Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on the Party

A lot of people spent a great deal of time both before and after the November 2006 midterm electiosn noting the very real possibility that the Republicans' overtly anti-immigrant rhetoric would come back to bite them in the behind eventually. Indeed, while Democratic House candidates carried the Latino vote, as defined by exit polling, but just a 55 percent to 44 percent margin, Democratic candidates in 2006 won over that same population by a significantly greater 69 percent to 30 percent margin in 2006. And judging by new USA Today polling conducted by Gallup, it appears that 2006 might not in fact have been a low water mark for Republicans.

According to poll of 502 Hispanics in the field from June 2 through 24, President Bush's approval rating among this population is 29 percent -- low, but not significantly lower than the 32 percent showing Bush puts up among all Americans in Gallup polling. However, when we move from topline results on down to some more internals from the poll, the problems for the Republicans become more clear.

The Gallup survey indicates that 42 percent of Hispanics self-identify as Democrats while a mere 11 percent self-identify as Republican; 39 percent self-identify as Independent. When Independents were asked towards which party, if either, they lean, the Democrats' numbers go up to 58 percent among Hispanics while the Republicans' climb to just 20 percent -- a remarkable spread. When polling one potential head-to-head contest, that between the Republican Rudy Giuliani and the Democrat Hillary Clinton (who by far garners the greatest support among Hispanics in a Democratic primary, though that could be a facet of her significantly higher name recognition), Clinton leads 66 percent to 27 percent -- a far greater margin than the 50 percent to 45 percent spread by which she leads Giuliani among all Americans.

The inability to pass legislation creating a path towards legalization for those currently here illegally could hurt the Democrats, decreasing their potential gains among Hispanic voters. But at the same time, the very loud nativism of congressional Republicans certainly is not popular among Hispanics. So there is still, I do believe, an opportunity to build on the gains of the last cycle this year to help build an even larger coalition of support for both a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

And by the way... The fact that the Republican presidential candidates opted to snub a major conference of Hispanic leaders isn't going to do much to reverse this trend.

Tags: Hispanics, immigration, nativism, Republicans (all tags)



outside of cubans

I think the hispanic vote may start to resemble the afircan american vote starting in this years presidential cycle, Bush atleast made an attempt to communicate with them to get thier votes and they appreciated it, now the rest of the GOP says screw em.

by nevadadem 2007-06-28 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

I don't think not passing the immigration bill will hurt us with hispanics...  It was the overtly racist "call to action" that will be seen as killing the bill, and the more Republicans rail against brown people, the more hispanic votes they will lose.

The bill was flawed in many ways... I asked my senators to vote against it... not because of the illegal immigration part, but the temporary guest worker programs would be devastating giveaways to big business.

Personally, I am somewhat afraid for my daughter... she's adopted from Guatemala, and I know that the incredible hate Republicans have for "illegals" extends, really, to all hispanics...  

I just feel terrible that she will probably have to endure harassment and prejudice from many in the public as a result of the GOP's new racism.  I worry for her safety.  If democrats increase their clout in politics, we will probably see an increase in right-wing violence.



by lordmikethegreat 2007-06-28 07:28PM | 0 recs
Piecemeal legislation and keeping the issue alive.

This bill was not good, though better than what we have now; and the mistake was to pander too much to those who are basically against imm. reform (and against imms).

The best approach is to simplify things, and pass piecemeal legislation instead of a comprehensive reform; build momentum. For example, the vast majority of Americans--especially the ones who have closely known imms--favor a legalization for those who have been here in the US for many years (have roots in the community) and have stayed out of trouble.

The Dems need to try harder, and not be afraid to take on the small but very loud minority. Some positive legislation can pass before the next election, and even though it won't solve the entire problem, it'll open the path.

The issue should remain hot, used against the GOP, and help create solid blocks of supporters for the Dems--as in the past when the Dem party brought into the process the Irish, Italians, etc.

by Andros 2007-06-28 07:53PM | 0 recs

I had created a diary on this crucial issue from the Clinton perspective earlier today: 15/947

by georgep 2007-06-28 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

Enough with the name calling.

Those of use concerned about illegal immigration are not "anti-brown." If it were 12 million illegal Germans, I would feel exactly the same way.

I am a liberal Democrat who feels very strongly that illegal immigration is hurting the working class of this country.

40% of working-age black men are unemployed.

Real wages are down to historic levels. Illegal immigration is at an all time high. Coincidence? I think not.

No wonder so many working Americans are voting Republican. The Left no longer speaks for American workers first.

It's outsourcing jobs -- inside our borders.

by JFK464 2007-06-28 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

So your solution is to round up 12 to 20 Million people and throw them out of the country in a Gestapo-style door-to-door search?   Wouldn't it make more sense to get them to become legitimate, pay income taxes, etc.?   You can tighten the borders, but to deal with the Illegal Immigrants that are already over here in any other way but to offer them some type of integration is not only short-sighted, but also keeps the problem exactly where it is today.    

by georgep 2007-06-28 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

Oh, and you are wrong about "working Americans."  They have left the Republicans in hordes and spades.  

by georgep 2007-06-28 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

I accept Frank's premise in What's the Kansas? that working Americans are voting their values because the Democrats rarely speak of economic justice and  championed NAFTA, and other corporate-friendly positions.

Even Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research showed that Democrats only supported the amnesty bill by 47 - 47 (June 19, 2007.

I listened carefully to the internal Republican debate (Hugh Hewitt, Robert Novak, Bill Buckley, WSJ, Senator Graham & Rep. Tancredo, David Brooks) . I disagree that we're o.k. but they are racist, xenophobes, etc. Their views are diverse and thoughtful, and I never heard a hint of racism. It lowers the debate to make that accusation without foundation, and I believe it alienates those with genuine concern about this important issue which has profound economic implications.

by JFK464 2007-06-29 05:26AM | 0 recs
The left still speaks for workers

If you ask liberals and progressives what the major problems with this bill were, they point to a lack of provisions to protect unionization and to the "guest worker program" which is a euphemistic way of saying cheap exploitable labor for business. Immigrants who come to this country legally or illegally come to in the search of a better life. They come in search of the American Dream. Once an "illegal immigrant" crosses the border have a lower crime rate than US citizens.

If you are concerned about workers wages work for a living wage in this country work to make sure that workers have the right to unionize without company interference. If you are concerned about illegal behavior, talk about illegal employers who exploit undocumented workers, paying them in many cases lower than the minimum wage so they don't have to employ someone who has US citizenship and can't be exploited quite so egregiously. Illegal company exploitation of all workers is what drives down wages, whether it is paying an undocumented worker less than the minimum wage or busting unions. Work to put an end to both of these illegal business practices.

The original post wasn't referring to you. It is talking about the large block of the Republican Party that just doesn't like immigrants on spec and uses the terms "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" to invoke the xenophobia of their supporters so they'll vote Republican. The original post was talking about the portion of the Republican Party that scapegoats immigrants and gays for all of America's problems. You have legitimate concerns that workers aren't being paid a living wage and that immigration suppresses wages. These are legitimate concerns, however, I would suggest that immigrants are not the problem, are not going anywhere, and that everyone's wages will be lower and more people will be out of a job so long as illegal employers can pay someone below the minimum wage, let alone the poverty line. This and union busting is what suppresses wages and forces people to work two, three jobs to support their families. You care about the same labor issues that many progressive immigration activists care about. You should make common cause with them.

By the way, you may not make the distinction between Germans and Hispanics, but the Republican Party sure as hell does. It is also worth noting that German immigrants faced the same American xenophobia in all it's force during WWII. And it is the right that is outsourcing jobs within the United States. Just ask the mechanics union for Northwest. Northwest has "outsourced" a lot of it's mechanical work to other Americans who are paid less for the same job because they are not unionized.

by Progressive American Patriot 2007-06-28 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The left still speaks for workers

You should note that the burden of wartime internment fell far more heavily on Asians, the Japanese, than Germans.  Note also that the USAAC consistently refused, under considerable pressure from Britain, to pattern or night bomb German civilians in Europe but had no such scruples against bombing Japan's urban areas mercilessly.  Over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in one night raid on Tokyo.  Incidentally it was our great USAF Cold Warrior General Curtiss LeMay who was the architect of this campaign.

There is a case for making a distinction in past US attitudes and actions on the basis of race rather than culture.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-28 10:08PM | 0 recs
Agreed, however, the person I was responding to

made a comment about not caring whether it was Germans or Hispanics, so I used the case of German immigrants. Your point, nonetheless, is well taken.

by Progressive American Patriot 2007-06-28 10:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed, however, the person I was responding t

Yeah, sorry, it is one of my hobby horses.  The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 make pretty sobering reading and the Alien Enemies Act is still law today, it was under the provisions of this Act the internment was executed.  Not to mention the Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act) which basically forbade Asian immigration altogether and was passed in spite of Wilson's repeated vetoes.  Provisions of this act were not entirely repealed until 1952.  Contemporary US labour leaders and organisations basically supported these laws, sometimes quite determinedly.

I think sometimes we tend to romanticise our past history in respect of racial equality.  We have had a long hard struggle to get where we are now.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-28 11:02PM | 0 recs

Your understanding of history is pretty confused.

We bombed Tokyo on ONE raid.  Why did Gen Doolittle do that?  To show that we could.

Additionally, we did not need to bomb German cities.  That was the job of the British.  You may wish to explore the noted case of the Dresden firebombing - have you ever heard of it?

I suggest that you immediately read the Kershaw Hitler biography.  In it, Hitler rails at Goring over and over and over about the inability of the Luftwaffe to protect German cities.

The notion that our bombing choices in WWII were made due to racism is the stupidest thing I've read all morning.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 07:20AM | 0 recs
Incorrect number

Note that my statement of "one raid" was certainly incorrect.  However, the rest of my comments were accurate.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

The RAF intended to bomb by daylight, against strategic military targets, as was conventional military wisdom at the time.  After a series of costly raids in 1940 the RAF abandoned daylight bombing and commenced a campaign under Harris to bomb urban areas and these increased in scale throughout the war.  When the US entered the war the USAAF refused to night bomb German cities and insisted on daylight 'precision' raids against  targets like the ball bearing plants at Schweinfurt.  As any 8th Air Force veteran could tell you these raids were very costly.  There were ultimately 40 US heavy bomber groups in Europe and the closest they came to 'terror' bombing, as it was called back then, was to perform the daylight component of round-the-clock missions to German cities which were devastated by RAF incendiary raids overnight.  Hamburg, Kassel, Dresden, Mainz and other urban centres were attacked but the USAAC persisted in identifying targets which could be rationalised as military and bombing them by day.

USAAF leaders firmly held to the claim of "precision" bombing of military targets for much of the war, and energetically refuted claims that they were simply bombing cities. In reality, the day bombing was "precision bombing" only in the sense that most bombs fell somewhere near a specific designated target such as a railway yard, whereas the night bombing campaign targeted cities with area bombardment.

Wikipedia - Strategic bombing during World War II

In Japan however:

Much of the armor and defensive weaponry of the bombers was removed to allow increased bomb loads; Japanese air defense in terms of night-fighters and anti-aircraft guns was so feeble it was hardly a risk. The first raid of this type on Tokyo was on the night of February 23-24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s raided on the night of March 9-10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. It was the most destructive conventional raid in all of history.

Wikipedia - Strategic bombing during World War II

You will nowhere find a statement in print that this was a consequence of a racial distinction but you should consider the prevailing climate of opinion towards Japan at the time.  Skulls of Japanese war dead were sent home by US servicemen as souvenirs, I have never heard of and can't imagine a similar treatment of German war remains.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-29 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

"Real wages are down to historic levels. Illegal immigration is at an all time high. Coincidence? I think not."

Actually, it pretty much is a cooincidence.  It's true that illegal immigrants have an impact on wages, but only among high school dropouts, and at worst - only by 3.6%.  Lou Dobbs might like to pretend that the economy is some zero sum game, but that's a totally facile view of economics. ss/yourmoney/16view.html?ex=1302840000&a mp;en=37239528fc85a76c&ei=5090&p artner=rssuserland&emc=rss

If we want to raise the income of this portion of our society, the solution is to raise the minimum wage, increase the earned income tax credit, pass single payer health care, pass the EFCA.  Kicking out illegal immigrants would cause, at best, a marginal improvement in their wages, at the same time as hurting our economy considerably (i.e. decreasing everyone else's wages) and - more importantly for anyone who gives a shit about social justice - seriously fucking over said illegal immigrants.

I'm proud of the Democratic Party standing up against the demagogues and hate mongers in our society, and for the most oppressed.

by Ramo 2007-06-29 07:05AM | 0 recs
Lou Dobbs has a lot of good ideas

There are many on the left who support him.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Lou Dobbs has a lot of good ideas

I certainly am not one of them.

by Ramo 2007-06-29 07:53AM | 0 recs
I agree

The true progressive view is to support the individual against the corporation.  I support American workers, and oppose the corporate-driven flooding of our work force by huge numbers of illegal aliens.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

40% of working-age black men are unemployed.

The 40% is both false and misleading.  It's an exaggeration of the combined labor force non-participation rate minus the unemployment rate, which was 26.2% for white males and 35.2% for black males in May, the latest month for which data is currently available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  It did reach 40% at one time--back in December of 1982.  While the black rate is substantially higher, it has always been so, and cannot generally be blamed on illegal immigration.

Black statistics have only been tracked since 1972.  The low point of 25.6% was reached in December of 1973.  The oil shocks, recessions, and de-industrialization of the 70s and early 80s are clearly the prime culprits here--on top of the legacy of racism, of course--from which the black population has never recovered.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-06-29 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

Perhaps 40% is wrong. Sorry, it's 35.2%. That's accpetable?

Let's enforce our laws. Crack down on employers.

What are we telling the poor and the hopeless when we legalize millions? Your cares are not our concern?

I know one guy who worked as a carpernter in Denver. He made $40,000 per year. He's now making $11 an hour at Home Depot (plus benefits). He said he couldn't compete with illegal immigrants. His old job now pays $9/per hour. This fine with all of you?

Maybe the Republicans are right. Put down your lattes and think about who we are really supposed to represent.

I think some on the Left have fallen into a knee-jerk reaction (as shown with that idiotic comment about bombing the Japanese) that "White = bad, Brown = good." It's reductive and unhelpful. Let's focus on the pure economics of the problem.

It seems to be OK for some that a high school drop outs earns "only" 3.5% less because of illegal immigration. That's a crime, a shame, only something someone who has never worked with his hands could say.

by JFK464 2007-06-29 09:00AM | 0 recs
First on the farms, then in construction

We saw, from 1975 to now, the shift in illegals from farm labor to construction.  This ended the careers of many in this country.  I agree with the comment above - we don't want illegals taking jobs that Americans should have.  Why should an illegal alien get a job that an American could take?  That's the least progressive thing possible - putting Americans into poverty, taking good jobs away and enriching corporations.

Support for illegal immigration is NOT progressive.  It's corporatist.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already

You are on the money.

IF ALL the illegals were doing were picking grapes and vegetables and mowing lawns, maybe they wouldn't be a threat.



CONSTRUCTION was one place where a high-school educated man could earn a GOOD LIVING, buy a home, raise a family, with pride. It was hard work, but it didn't strip a man of his pride.


They are GUTTING the wages in CONSTRUCTION.

But, the 'Progressives' on this board just don't seem to understand that.

Yes, I'm a Lou Dobbs Democrat and proud of it, because some of you are so elitist and out to lunch on this board.

by rikyrah 2007-06-29 09:33AM | 0 recs
You're Still Ignoring My Point

Our country's economic woes date back to the 1970s and 80s.  This predates the massive influx of immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

I'll take you seriously when you begin to talk about industrial policy, and rolling back neo-liberalism--repealing NAFTA, just for starters. Until then, you are simply arguing for one group of victims over another.  And that's just fighting over crumbs.

And FYI, not only have I worked with my hands. I spent a whole summer picking fruit, with an almost all-Mexican crew.  Tree fruit, of course. There was no way I could have lasted doing stoop labor.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-06-29 10:32AM | 0 recs
This is serious business

Actually, I did bring up NAFTA in a previous comment.

In my recent corporate experience, for instance, we were directed to hire staff at 'limited part-time' so that we would not be required to offer benefits. This was at time when our shareholders were getting dividends.

I had over 40 illegal immigrants on my staff. Good people, on the whole, but no more industrious that our American employees.  These illegal immigrants did not come here for the American dream, as someone said earlier. Citizenship was not the goal, they often told me. Love of the U.S.A. was not the motivator. They were only here to work and send money home and to eventually return. I was told this on many occasions. I heard a few of them make racist comments about African Americans, and derogatory comments about the good Ol' U.S.A. I was told more than once that Angelos are "jotos" (homosexuals).  So let's not pretend that the immigrant experience is totally benign. If it were, then there wouldn't have developed a culture that encourages law-breaking (border-hopping), outlaw culture (narco-corridos music AKA drug stories (often true stories). Have you heard the band Exterminador's song about shooting a Denver policeman who wanted to look for drugs in their gold SUV? classic!), forging documents, and lying to employers. And how about those Mexican flags being flown at the marches in `06? How about the chants of "go back to Europe (or Africa)"? How about the Chicanos whose credit has been destroyed by identity theft?

My boss loved them though: we'd start them at $7 an hour -- even though our starting wage was normally $9/hour. (And my boss said that the Mexican didn't scare the customers like blacks did).

And one more thing: the school where I'm to send my daughter was racially mixed (about 30% white, 30% black, and 30% Chicano) five years ago. It's now 95% Spanish-only speakers. Will she get a good education? Do you care? Did my great uncle die in the Hurtgen Forest so that we could off-set American workers with foriegn labor?

Why don't you answer this point?

by JFK464 2007-06-29 11:53AM | 0 recs
The More You Talk, The More You Hurt Your Case n/t

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-06-29 04:57PM | 0 recs
His points make sense

What's your issue with them?

There are as many racists in the illegal population as in the American population.

by dataguy 2007-06-30 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already

I think that it was a good thing- the defeat of this Immigration Sham.

I was against it completely. You can call me any name you want, but I'm a Democrat, and this Immigration Bill was nothing but a rewarding of criminals and corporations - plain and simple. I'm glad it went down to defeat.

by rikyrah 2007-06-28 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

If we want the Latino vote, then we can get the Latino vote. All we have to do is remind this ADD nation that America is all about immigrants. We thrive on them, we're made of them, and we need them.

I am sure many of you are aware of the problem in Europe and Japan. They don't have enough immigrants! Their social welfare system is breaking down because well-to-do citizens have less kids and the replacement rate is falling off. Not enough people pay into the system, retirees live longer, and eventually welfare dollars run out (sound familiar?).

Besides, all this talk of nativism, building walls, quintupling the border patrol, and them "takin' our jobs" is simply ridiculous - and not representative of the values of this nation. If people are worried about America losing jobs, then don't blame the immigrants (who are only following market forces), blame the corporations that make the decision to transfer thousands of jobs overseas. Or blame this administration and its insane aversion to science and technology - which has crippled our competitiveness for a generation. Or blame the employers, who have no problem hiring immigrants for very low (or illegally low) wages. But don't blame immigrants. We gave them NAFTA. We owe them.    

by LandStander 2007-06-28 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

Agreed.  Democrats have work to do though.  We have to reform our message about immigration, produce a better bill, and find a way to break the ideas down and convincevoters of it's worth.  

by Melissa Ryan 2007-06-29 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Nativism Already Taking its Toll on

Yes, and we should do this after 2008. I think our chances of passing a decent bill will be better then.

by LandStander 2007-06-29 07:45AM | 0 recs
You aren't following very closely

We who oppose the increases in H-1Bs ARE trying to restrict hiring by corporations.  That's the whole point - we cannot increase the number of H-1Bs, because that will increase the number of scabs from abroad who are undercutting the market.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You aren't following very closely

Honestly, I am more concerned with low-income, low-skill workers (both immigrant and domestic) than I am with high-skilled workers. I was not speaking to the H-1B issues, but rather to the general sense of xenophobia and nativism that is evidenced by many on the Right (and a surprising amount on the Left).

And "scabs" are strike-busters - not some engineer from Egypt who comes to work for Yahoo.

by LandStander 2007-06-29 07:51AM | 0 recs

I totally totally disagree.  We owe NO ONE but OUR OWN CITIZENS.  We must take care of OUR OWN low-wage, low-skilled citizens.

There are not enough jobs in this country to take care of the whole world.  We owe our own a job, and we OWE NOTHING to aliens.  NOTHING.


by dataguy 2007-06-29 07:12AM | 0 recs

You're really drinking the Kool-Aid, aren't you? The unemployment rate in this country is VERY LOW compared to other industrialized countries. Our problem isn't that we need more jobs, it's that we need better paying jobs that are more secure and offer better benefits. Employers throughout this country have resorted to cutting hours, cutting benefits, using temps and part-time workers to fill their staffs, and other strategies that undermine the working and middle classes. Combine that with a weak labor movement and you have the problem at hand.

Besides, where is the fucking crisis? Illegal immigration has been a problem for DECADES - and we are supposed to believe that right now, right at this moment, it has become a critical problem? Now we are supposed to freak out and get upset, and build walls and deport millions of people? Bullshit. Immigration (legal and otherwise) has been a component of this society since day one, and it has only made us a stronger, better nation.

by LandStander 2007-06-29 07:43AM | 0 recs
Do you REALLY believe

those unemployment figures?  Wow.  I sure do not.  They are cooked 6 ways from Sunday. They do not include "discouraged" workers.  They do not count "underemployed" workers. Here's an example of an underemployed worker:  a college kid working as a barrista because some engineer scab from Egypt has taken a job at Google that the US kid is qualified for.

I have advocated for years that Democrats get their own unemployement figures, because the current unemployment figures are totally bogus.

You are just totally ignorant.  In 1986, we revised the immigration system (not "decades").  At that time, we had 2-3 million, and after revision, we have 10-12 million.  That's what would happen again.  We revise the system, and will get more illegals.  So, what's the hurry at revising?

by dataguy 2007-06-29 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you REALLY believe

They do not include "discouraged" workers.  They do not count "underemployed" workers.

I mention in my last post the issue of job insecurity, lack of benefits and low pay. I also mention the use of temp and part-time workers. So, I feel I was addressing this issue. Immigrants don't cause this problem, employers do. Employers who don't care about their employees, employers that aren't mandated by the government to take care of their employees, employers that pay below-market wages to illegal immigrants, employers who are no longer threatened by organized labor... etc, etc.

a college kid working as a barrista because some engineer scab from Egypt has taken a job at Google that the US kid is qualified for.

I am not as concerned with the 'high-end' issue of immigration. It seems like a totally separate issue to me. Poor immigrants are not risking life and limb to cross the border, and then taking jobs at Google or Yahoo. Two entirely different classes of immigrants. It's ridiculous we are even grouping these issues together in the same bill.

I have advocated for years that Democrats get their own unemployement figures, because the current unemployment figures are totally bogus.

This is a good idea.

You are just totally ignorant.

Fuck off.

In 1986, we revised the immigration system (not "decades").

I didn't argue that there had been no immigration-related legislation passed for decades. I said that illegal immigration has been a problem for decades. We only get worked up about it when our Dear Leaders start throwing hissy fits.

We revise the system, and will get more illegals.

So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. What is your solution to this problem?

by LandStander 2007-06-29 08:19AM | 0 recs
My solution

has been posted at the end of the posts for several hours.  It involves re-jiggering legal immigration quotas.  We need to ensure that immigration can continue, and that it is properly regulated.  Unrestricted illegal immigration is good for no one.  Restricted, regulated, legal immigration is the essense of the American system.  We also need to work on the functioning of the system.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: My solution

We already have a legal immigration system. And yes, maybe we should rework it. I can agree with that.

