this on my blog a few days ago:
http://angrywhitedude.com/?p=493

Oct 31, 2008 - 5:39 pm 25. countryfirst:

Wanting to control massive immigration is not an issue about personal convenience. Look at other countries immigration laws, they are doing their job if they are protecting their citizens with the problems that arise from too many people and not enough resources. Go into a restaurant, boat, bus, etc..There is a capacity that it can hold before it gets dangerous for everyone. Nations need to protect their citizens from overcrowding and third world conditions.

Oct 31, 2008 - 6:11 pm 26. countryfirst:

Dude, where’s my comment? oh, its happening already; YOUR FREEDOM: CANCELLED

VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN WHO FOUGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM AND DOESN’T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY.

Nov 1, 2008 - 5:50 am 27. Marc Malone:

For those who don’t understand the greatest threat of illegal immigration, here’s a lesson. The Arabs were able to sieze land from Spain by simply pushing millions of people across the border. Spain had to either fire at civilians, or cede the territory.

What would you have done? Me, I’d've fired. An invader is an invader.

Nov 1, 2008 - 6:04 pm 28. james:

Methinks Ruben doesn’t hide his hatred of whitey

Nov 2, 2008 - 5:56 pm 29. Pat J:

Maaybe neither one of them want to approach immigration because they don’t want to look like Tom Tancredo.

Nov 4, 2008 - 7:36 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: