Why is the right wing losing the immigration battle? [W:35]

[thinkforyoursel]

First let me qualify which sect of the right wing I'm referring to. I'm talking about those who want immigrants here ....through the existing legal process. I'm not sure how many fit in that category, but it's apparent they are losing the battle.

The left wing is running these .."rag to riches"..stories on the airwaves about the current influx. They talk about this dangerous journey they undertake to get here ...and the feel is that they are somehow...someway ...doing this for Americans? They have this narrative to anybody objecting to this invasion of ...don't you see they undertake a dangerous journey? Much like these stories you watch for an Olympic athlete ...or ...football player who beat the odds and made the team.

I'm not sure how a child walks 1000's miles by themselves to the border, all I can say is ....most of the picture I see those people don't look near desperate to me. They often look like regular Americans, wearing fancy sneakers ...and many of them are often fat.

I see all sorts of Latina groups publicly acting like ambassadors of the country greeting these people and providing everything they need.
I see them getting bus ride to states all over the country ...and nobody stops them.

This is the one fight I wish the right wing could win....and they are losing...losing badly!

With this weak job market ...comprehensive immigration will be here ...and we'll have millions of new people competing for jobs. The dems are on board...and yes the republican congress will also get on board soon.

Why...why do we need millions of people who did nothing but broke the law getting here?
How did the right allow the left to brow-beat them into submission that a phrase like ..."illegal-immigrant"...is almost like saying the ""N-word"?

I remembered when the people in Haiti were truly having problems in their country and were literally fleeing for their lives in boats...how swiftly American acted to then enforce the existing laws. I also remember the deafening voices from the Latino community...no Laraza-groups then going out there to greet these people.
I look at Al Sharpton, and many other so-called black leaders ... advocating for this influx of Latino illegals ...and at the same time talking about black unemployment....and I just laugh!

What galls me is the fact that while a Mexican is running across the US boarder expecting to be embraced by the country ...that same guy/gal...at the same moment...feels their country should castrate any of their neighbors invading Mexico!


If I was a betting man..I'd say the fall out from all of this is such:

1) The current wave will keep coming and their bet will pay off...they will get to stay in America...their kids will be schooled by the tax-payers...they'll get free health care and government stipends! And when they are firmly on their feet, they'll start saying how lazy black people are.

2) The people already here ...some for decades ...will get comprehensive immigration and the republican party will contribute to that effort.

3) 10 years later ...we'll rinse and repeat the same thing again!

 

[CalGun]

The immigration battle will end. It will eventually solve itself it's just some time off yet. When the left in America has enabled / entitled enough of the worlds poor to consume what America gives them and there is nothing left our nation will be no better then a current third world nation the issue will be resolved. While America enjoys a better life style others will come to take it, and the left and as you noted some on the right don't care.

It's ok we can escape to Canada ... They got an open border too.

 

[joG]

Thousands drown in the Mediterranean over here. The ones that get through are concentrated in camps processed and sent back to try again unless they must fear political persecution at home.

 

[Bob N]

Why...why do we need millions of people who did nothing but broke the law getting here?
How did the right allow the left to brow-beat them into submission that a phrase like ..."illegal-immigrant"...is almost like saying the ""N-word"?

It's a vote getter for either side, that's why. :shrug:

 

[Paschendale]

I'm not sure how a child walks 1000's miles by themselves to the border, all I can say is ....most of the picture I see those people don't look near desperate to me. They often look like regular Americans, wearing fancy sneakers ...and many of them are often fat.

It's really creepy to me just how poor and how miserable some people think that those in need have to be in order to warrant some assistance. Like someone is fine so long as they don't look like they just walked out of a newly liberated Auschwitz. That's a bizarre standard they have.

 

[TobyOne]

I don't think the right are losing the battle. I would agree if immigration amnesty is passed. But it doesn't look like that will happen.

The left, as usual, is loud and calling everyone that disagrees with them racist or whatever. Par for the course and I think they've gone to that well too many times.

One thing the left (specifically the media) does well is conflate immigration with illegal immigration. True, there are some xenophobes who don't want *any* immigration but I would say 95% support legal immigration and its misleading for the media to refer to those who oppose illegal immigration as anti-immigrant.

 

[Henrin]

You would think that the democrats would be very interested in keeping the border under control. The protection of the territorial borders is important for a state to control, not because allowing people in the country is bad, but because at least in part the ability for a government to control their borders is important for them to maintain power. If borders are not protected the state is opening itself up to considerable risk.

Once the state declares in any sort of fashion their immigration laws are of no real importance they weaken themselves considerably. I understand democratic voters don't get this, but I find it hard to imagine those in office don't understand it.

 

[Montecresto]

You would think that the democrats would be very interested in keeping the border under control. The protection of the territorial borders is important for a state to control, not because allowing people in the country is bad, but because at least in part the ability for a government to control their borders is important for them to maintain power. If borders are not protected the state is opening itself up to considerable risk.

Once the state declares in any sort of fashion their immigration laws are of no real importance they weaken themselves considerably. I understand democratic voters don't get this, but I find it hard to imagine those in office don't understand it.

Just to recap, our border has never been secured!

 

[clownboy]

Just to recap, our border has never been secured!

That's just not true. We go through periods of varying effectiveness of security on the borders. Do illegals still sneak through, yes. But this isn't one of those all or nothing things, we catch and deport.

The border has never been locked, you may be confusing that with being secured.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

That's just not true. We go through periods of varying effectiveness of security on the borders. Do illegals still sneak through, yes. But this isn't one of those all or nothing things, we catch and deport.

The border has never been locked, you may be confusing that with being secured.

Ever since the end of the Mexican War, most of the southern land border has been basically porous. The US has never much cared, as it represents a source of cheap labor, and Mexico is more than happy to deal with its staggering poverty issues by sending its peasants north.

 

[Henrin]

Just to recap, our border has never been secured!

A democratic representative that does not hold true to enforcing immigration laws is a very strange thing to me. We are not talking of libertarians that might support free travel and have a philosophy that is in line with that view, but individuals that are more than likely either liberals, progressives or socialists and all of those views of government depend on maintaining control of the people. You can not just have people coming and going without the government knowing about it under their system. This whole situation is just strange because it is actually in opposition to some very cold realities of what is necessary under their system.

 

[Montecresto]

A democratic representative that does not hold true to enforcing immigration laws is a very strange thing to me. We are not talking of libertarians that might support free travel and have a philosophy that is in line with that view, but individuals that are more than likely either liberals, progressives or socialists and all of those views of government depend on maintaining control of the people. You can not just have people coming and going without the government knowing about it under their system. This whole situation is just strange because it is actually in opposition to some very cold realities of what is necessary under their system.

Not sure I get your point. Are you suggesting that our unsecured borders are all the fault of democrats as well?

 

[Montecresto]

Ever since the end of the Mexican War, most of the southern land border has been basically porous. The US has never much cared, as it represents a source of cheap labor, and Mexico is more than happy to deal with its staggering poverty issues by sending its peasants north.

Yep, it's that simple. But the partisans want to make this a left right thing like everything else.

 

[Raven1]

We are not talking of libertarians that might support free travel and have a philosophy that is in line with that view, but individuals that are more than likely either liberals, progressives or socialists and all of those views of government depend on maintaining control of the people.

That's an interesting statement. Would you like to quantify your party's stance on open borders? Because last I checked, Libertarians are ALL FOR illegal immigration and open borders. Want to reconsider your party affiliation?

 

[Montecresto]

That's just not true. We go through periods of varying effectiveness of security on the borders. Do illegals still sneak through, yes. But this isn't one of those all or nothing things, we catch and deport.

The border has never been locked, you may be confusing that with being secured.

Any amount of enforcement has been window dressing by both parties to create an illusion. Big business has NO use for secure borders and you'll never see them secure because of it.

 

[Raven1]

Any amount of enforcement has been window dressing by both parties to create an illusion. Big business has NO use for secure borders and you'll never see them secure because of it.

President Obama offered a hand, but those "border-guarding" Republicans refused it. Why do you suppose that is?

Rick Perry sent about 1000 Texas national guard down there, but we've been screaming at him to do something for the 14 years he's been in office. Why do you suppose he is doing something now? Couldn't be that little plan he has to run for the Whitehouse, would it?

 

[Henrin]

That's an interesting statement. Would you like to quantify your party's stance on open borders? Because last I checked, Libertarians are ALL FOR illegal immigration and open borders. Want to reconsider your party affiliation?

I do not belong to any sort of party. I'm a libertarian, not Libertarian party member.

 

[Henrin]

Not sure I get your point. Are you suggesting that our unsecured borders are all the fault of democrats as well?

Absolutely, but their support of making citizens of people that ignored their laws is a very strange one. On one hand they need the voting block, but on the other, they are undermining their ideology by ignoring the need for strong border controls.

 

[Raven1]

I do not belong to any sort of party. I'm a libertarian, not Libertarian party member.

Ok, my mistake. But riddle me this, what is YOUR stance on illegal immigration, and just for clarification, what is your stance on free trade, and sending jobs overseas? How does your Libertarian Party's platform match up now?

 

[TobyOne]

Can't be a nanny state without someone to nanny. Liberals luv luv luv their immigrants.

A democratic representative that does not hold true to enforcing immigration laws is a very strange thing to me. We are not talking of libertarians that might support free travel and have a philosophy that is in line with that view, but individuals that are more than likely either liberals, progressives or socialists and all of those views of government depend on maintaining control of the people. You can not just have people coming and going without the government knowing about it under their system. This whole situation is just strange because it is actually in opposition to some very cold realities of what is necessary under their system.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Can't be a nanny state without someone to nanny. Liberals luv luv luv their immigrants.

Can't be a "free-market" employer without someone to exploit. Conservatives luv 'em, too.[/QUOTE]

 

[TobyOne]

Conservatives support e-verify which will force companies to only hire legal immigrants eligible to work. The democrats killed e-verify in the Porkulous bill of 2008. And that only mandated e-verify for companies taking government money.

Can't be a "free-market" employer without someone to exploit. Conservatives luv 'em, too.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Henrin]

Can't be a "free-market" employer without someone to exploit. Conservatives luv 'em, too.

I'm not exactly sure how hiring someone and providing them a way to support themselves is exploiting them.

 

[Montecresto]

Absolutely, but their support of making citizens of people that ignored their laws is a very strange one. On one hand they need the voting block, but on the other, they are undermining their ideology by ignoring the need for strong border controls.

The border has been porous, unsecured with illegals coming through for decades, 15-20 million maybe now, this is a systemic problem, not a Democratic Party problem.

 

[Henrin]

Ok, my mistake. But riddle me this, what is YOUR stance on illegal immigration, and just for clarification, what is your stance on free trade, and sending jobs overseas? How does your Libertarian Party's platform match up now?

Illegal Immigration - All of us have the right to free travel and to move, interact, and business with anyone that is otherwise willing to do so. For example, If I can buy a home in the US because someone desires to sell me one there is no reason I should not be permitted to do so nor should I be stopped from moving in that house regardless of where I am coming from. Therefore, all laws that declare someone illegal is a violation of the peoples rights.

Free Trade- I don't believe the state should intervene in the transactions of goods and services of the citizens of the world. I think the idea of free trade agreements are absurdities of the highest order as they come from the position that the government is in charge over who we do business with.

Sending Jobs overseas- All of us have the right to trade and do business with whomever we are capable of trading with using our own resources, and for that reason I have no problem with a business going overseas and finding a better deal for labor, much like I would have no problem with any other citizen going overseas to find a better deal on whatever they desire to acquire.

I really have no idea how those views compare to the Libertarian parties views on the issues.