But what about illegal immgration? What do we do about that? That, to me, is the problem at hand.

by LandStander 2007-06-29 08:28AM | 0 recs
Do you read your own stuff

"The unemployment rate in this country is VERY LOW compared to other industrialized countries. Our problem isn't that we need more jobs, it's that we need better paying jobs that are more secure and offer better benefits.  Employers throughout this country have resorted to cutting hours, cutting benefits, using temps and part-time workers to fill their staffs, and other strategies that undermine the working and middle classes."

If we had such a low unemployment rate, how could they get anyone to fill these crap jobs?  On the other hand, if the unemployment rate is totally bogus, all the conditions which you state can all happen at once, since the unemployment rate is unconnected with reality, which is the case.

Since 2000, our unemployment rate has seldom been over 5 %.  Yet, no one is making any money.  

I suggest that you study up on economics.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you read your own stuff

Give me a break. No, the unemployment rate is not so low that workers have a bargaining advantage. I brought up low unemployment numbers because, as most people don't know, many other developed nations get by Just Fine with far higher unemployment rates. My criticism is against this "sky is falling" mentality that you seem so eager to embrace.

by LandStander 2007-06-29 08:26AM | 0 recs

We don't owe them JACK.

Go to the Black Community - ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY, and start yapping about our ' low' unemployment rate.

by rikyrah 2007-06-29 09:34AM | 0 recs

You think canceling NAFTA and building a wall will bring more jobs to black Americans? I think there are different reasons that black Americans have a higher unemployment rate than Americans in general. (I don't know as a fact that they DO have a higher unemployment rate, but I imagine it is true)

by LandStander 2007-06-30 05:14PM | 0 recs
H-1Bs included

in the BLS stats.  The government has no idea how many H-1Bs are in the country but the good estimates are ~400k.  Do you know there are only 160k jobs created in STEM each year?  

Add it up, and see why professionals getting labor arbitraged is a major middle class economic issue.

Also, "employment stats" ....let's look at US diversity shall we?  How about the actual legal Hispanic unemployment rate and let's look at the Black unemployment rate...let's look at disabled, older workers...

What about America?  What about Americans?  Where are the priorities here?

by Robert Oak 2007-06-29 11:28AM | 0 recs
Lying about unemployment rates

The unemployment rate in this country is VERY LOW compared to other industrialized countries.

Sorry, but our government lies about the statistics, amazing as that might seem.  They use the U3 rate which is guaranteed to leave out almost all the unemployed, except those who were laid off very recently. The U6 rate, which is a bit closer to workers' lived reality, is typically almost twice as high, and looking at those "not in the labor force" (those who ought to have a job, but don't, is about a third of us, which is about like Europe.

And every immigrant, legal or illegal, permanent or temporary, is taking a job that would have gone to an American if our owners (the folks who buy and sell Congress) were not allowed to get away with it.

by numen 2007-06-29 04:36PM | 0 recs
Here in Illinois

a Republican State House member from suburban Chicago recently switched parties, in part because of the inflammatory racial rhetoric used in the McSweeney campaign against Melissa Bean and in Roskam's campaign.

He also wrote, early in 2007, an OpEd in the Trib, begging his party to become more racially progressive.  It was widely panned by the far right. But, this legislator is actually to the left of a lot of white Democrats in Illinois on racial issues.  OK, so he's still largely republican on most other issues, except for environment, but its a sign that the Republicans are cracking in places besides Kansas under the pressure of extremist rhetoric.

So, a week ago he jumped ship.  The very immediate effects of what he termed "racial demagoguery" by the national party.

by JJCPA 2007-06-29 05:20AM | 0 recs
A feasible democratic solution

The problem appears to be inadequate numbers of normal channel admission tickets.

Let's get a Democratic working group to visit the issue of "How large should immigration be?  What countries need alterations in their quotas?"

We need to make the message clear:

1) Democrats do not support illegal immigration.

2) Democrats support and welcome immigrants who are legal.

