Said Janet Napolitano, a homeland security secretary during the Obama administration, quoted in "Democrats Spar Over the 'Prickly, Prickly Subject' of Immigration/The end of a pandemic-era restriction on migrant arrivals has set off new arguments in the party over an issue that it often struggles to navigate" (NYT).
I think she means that "Democrats have a much broader spectrum to cover" than do Republicans, but is that the case? If I am reading her statement correctly, the spectrum goes from Democrats who think there should be no deportations at all and Democrats who think there should be some deportation. The width of the spectrum would depend on how much, and the failure to be more specific makes the quote almost meaningless. Meanwhile, the Republican spectrum goes from people who think illegal immigration is destroying the country and who will go to extremes to stop it to people who think open borders and massive immigration would benefit the country. That's a much broader spectrum!
Posts
70 comments:
Illegal immigration on the scale we are seeing can in no way benefit the country!
If there are people stupid enough to believe "open borders and massive immigration" are beneficial, they should make their case to Congress rather than condoning criminal migration.
They won't because they can't.
I have an idea.
Let's make some rules/laws, then enforce them.
The immigration policy of the Democratic Party is pure Cloward Piven. Let's pretend we can air condition the Sahara Desert. Let's import poverty on such a scale that government will have to tax and expand to benefit our coalition. And it won't be enough.
Immigration is a potential positive, of course. But it's being intentionally abused.
Democrats think that if they keep repeating to themselves that their party is the big tent open to diverse views and the Republicans are the narrow minded bigots who have grown even more extreme in recent years, it will magically become true.
If a country will not enforce its borders and immigration laws, then it soon will cease to be a functioning country. The land will continue, but the country will no.t Once the Untied States of America descends into a geographical area inhabited by people who have no interest in it, we are done as a nation. That time grows closer every day. All 8 billion souls on the planet do not have a right to be here and we do not have any obligation to support them.
We should assist other countries in their quest to make themselves places that encourage their citizens to sty there and work to make their countries better. We should not encourage people to come here and live off the government. This is not about votes - democrats, nor cheap labor - republicans. This is about sovereignty and survival as a nation.
Prickly?
Prickly like the cacti in southern Arizona and Texas?
I assume "Big Sis" will have nothing to do with anything "Prickly."
The open borders types on the Republican side no longer have any voice in the party so she's correct.
Periodic reminder that USA was built on immigration, to detriment of first nations.
The Democrats will eventually legalize all these illegals and then more of them. It is all about acquiring permanent control of the federal government. Biden would do this by executive fiat if it weren't going to be shot down by SCOTUS, but the Democrats will eventually get control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate by enough votes to push it through by nuking the filibuster altogether.
So, no, there really isn't much a of spectrum on the Democrat side- Napolitano only wants to make it look that way because the border chaos will make it much more difficult to win the House back in 2024 because mail-in-ballots aren't as effective at winning House seats, at least not yet.
'Let's make some rules/laws, then enforce them.'
Enforce the law or change the fucking law.
Not difficult.
Immigration is a potential positive, of course. But it's being intentionally abused.
The original intention was by Teddy Kennedy who slanted the immigration laws in 1965 to deny high skilled European immigrants equal treatment with Third World uneducated peasants who would be reliable Democrat voters. I personally know a German couple, he a plumber, she a midwife, who waited 7 years to win the lottery to immigrate. They had saved 60,000 Euros and began in business as soon as they arrived. No welfare desired, unlike the 6 million recently allowed in illegally.
Yep.
Fair points all, Althouse. As someone forced into voting for Democrats in order to oppose Trumpism, the Dems' waffling on immigration is a real turnoff.
Pro tip: Any Republican who favors open borders and massive immigration is a RINO, not a real Republican.
Democrats have to cover a range of feelings, and Republicans only a range of structural ideas.
The question isn’t how much immigration, it’s the method of immigration. Even sanctuary cities are straining. Quit thinking that opposition to legal is equal to opposition to legal.
Anyone who believes in open borders is not on the Right. They may not be Left, but not in any way conservative. Oligarchs, perhaps. Those who think that undermining private unions and American workers will enrich them and and their companies. They are really royal fuedalists, who think that keeping the peasants poor and struggling, forced to take what is offered or starve, is to their personal advantage.
Extremes? Emigration reform to mitigate progress at both ends of the bridge and throughout.
Extremes? Enforcing laws to reduce migrant crimes including [underage] rape, murder, redistributive change, etc.
Extremes? Equal application of the law to minimize real and perceived diversity.
Extremes? A wall to reduce risk to both Americans and migrants, and border stations where claims for asylum can be processed, and pathogenic conditions can be detected and treated without exposing the population.
"the Republican spectrum goes from people who think illegal immigration is destroying the country and will go to extremes to stop it to people who think open borders and massive immigration would benefit the country"
But the open-border part of the spectrum is very small. Most of us want to the invasion to be stopped, BAMN. For real.
Anyway, like any other prog propaganda, the broad Dem spectrum is phony. Progs rule, the border is open, and Biden/Mayorkas only pretend otherwise for nice people in the electorate.
If there is actually a policy that can explain the admittance of six million illegal immigrants in two years, I'd really like to hear what it is. It certainly doesn't look as if the Biden administration is capable of enunciating one.
And the Left wonders why it is that many on the Right believe in "The Great Replacement" and other such "conspiracies". Maybe because they explain the reality on the ground better than anything out of the mouth of the administration.
The open borders people want to remake the country with new voters and chaos so they can pass more laws and take away more freedom. We will end up like the big blue cities, lawless behavior for the favored demographics and tyranny for the rest of us. I don't think that's what most voters want. But we'll see who get elected next year.
"Quit thinking that opposition to legal is equal to opposition to legal."
What is it, then?
If you are a legal immigrant and follow the rules, I will fight for your right to be here.
If you're not legal, you can go to hell and go back home.
Blogger Readering said...
Periodic reminder that USA was built on immigration, to detriment of first nations.
Stone Age does not compete well with modern humans.
"It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state," Milton Friedman. Brandon says Milton Friedman isn't in charge now. That's why gas is $5 dollars a gallon and Eggs are $9. And banks are collapsing.
HUH - No one discussing the Democrat's open border policy.
If we followed the law- deportations would not be part of the conversation.
As in most nations around the globe - Legal immigration should be the only way in.
The lawless democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with lawlessness, and illegal entrance into our nation. The democrats support open borders lawlessness.
Moderate Democrats these days are those who want to imprison, but not kill, Republicans.
And the GOP spans from paleo con immigration restrictionist to open borders businessmen who want cheap plentiful labor.
These writers really don't know anything do they.
I'm an immigration paralegal that has been in the business for 20 years. Have worked for four firms and over a dozen attorneys. All of them advocate open borders. Kind of funny when you think about it - if they got their wish they would be out of a job!
It would be cheap and trivially easy to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Simply pass and enforce draconian laws prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants. Also stop all welfare benefits to them. No one would be coming here without permission then. It is really that simple.
The fact that we do not do these simple and, in fact, money saving things tells us that the people who run our government do not really WANT to solve the "problem" Like so many other issues, they do not see this as a problem, but as an issue to be exploited for their own benefit. It isn't a mystery, it's just insoluble because our so-called representatives prefer it that way.
Quit thinking that opposition to legal is equal to opposition to legal.
Quit thinking that opposition to Illegal is equal to opposition to legal.
Hazards of commenting by phone rather than computer where you can easily see and edit.
I was listening to black talk radio yesterday in Milwaukee. I can tell you the voices you hear on black-run media are not the same black voices you see on CNN. I heard a lot of anger and resentment towards Democrats re: immigration. There is concern that African Americans are being forgotten and left behind in favor of new waves of immigrants who get to go to the front of the line for housing and services. I think Napolitano was just soft peddling how strong the opposition to immigration is within certain segments of the democrat coalition.
I don't like Trump, but honestly, his message could do really well with black voters in 2024. A lot of anger about immigration, transgender policy, even the rise in crime.
I'm close enough to the border to know they aren't immigrants. They have no intentions of learning English, following even the basic of traffic laws, and suck up taxpayer money like vacuum cleaners.
They need to go, and they will, when it's illegal to rent, lease, or sell to anyone that can't provide legal documents of residency. For those that break the law to aid aliens, a harsh punishment of at least five years in prison should help deter the crime.
Regardless of what the media reports, the empathy is evaporating, and common citizens will make it very hard on illegal aliens. They've had enough, and are now protecting their sovereign rights.
Democrats need to reconcile DIE: diversity, inequity, exclusion, where diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) denies individual dignity, individual agency, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. "people of color"), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination. #PoliticalCongruence #TooManyLabels #HateLovesAbortion
The agenda is a to admit as many "migrants" as possible, with the long term goal of granting citizenship and voting rights. There's nothing compassionate about enabling sex and drug trafficking. The rule of law is becoming meaningless under this regime.
"I think she means that "Democrats have a much broader spectrum to cover" than do Republicans, but is that the case?"
I think the way they cover the spectrum is that they play on the sympathy the moderates have for the plight of immigrants, while the real movers (radical Party insiders) are promoting Cloward-Piven strategy behind the scenes.
Where’s Kamala and her Venn diagram when you need her?
Look at that NYT headline, tripping over itself to exclude "illegal" from the spectrum.
Dems can't even embrace the word.
Again, the discussion rarely gets around to discussing those who wait and wait to do it the legal way.
Talk about "disenfrachising".
Also never discussed is that we have in the past stopped legal immigration.
Readering: "Periodic reminder that USA was built on immigration, to detriment of first nations."
LOL
The "first nations" spent most of their time destroying the first-er nations.
I tell you what, provide us a territorial map of the ABSOLUTE first nation identities and we'll go from there.
After that, when its clear you cant, we'll simply move on to your next inanity.
I don't like Trump, but honestly, his message could do really well with black voters in 2024. A lot of anger about immigration, transgender policy, even the rise in crime.
I think it was getting through to black voters pretty well first term, which is why the oligarchs who run the Democrats decided that Trump had to be taken out BAMN, including vote fraud. Where do you think those 400 million Zuckerbucks went?
Democrats have to trick black people into believing there's no money for reparations ... but there's plenty of money for shipping these Mexicans in to take their jobs (or at the very least, remove their bargaining ability at work by the influx of supply vs. demand).
That's a difficult task. But so far, blacks are falling for it and continue to vote 95% Democrat.
That's what Napalitano means when she says "spectrum." She means colored.
Blogger Readering said...
Periodic reminder that USA was built on immigration, to detriment of first nations.
--
Periodic reminder of the Left's desire to manipulate/misuse language and invoke founding in service of deflection. Picture readering standing in front of flag wagging finger.
Time for readering to build those bunk beds..or order through MeadeHouse portal.
Inga may have some recommendations.
A lot of anger about immigration, transgender policy, even the rise in crime.
The sooner you realize the Democratic party does not have the good will of any Americans at heart the better off you will be. If you want to reform the Democratic party hurt them at the ballot box ad they will have to actually serve their constituents to get elected. But if you keep voting for them because they are not Republicans they will continue to abuse you.
"Periodic reminder that USA was built on immigration,"
Exasperated reminder that the issue is uncontrolled, illegal immigration.
"I can tell you the voices you hear on black-run media are not the same black voices you see on CNN. I heard a lot of anger and resentment towards Democrats re: immigration."
Talk is cheap.
It just occurred to me. The columnist has it wrong. The Dems problem isn't trying to maintain a coalition of varied viewpoints. I wonder if the columnist know this and is trying to set the debate or is genuinely ignorant. The Dem challenge is to convince the country that the Republicans are racist so they can get the votes of the Republican haters DESPITE their own voters disagreeing with them on Immigration.
Is "halt or I'll shoot" considered an extreme position on illegal immigration? Isn't job one of the military to defend the country's borders by keeping unauthorized people from entering?
They've had enough, and are now protecting their sovereign rights.
=========
is sovereign synonym for i/u-nalieanable rights.
I am opposed to illegal uncontrolled immigration, and I favor harsh penalties for those who employ illegal immigrants. However, I am also in a border state (Arizona) and have daily first hand experience with many illegal Mexican and central American immigrants. My experience of them is not what I often hear from others who push for border controls. In my pretty extensive experience these people are for the most part decent and VERY hard working. They want to make a better life for themselves and their families. They are just people. People who had enough motivation to make a difficult and dangerous journey to an uncertain future. There are also many criminals, but that exists in all populations, especially poor third world populations.
The vast majority of the illegal crossers are a net benefit to our country, and if we had effective control of the border we could vet the people we are allowing in and reject the obvious criminals. And they are mostly very obvious. The tattoos tell the story. We stand to benefit a lot from hard working immigrants, and that group is larger than the scum class we need to keep out.
Old and slow @ 4:24: "...We stand to benefit a lot from hard working immigrants, and that group is larger than the scum class we need to keep out." This suggests that it would take a lot of "scum class" to offset the value of the "hard working immigrants." Something like 50 scum = 50 hard-working? I submit that it only takes a few scum to render the whole group unacceptable and, indeed, the receiving community unlivable. How many thugs, pimps, crooks, addicts can any neighborhood sustain? Not many; and even then the ability of the community to tolerate them is a function not only of how much damage they do and how well-known they are; but a baseline of time during which their behavior is understood and future predations can be predicted with some confidence. If your town is getting 1 murder a year and suddenly it's 5 and then 10 and then 25, that suggests one kind of crisis. If instead it goes from 1 murder a year to 7 in 5 years and then to 16 in 10 years, and then drops a little; that suggests a different kind of crisis.
We are being hit with a tidal wave of trouble. It's hard to make refined estimates of how many of us will drown. Thus the hard reaction.
There once were Republicans who supported lax control over immigration. They ran businesses that would benefit from cheap labor. Cesar Chavez opposed such illegal immigration because it undermined the economic clout of his constituency of legal immigrants and native-born. There were also Democrats who favored immigration of cheap, mostly Asian workers, but they either got the govt to provide loop holes for those workers to immigrate, or they bought their services directly from Asia (slave labor is usually quite cheap, at least in the short run).
What this country needs is an effective policy for LEGAL immigration. But we will never get that when one of our major parties assures that there's no effective control on illegal immigration, and is committed to legalizing the illegals once they're here.
Name that party!
There seem to be some Democrats in Chicago who would like to close the border. They seem to be people of color who don't want a shelter for migrants in their neighborhood.
I'll accept that Democrats have the broader spectrum, because I believe most of the blue-collar Democrats don't support open borders. I also accept that Trump supporters also don't support open borders, and most of the Republicans that do are #NeverTrumpers and wouldn't vote for him because of this issue alone. But I give neither side brownie points for having a broader or narrower view. The issue is consistent applications of our laws.
I simply want the same level of border control we have at airports and seaports at are land borders. Canada, Europe, and every country in Latin America I've visited do this, so I don't see the racist, extremist, or radical notion that Democrats claim exists for wanting something like this.
Dishonest leftists - in every direction.
One portion of their party heard from yesterday:
"South Shore residents angry about migrant shelter would make MAGA proud"
https://instapundit.com/584407/#disqus_thread
*i* am an immigration advocate.. a LEGAL immigration advocate
illegal aliens should be held for 99 years.. Then deported
oh.. 99 years, without food or water... food and water are for citizens
"Broad Spectrum"........that's how the physician described the antibiotics for my STD's.
I welcome immigrants.
I don't want millions sneaking over the border.
I don't want policies that encourage people to put themselves and most especially their children in danger, crossing multiple national borders.
What we need is an overhaul of our immigration system. It will mean making some compromises.
I question whether the media and Democrats actually want to solve the issue. It seems like they'd rather engage in hyperbolic rhetoric about "concentration camps".
Democrats are for open borders, it gains them political power which is all they care about. Some democrats must hedge their open borders positions because they have to fool the conservative voters.
The open border republicans are the gentry that just want serfs.
Democrats are for open borders, it gains them political power which is all they care about.
Gerrymandering, redistributive change, as well as labor and environmental arbitrage. Both parties have representatives, but Democrats are openly, stubbornly invested in trans/civil, trans/humane, trans/diverse enterprises.
What we need is to work with other nation's stake holders for emigration reform. People, men and women, and children, should not feel compelled (e.g. World War [ethnic] Spring series in progress) to emigrate/migrate.
YoungHegelian 12:59, I'm with you. Indeed, I don't how the "Great Replacement"/"Grand Remplacement" qualifies as a conspiracy theory at all. You have Democrats and Progressives cluck-clucking, dispassionately, at the fall in the US's birthrate (and Britain's, and the EU's, and Japan's) to below replacement level on the one hand. On the other, the very same people helpfully point out that there are oodles of people clamoring to get in this country, legally or illegally. Why not supplement our weakened (for whatever reason) populace by letting in all these people who obviously want to come here anyway?
It is honestly not difficult to get from "Let's let these people in b/c they want to be here" to "Let's let these people in for that reason, and also because they aren't disgusting white MAGAts," is it? Can anyone not imagine the two ideas co-existing in the same head?
What we need to do is address labor arbitrage for democratic and profitable leverage. What we need to do is address environmental arbitrage for Green and equitable solutions. The problems (e.g. diversity, slavery, environmentalism, redistributive change, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change and emigration) have roots in foreign nations, but there is a consensus of incentives for their progress here.
Immigration is a system
We had one such system.
We have no such system currently.
No Borders, No Wall, No USA At All.
The revolution will not be televised, six or so corporations will see to that.
"Great Replacement"/"Grand Remplacement"
Democrats have a problem reconciling abortion rites, war of the sexes, sexual dysfunction advocacy, and "benefits" with immigration reform.
Leland said...
"I simply want the same level of border control we have at airports and seaports at are land borders. Canada, Europe, and every country in Latin America I've visited do this, so I don't see the racist, extremist, or radical notion that Democrats claim exists for wanting something like this."
This is one of those times I actually agree with the lefties and think we should be "more like other countries".
Readering: "Periodic reminder that USA was built on immigration, to detriment of first nations."
Not a surprising lack of knowledge from a Biden advocate.
So, the question is, how many should we allow to immigrate? I have lived, or visited, all over the world. I have not found a better country to call home. A lot of others think as well. What is the number? We must define it, or we shall be absorbed.
Post a Comment