Friday, November 23, 2007

On Immigration: "When is our party going to show a little backbone and strength and courage and speak up for those people who have been left behind?"

The N.Y Times has a thoughtful analysis of the current politces of immigration.  It ends appropriately with this:

"America is waiting for a leader to risk saying that the best answer is not the simplest one. As John Edwards said at the last debate, “When is our party going to show a little backbone and strength and courage and speak up for those people who have been left behind?”

He was talking about the poor and people without health insurance, but he could — and should — have included a host of others: Business owners who want to hire legal workers. Americans who don’t want their opportunities undermined by the off-the-books economy. Children whose dreams of education and advancement are thwarted by their parents’ hopeless immigration status. And the immigrants, here and abroad, who want to find their place in a society that once welcomed their honest labor, but can’t find a way to do it anymore. "

KJ

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/11/on-immigration.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e54f9fd2508834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Immigration: "When is our party going to show a little backbone and strength and courage and speak up for those people who have been left behind?":

Comments

You forgot some important categories: illegal aliens who've committed crimes over and over again, yet haven't been deported; businessmen who wish to continue to knowingly violate our immigration laws by hiring and exploiting cheap illegal alien labor; future illegal alien welfare client families living below the poverty level; macho illegal alien drunk drivers who are looking forward to avoiding deportation after arrest; illegal alien drug dealers who will likely be overlooked as deportable after amnesty. The numbers of categories of people who wouldn't be accepted as residents, let alone naturalized, are awaiting the passage of an amnesty bill. Your Senate amnesty proposal was so manifestly open to fraud it would be laughable, if it wasn't destined to be a repeat of the disasterous amenesty of 1986.

Posted by: Horace | Nov 23, 2007 3:20:43 PM

'an informal apartheid system'

No, but 'formal apartheid system' isn't a bad description of 'guest worker' programs.


'disowns the immigrants who pulled his hard-up city out of a ditch.'

Here we go again. The immigrants as superheroes propaganda. Then the same old failure to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. When they're that biased, editorials are hard to take seriously.

'American citizens should not have to compete for jobs with a desperate population frightened into accepting rock-bottom wages and working conditions.'

No kidding! But the only way to prevent that economic treason is to deter illegal immigration but judging from the constantly anti-enforcement 'articles' and editorials they publish, the NYT, WaPo, etc. are philosophically against immigration law enforcement. Exhibit A: Immigrant Workers Caught in Net Cast for Gangs The article is completely one sided in its sympathy for illegal workers--you know, the ones you give lip service to undercutting American workers. What a joke to publish these two things around the same time. You don't want them undercutting Americans but you don't want them to leave. Ah, you want amnesty for them. Yeah, that will fix everything once and for all. But what about the next generation of illegal workers your softy approach will ensure? Let me guess, another amnesty. And so on. Nice policy. NYT shouldn't even bother with the enforcement lip service because they just look ridiculous.

Posted by: Jack | Nov 25, 2007 6:35:23 PM

Post a comment