3) Democrats support American working people.

by dataguy 2007-06-29 07:08AM | 0 recs
Honestly I'm disappointed in our party on this issue, I don't feel we should sell out for the sole purpose of getting the Hispanic vote.  I want a democrat to stand up and say our borders are porous and if it takes militarizing them in order to tighten them up, so be it.  I want a democrat to say that any Illegal caught breaking the law (in addition to the one they are already breaking) should be and will be DEPORTED, DEPORTED, DEPORTED.  Don't give me this crap about how hard it would be, how come if I have an overdue parking ticket, police have no trouble finding my car in the fifth largest city in America and placing the boot on it or the constable easily finds me and makes me pay up, yet we say we can't find illegals? Give me two minutes and I'll take INS to like 25 hotels and restaurants where their are illegals.  
When it comes to this issue, we don't sound compassionate, we sound like wimps and while we might, MIGHT (i.e. see Bush v. Kerry results) win some hispanic votes, we'll lose independents and working, WORKING, class dems like me.
by Roberto 2007-06-29 09:44AM | 0 recs
This is so wrong I don't know where to begin

1stly, trying to frame this as "either one if for open borders or one is a racist xenophobe" is getting very very old.  Case in point is I went to a town hall meeting and I live in granola land, extreme liberal and you know what all of those liberals were pounding Wyden on?  His continuing votes to approve "comprehensive" immigration bills.  They simply do not want it!  There are many Hispanics who don't want it.  

It represses wages that's just economic reality and for professionals, these bills are loaded, absolutely loaded by corporate lobbyists global labor arbitrage agenda items.

Until someone crafts a bill which puts American workers first, front and center, as well as stops the influx, punishes severely employers...
trying to present this issue as "racist xenophobe"
is simply going to backfire and probably lose the Dem. 2008 election.  

It just isn't that simple and the costs, jobs are one of the key reasons it is not that simple.

by Robert Oak 2007-06-29 11:21AM | 0 recs
Robert Oak

Very well said!

by Roberto 2007-06-29 11:47AM | 0 recs
This is nuts!

This column is nuts.

The roll call, known as a cloture vote, was 46 for and 53 against. Twelve Republicans joined 33 Democrats and an independent in voting to invoke cloture, while 15 Democrats and an independent sided with 37 GOP members in opposing it.

This mean two-thirds of Dem supported it. Three-fourths of Republican opposed it.

All Dem Presidential candidates supported it. All GOP candidates except McCain opposed it.

A new CBS News poll shows only 13% of Americans thought the Senate should pass the bill. The final Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll before the vote found that just 22% of Americans supported the legislation.

So this is a GOP problem that the Dems supported this extremely unpopular bill and (on average)the GOP did not? And that the Dem Presidential candidate supported it and the GOP candidates didn't?

This will be a big campaign issue in 2008,all right.Only 9 of the 34 Senate canndidates up for re-election supported the bill. Why do you think that might be?

by steve007 2007-06-29 01:43PM | 0 recs
This is nuts II

Thank you 007 I thought I was the lone democrat who opposed this.  Like a lot of you I'm on all the candidates mailing lists and phone lists, and when they call for money I tell them I'm not supporting ANY presidential candidate that doesn't come out strong against AMNESTY.  I really believe a democratic candidate that says he or she will tighten the border using the military if necessary, deport aliens who get caught committing crimes and crack down on employers who hire them, could seperate from the pack and win a lot of us moderate democrats who are tired of the same old liberal stuff.

by Roberto 2007-06-29 01:56PM | 0 recs
This is not a Democratic issue

Some dems support.  Many oppose. There is no Democratic position here.

by dataguy 2007-06-30 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: This is not a Democratic issue

That may be true in theory, but the facts are that two-thirds of Dem Senators supported this bill and three-fourths of Republicans opposed it.

All Dem Presidential candidates supported it. All GOP candidates except McCain opposed it.

Seems that the Democrat Party is, shall we say,much more strongly linked to this unpopular bill than the GOP, wouldn't you say? And if this a campaign issue as seems likely, Dems will thus suffer for it. Rightly,in my view.

by steve007 2007-06-30 09:38AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads