The Immigration Issue -the hard questions......

[Didereaux]

Illegals can't vote, and latin-Americans DON'T vote= Democrats LOSE
(Latin-Americans have one of the historically lowest voter turnout rates of any demographic)

It's time for Democrats to face some hard reality. The immigration issue is the only one which can defeat the Democratic Party other than a complete surrender of all muslim extremists.

The immigration stance of the democrats is against 3-Three-3 count 'em three demographics.
1. Americans who see the issue as a strictly Constitutional legal question i.e. it is illegal and therefor the law must be enforced.
2. Americans who see it as a move by large Corporations to hold down wages.
3. American bigots who see it in those terms.

The first two categories make up the vast majority of the majority of American voters who DO NOT agree with any sort of amnesty or other granting of privilege to illegal aliens. This is the group who will determine the outcome of the presidential election. Anyone who disbelieves this is completely ignorant of anything to do with politics in the USA and is merely residing in a fantasy universe of their own wishes.

The third group is relatively unchanging and lacking a third party whacko to vote for can safely counted as republicans.

Congressional candidates are fully aware and are campaigning on exaclty what I have presented. This will result in a Republican president and a very conservative Democratic Congress. Is your idealism worth allowing such a result? Are you another flavor of Naderite, willing to sacrifice all out of spite? These are serious questions that only you can answer.

Knee-jerk reactions to this post will only go toward validating what I have written. I sincerely hope that someone can come up with a logical and factual based argument disproving these contentions, because if they can then there is real hope...but if they cannot, then the progressive stance on illegals will doom the election...and some would argue, the nation. Another republican executive would destroy the last vestiges of what some of us older Americans recall as America.

[AzDar]

1. Here in AZ, there are many whom I am acquainted with who

are fed up with the GOP (seemingly);yet are distrustful of the Dems for their ham-handed attempt at passing Chimpo's god-awful
'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' earlier this year.
It was amnesty, pure and simple, and time after time, the American populace has demonstrated that this is not what they want.
Yet, at their own peril, the Democrats refuse to listen. :shrug:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

5. I think a lot of us can't be pigeonholed in a box

I favor making the immigrants already here legal, although I don't favor blanket amnesty, but ******ONLY****** if that is coupled with true immigration reform. Included in that would be severe penalties for employers hiring illegal immigrants. I just don't support open borders/cheap labor, and I believe in national sovereignty. (Which is why we should get the hell out of Iraq and stay out of Iran.)

[jody]

2. Amnesty for illegal aliens is opposed by the majority of voters in Alabama. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

6. it is opposed by the border states, also. nt

[flashl]

3. Campaigning on immigration is the same as campaigning on crime

hoisting immigrants up as the scapegoats during the greatest heist in American history creates a convenient political tool.

[EFerrari]

4. This polling contridicts your argument.

But, if the Democrats need to scapegoat vulnerable people, there are plenty of them here for that purpose.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2185000&mesg_id=2185000

[Didereaux]

8. I am unclear as to how that poll applies to this issue? n/t

[EFerrari]

9. The level of interest that you posit among Democratic voters

on immigration is contradicted by the polling.

[Didereaux]

10. No, I may have been unclear on the demographics, let me clear that up...

The questions are posed to Democratic voters(I make the presumption most of us on DU are Democrats or Democratic leaning independents). The demographic groups I listed are groups that are contained in all eligible American voters. My point or contention is that the Democratic presidential candidate must not alienate a large sector of those first two groups if they expect to win the general election. Secondly, those Democrats who are stridently locked in on the amnesty, or grant special privileges to illegals question must face the real possibility that if they do not vote fro a Democratic candidate that does not share their immigration views, they in all likelyhood will become the 'Naderites' of the 2008 elections.

All of this is couched on the premise(which almost 100% of political manipulators and strategists agree) that 1/3 of the eligble voters are independents, and therefor are in all probability going to determine the next Congress and President. Thus making it doubly important that the 'hardcore' party members do not bolt from their own candidate.

On the strongly held notion that a certain political party has been involved in 'rigging' voting tallies in certain parts of the country, it is incumbent that every voter possible show up and ...hope for the best.

[EFerrari]

12. Now I see. That's right. Independent voters seem to be more

concerned than voters who self ID as Democrats.

Amy Goodman seems to be reporting on this story today, btw. It won't play out here on the West Coast until 8 am but babylonsister has a thread up should you want to give it a look.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2190049

Part of the problem with this problem is that there is no solution to the immigration problem that doesn't begin with reform of US Latin American policy which is what is driving people out of their own countries in the first place. And, that idea is hard to reduce to a soundbite.

[slackmaster]

7. Legal immigrants generally oppose amnesty, privileges for people here illegally

Here in California a large portion of first- through third-generation legal immigrants happen to be of Mexican or other Latin-American descent. Trying to connect with them by offering largesse to illegal immigrants generally fails.

Do not assume that brown-skinned people automatically support giving aid and comfort to other brown-skinned people. I detect a hint of racism in that kind of thinking.

[williesgirl]

11. I keep saying this is the ONE issue that could cause us to lose in 08, it's already

impacting local elections and not just in border states. I live in VA and it's a hot issue right now and will remain that way.

[trayfoot]

29. Right on, williesgirl!

I, too, live in VA and we are close to being able to turn VA blue in 2008 - BUT NOT if our candidates continue to embrace the "amnesty agenda"! I've said it before, I'll say it again: Illegal immigrant amnesty is the "Achilles Heel" of the democrats in 2008. It has NOTHING to do with racism - it has to do with the difference between "legal" and "illegal". Idealism just doesn't cut it - and will not win this race! By pushing the * agenda, dems are telling the majority of people in this country that they don't count! People want to vote for a candidate that WILL listen to the American people. I truly hope that dems get that message before it is too late!

[Mountainman]

13. Man you lay it out then attack anyone who disagrees with you even before they say anything.

So in all fairness, if you disagree with what I could potentially reply to your post, you are an unknowing fool!

[Mountainman]

14. deleted on purpose

[Didereaux]

16. not at all, what I am saying is...

That the issue and the questions I raised CANNOT be knee-jerked! They require REAL answers, and REAL thoughts. Not simply mouthing platitudes or wishes. Doing either of the latter results in nothing more than possibly bringing about an end that no one wants, namely a Republican president!

[Chulanowa]

24. So one must take the Republican position to avoid a Republican win?

Sorry, that doesn't fly to me.

You think we need to tackle "illegal immigration"? I think we need to tackle immigration law. Our immigration laws are founded on the principle of Eugenics. Why did we turn Jews away during the holocaust? Why did we turn away Rroma when the Warsaw pat was closing up Eastern Europe? Why do we not want Cambodian refugees, or Somalis? And yet we'll take all the Brits, Irish, Germans, Swedes, and Russians we can get our hands on. They can stay as long as they want on expired visas and they're even forgiven for voting.

By "dealing with illegal immigrants" we would in fact be supporting a broken system that is blatantly unamerican and racist in nature.

[Zookeeper]

30. My state has taken many Somali, Ethiopian,Liberian and Hmong....

refugees.

On the other hand, here is an article about how Immigration agents treated three Finnish folk musicians because they suspected that they might try to work while they were here:

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1513926.html

Dogs were brought in to sniff the artists' bags. Each was taken into a separate room for questioning, which focused on whether they were going to earn any money on their trip.

"They threatened us with severe punishments if we talk to each other," according to the complaint signed by musicians Ninni Poijärvi and Mika Kuokkanen, "Through the walls, I can hear officers yelling, screaming. They ask about the purpose of our trip -- except we are only allowed to give yes-or-no answers. I try to talk about our plans to meet with Finnish-American folk musicians. Nobody listens. They interrupt me constantly and they yell, 'You are a liar!"'

Meanwhile, Maattanen was being questioned in another room.

"From the beginning, they said I was lying, that these guys were coming here to work," said the veteran filmmaker, who said he has travelled to the United States at least 15 times without incident. "They were shouting at me, and people were going in and out of doors. They tried to put you down mentally, to humiliate you.

The four were eventually released with no explanation and no apology, the complaint said. They met Savolainen, who had been in an airport waiting room, and who later said he marveled that immigration agents would think that a wealthy recording artist would travel to the United States "in hopes of earning money playing acoustic music in rural Minnesota."

Two of the musicians are slated to return this year and are worried they may face other problems entering the country, in part because their passports have a big red flag. Immigration agents initially stamped "Refused Entry" on the passports, said Savolainen, and then later simply crossed that stamp out with a pen.

[Chulanowa]

31. And that says little about overall immigration policy

Our laws, quotas, restrictions, etc basically say "Only West Europeans need apply." America doesn't want Commies or browns, you see.

Unless they're from Cuba.

[Zookeeper]

32. Well, you are making absolute statements and generalizations...

that may not be as accurate as you think.

Like I said, my state has been very welcoming to immigrants from Africa and Southeast Asian. Perhaps you just don't have enough people willing to sponsor those immigrants in your state.

[Mountainman]

15. Here is my real reply.

The immigration issue is what put the Dems in control in California.
It is the anti immigration people who stand to lose since the fastest growing population in this country is the Hispanic population. If you think for one moment you can be anti immigration and get the support of the fastest growing potential voting population in the country you are more of a fool than I think you were in the first place.

You want a winning combination, find a way to protect the borders and a path to citizenship for those already here.

I am sure that racism is involved here and framing the issue as one of illegality doesn't hide that fact at all.

[cascadiance]

17. Not in San Diego. Immigration is why Francine Busby LOST her election here...

Brian Bilbray was a one trick pony. Without immigration I think she could have trashed him. She made the mistake of not being more of an independent thinker like the OP advocates us being here. Isolate the xenophobes and still speak for those that are concerned about losing their jobs and control of our borders.

I think for us to really make sure this works, given that we already have a sizable illegal immigrant problem it will need other legislative/diplomatic efforts to go along with it to make a "no amnesty" solution work. Ultimately a "fence" situation that becomes like the apartheid wall in Israel won't solve issues, it will just create more expense. We need other systemic fixes that allow us to address the problems without using "force" to expatriate these people and walls to keep them out, which won't work.

We need to also:

1) Completely revise farm subsidies so that we don't have subsidized corn exports any more which are being used to create low cost labor when artificially low corn products put farmers in these other countries out of business and forces them to sell land and work cheaply there.
2) COMPLETELY overhaul if not back out of trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT. We need to remove this incentive for the race to the bottom that multinationals use to sell into our marketplace. I suspect that ultimately many in Mexico will see the value to this too, since they also suffer when the "race to the bottom" has multinationals move the jobs they "created" in step 1 in Mexico to even cheaper locations elsewhere around the world, and force those desperate individuals to try and come here to work instead.
3) Lean heavily on countries like Mexico to ramp up their own economies and jobs and share the wealth more with their citizenry to promote a middle class and more demand there. A healthy middle class in places like Mexico would make our border with them be more like our border with Canada, and not be a problem. This also means stopping the privatization of schooling, etc. that has gone on recently there which no longer is being made available to their general population. That also makes a more desperate underclass that wants to come here for jobs.
4) Provide free college education at a bachelors level like India has now (and we used to have in California). Then kids won't have to feel like they are taking as big a risk with their assets when they get out of high school that they do now in this age of outsourcing and will be more apt to pursue a college education.

If we provide means of having credentials (that doesn't cost ANYTHING to citizens here!) to show the ability to work that is like "money" and is made so that it can't be faked like money is made now, but is not "centrally stored" which facilitates other civil liberty abuses that a national ID card might present, then we can come down on the employers to ensure that they check for such credentials and don't hire illegals. If they do, they will get more than just fines that they can write off as business expenses, but jail terms, etc. that will be more of a disincentive for them hiring them.

H-1B Visa program needs to be overhauled and the loopholes completely fixed and the caps scaled way back. It should only be used to allow for foreign nationals to come in that will provide unique experience that can't be obtained here. The willingness to work "cheaper" should NOT be allowed as a reason for getting an H-1B Visa. We should have better means of making sure that anyone coming here under H-1B visa is TRULY paid the prevailing wage they'd get if they were a regular worker. If this can't happen, then the program should be abolished, and employers should be made to know that, so that if they truly need to have the ability to hire unique foreign expertise, that they won't abuse the system that they might lose otherwise.

[Didereaux]

22. EXCELLENT! Absolutely first class response....THANK YOU!!!!!

[NorthernSpy]

35. the idea of bringing the "undocumented" into her campaign emerged right here on DU!

It was someone from the area who was talking about doing that, as I recall. I remember throwing cold water on the whole thing, but that did no good.

Next news from that election was that the issue of her bringing illegal aliens into campaign had proved decisive -- and she'd lost when the voters had turned against her because of it.

Just like I'd said.


And I'm only some random person from the exact opposite corner of the country who just happened to click a link on a message board. It didn't take a particularly intimate understanding of how politics works to know how such a boneheaded idea was going to come across.

[Mountainman]

43. San Diego is republican and not representative of the whole state or the nation

[cascadiance]

44. Thom Hartmann isn't though, and he echoes the original poster and my concerns...

And I believe a lot of other Dems out there also care about their own jobs and livelihoods which are threatened by the current unsustainable illegal immigration issue. Allowing these folks amnesty is also not sustainable. I think many independents and Democrats like Thom Hartmann (who by no means is conservative) understand this too, and that is why unless you really come up with a THIRD option in the immigration debate these days, the Democrats are likely to lose in a lot of places in 2008.

What the OP is saying and I am as well, is that we are NOT blaming it on those coming in here looking for work. And we do NOT wish them ill either. But having them come here in countless droves because they are getting pushed out someplace else and us letting that situation persist and get worse does noone any good in the long term.

You can sound sympathetic for the short term by granting amnesty to those here, but ultimately that isn't solving the real problems.

You need to have a global labor movement and do the steps I outlined in my post here to really tackle this issue.

Ultimately, I believe most of those coming here for jobs would rather live back in their own countries next to their families, speaking their own language, etc. if they could have a decent life there. It is helping to solve their situation in other areas and preventing this "race to the bottom" situation that is now made rampant with these globalization treaties and the IMF, World Bank, etc. THOSE are the areas you need to solve. And ultimately you need to control our borders. Otherwise our economy will go in the tank, and we will become a third world country and do noone any good except for the wealthy for the short term.

[Mountainman]

47. I'm sorry but I just can't buy your ideas because I don't believe you are being honest.

Your job isn't threatened by a bunch of migrant workers. It is true that the immigrants take jobs that most of us don't want to do because they don't pay enough. The wage scale will not go up if the illegals left. It will only go up if workers unite. Immigrants and Anglos should learn to team up for a better life for all.

I can't help but believe all these xenophobic ideas are racism couched in self righteousness. Turn on the Hispanic demographic and you lose, it's that simple.

If you really wanted to win election after election you would stop this pilling on the backs of immigrants. Stop scapegoating them. They are here and they are not going away. We all should learn to live together and make a better life for all.

Further more Tom Hartman can be as xenophobic and any of us. He doesn't set the bar.

[cascadiance]

48. I already HAVE lost a job due to H-1B Visa workers!

I have seen it in the trenches! I resent your insinuation that I am not honest about my concerns! You may have your beliefs, and I don't dismiss you as being dishonest about them. I might feel they are wrong, but I won't question your honesty about them.

The same bill the Dems were pushing in the Senate was not only about farm workers but looked to REMOVE caps on H-1B Visas. That DIRECTLY affects my job and salary sir! And that was in there to serve corporate America, NOT American workers!

I moved to the west coast from the midwest in large part because I WANTED to be around a more diverse group of people working with me. I DO like many people of many different nationalities. I lived overseas 7 years of my young life in places like Thailand and Turkey.

I DO NOT buy that people here won't work at certain jobs. If they paid enough there would be Americans to do them!

Labeling people as xenophobic because they don't support the status quo of uncontrolled borders of people coming in and taking our jobs is pretty wrong sir! It's like calling people anti-semitic because they don't like what AIPAC and the government of Israel does. It's playing a card that is commonly done because they want to have a convenient excuse of critiquing what they don't understand.

When I worked in the bay area, there was a common strategy that companies followed to take advantage of H-1B Visa workers. There is a stipulation that the H-1B Visa worker is supposed to be paid the same wage as an equivalent domestic worker. This is worked around by companies like Sun and HP contracting out its work to contracting agencies that ONLY hire H-1B Visa workers. They don't hire a contractor worker but a contracting "service", and that way these agencies could pay their workers whatever wage they wanted and worked around this limitation. I heard mid level managers joke about this very loophole when they were hiring contractors to do what domestic workers should do.

I and another gentleman later were replaced by some H-1B visa workers that were hired "cheaply" this way when I contracted to a tech company in the Bay Area. Had they been paid prevailing U.S. wages, we probably wouldn't haved lost them, as we were the ones that intimately knew the software we wrote and could do a lot more to maintain it than they.

I'm ALL FOR people applying for citizenship here and accelerating that process over the bureaucratic process that's in place now. What I don't like is people feeling they can come here for a few years and earn what is equivalent to 10 times what they would make in their own country that is ALSO ten times what they have to pay in their standard of living. They work here for a couple of years while their families live back at home, and they build their investments by working at less wages than an American worker here could afford to work at and have enough to pay his bills at OUR standard of living (which is about ten times the cost compared to those like folks from India).

Welcoming others here is fine, but traditionally it is all about people wanting to truly become CITIZENS of our country and become a part of it, not just come here for a job and leave later and basically steal other workers' wages here in the process. That model simply is not sustainable if it is done in so many parts of our economy with all of the outsourcing, etc. that's going on and keeping our middle class from getting destroyed.

Being concerned about keeping a healthy middle class in this country is NOT being xenophobic. I'm not arguing that all folks that want tight immigration controls and throwing out those here are NOT xenophobic. Neither did the OP. I for example feel that there is NO excuse for wittholding emergency care from anyone at a hospital just because they are an illegal immigrant. I just don't feel that we should provide a way for corporations to continue to exploit us and take away our middle class.

And I do believe that most of those who come here to work would PREFER to work at home if they could earn a decent living for their families THERE! That's what we should be working for, as it helps everyone.

Corporations and the elites here also like that they have an increasing working class that's not allowed to vote too. Only citizens should be able to vote, but the more you have people working here that are illegal, the more you have those living here that aren't represented properly.

Please explain which of my ideas are "xenophobic".

[Mountainman]

52. H-1 has northing to do with illegal immigrants and you did not lose your job to them

And those jobs Americans won't take will never pay enough to get Americans interested. Saying that "if they paid enough" is complete ducking the question. You know as well as I that will never happen so the answer you give is horse shit.

[cascadiance]

54. Removing H-1B Visa caps WAS in the Senate immigration bill!

So it DOES have something to do with immigration, doesn't it? H-1B Visa employees are being used in the same way as illegal farmworkers are being used today. Both are used as more or less indentured servants with less rights and job mobiliity, lower pay, and no ability to have the right to vote to be represented. They are second class citizens in both cases, and the corporate brass likes having more second class citizens to be the ones that get their money instead of throwing more of it at domestic workers which gives them more freedoms to do other things than just working in survival mode with artificially lower wages.

So, WHY won't they ever pay enough? That's like saying that jobs will never get any better than they are at Wal-Mart too. It's because we have no union movement in this country, and no worker protections. THAT'S why!

Now, you can say that it will be inflationary to have higher costs of food, etc. when they have to pay farm workers more. But I would argue that we already have HIGH inflation in many other segments of the economy such as health care and housing where we aren't able to artificially keep the costs lower. It's those other higher costs that are screwing us, even though the corporate media doesn't like to draw attention to them being a bigger burden on our shrinking middle class.

If we allow people to get paid what they're worth, it will be inflationary in certain areas where inflation has artificially been kept down lately, but it will also allow more average workers to demand higher wages across the board, and for those at the top to have to get relatively less over time, forcing our wealth gap to get more back to "normal" instead of the pre-Republican depression rates it is once again at now.

Relatively speaking, then even though our food costs and price to buy other material goods at Wal-Mart might be higher, our salaries will be higher, and our costs for things like housing will stay more stagnant. We would come out ahead then.

But things like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. have to go then or be radically changed.

[EFerrari]

45. How do you know she lost? Hastert swore in Bilbray without regard

for the recount. Careful.

[cascadiance]

46. Good point, but it wouldn't have even been close without immigration...

That was the ONLY thing that Bilbray talked about. And there was even an independent supported by the minutemen that was taking votes away from both of them that was representing the xenophobes.

I still think it is wise not to underestimate what people feel about immigration as an issue. I have a problem myself with amnesty. Like I said, I want what's best for everyone, including those that aren't documented. But I don't think continuing to allow a massive influx of them is sustainable and threatens our middle class. We need a different solution. And I think whether it is the xenophobes that oversimplify things, or others that really think it through, they both come to the conclusion that we can't allow this to continue unabated, and the numbers here already are screwing everyone but those employing them at substandard wages.

[EFerrari]

49. I agree that the situation just allows all workers to be exploited.

Being undocumented is dangerous -- we just saw what happened to these people in the San Diego fire.

But, all these discussions seem to center on how to treat undocumented people instead of looking at root causes like how the US has steadily screwed up democracy and so, jobs and quality of life in Latin America. Just this week, BushCo is raising hell in Venezuela. They're also trying to tank a progressive in Paraguay. Shoot -- BushCo helped steal the election from the progressive in Mexico last time, remember? How many people do you think that's going to drive north? :shrug:

[cascadiance]

50. I agree, we need to focus more on the root causes of the problem...

Both those that look JUST at those here and wanting to kick them out (the xenophobic types), and those that only want to look at counteracting them and just how we can treat those here already fairly are not dealing with the real problems that need to be dealt with.

Just like the economy is global, our concern for a middle class and the labor movement also needs to be global in its organization too.

[EFerrari]

51. The good news is that while BushCo has been insanely

obsessed with the Middle East, Latin America has had something of a break from their interference. Not a total one -- as I mentioned above, they're still at it -- but enough of a break for some progressive leaders to gain a foothold. The Pentagon isn't as close to their authoritarian buddies down there as they used to be, for another thing.

Poor Iraq has paid for it terribly, but Latin America is doing much better since we've been busy elsewhere.

[MLFerrell]

18. You're forgetting about one key demographic.

Voters who have illegal immigrant friends and relatives residing in the U.S.

It would be naive not to think that many of those voters would support efforts to change the legal status of said friends and relatives.

[jody]

19. OnTheIssues reports CA, TX, NY, FL, IL have 80% of illegal aliens.

Background on Immigration

55% of all illegal aliens come from Mexico. (Other Latin American countries account for another 20%).

40% of all illegal aliens live in California. (TX, NY, FL, and IL account for the next 40%).

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reports the following for the key states.

California
A Field Poll by the Field Research Corporation of 570 registered California voters taken from March 20-31, 2007 found that:
• 83% support the legalization of illegal immigrants who are employed and have resided in the United States for “a number of years,” and a lower share (67%) agree to a temporary worker program for illegal immigrants.
• 77% believe that illegal immigration is either a “very serious problem” (48%) or a “somewhat serious problem” (28%).
• 71% agree with strengthening border patrols.
• 63% support stiffer penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
• 53% favor deporting illegal immigrants.

Texas
A study by Rice University of 650 residents of Houston in April, 2007 found that:
• 55.8% agree with imposing fines and criminal charges on employers for employing illegal immigrants
• A majority of Texans say immigration should be decreased (51%) or kept at its present level (31%).
• A large majority said the "main focus of the US government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration" should be to stop the flow of illegal immigration (56%).
• A majority (52%) think legal immigrants "mostly hurt the economy by driving wages down for many Americans," and
• A larger majority (60%) said the same about illegal immigrants. (Scripps Howard Texas poll, November, 2005 - 5%age point margin of error)
• 64% said the U.S. allows too many legal immigrants into the country. (Scripps Howard Texas, March 2002)
• 93% support tightening restrictions on visas for foreign students. (Scripps Howard Texas, Dec. 2001)

New York
• 72% of New Yorkers think that entering the United States with out valid immigration document should be made a criminal offense.
• 66% of New Yorkers support border controls.
• 45% of New Yorkers would like the number of immigrant to decrease. (Empire State Poll, July 2006)

Florida
A South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Florida Times-Union poll taken in April, 2006 (of 600 adults, including of 138 non-voters) found that:
• 88% believe that illegal immigrants drain social services.
• 72% believe that illegal immigrants should be denied driver's licenses.
• 60% believe that illegal immigrants are driving down wages and hurting the economy.

Illinois
The Northern Illinois University's Center for Government Studies released the Illinois Policy Survey taken from November of 2006 until January of 2007 (of 1,200 residents of voting age) found that:
• 66% find that illegal immigration is either a ‘big problem’ (32%) or ‘somewhat of a problem’ (34%).
• 66% favor punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants.
• 47% support laws against landlords who rent to illegal immigrants.

I don't see how any presidential candidate or party can ignore the electoral votes of those key states who oppose illegal aliens.
CA 55
TX 34
NY 31
FL 27
IL 21

[High Plains]

20. Cool, let's send 12 million people to the camps so we can win an election!

[jody]

21. Candidates win elections by taking positions the voters support. Parties get political power by

taking positions the voters support.

All others are known as LOSERS!

[flashl]

23. This reasoning is why Texas politicans are AFRAID to touch the death penalty issue

So, because politicans want to appease their base. Texas continues its death march for the poor trapped in its criminal justice system.

Gov. Perry admits that businesses refuse to come to Texas for the same reason. The politicans in Texas are held hostage to the perception that if they may not be tough on crime while everyone knows that violent crime has been dropping since 1994.

That is not democracy.

[jody]

25. Last time I checked, a democracy is a government where 50% of the votes +1 make the law. Our

government is a republic where citizens are the source of all authority and power and their elected representatives make laws. Of course we know in practice a few people with money and corporations dominate our political system.

Our senate is not even close to a democracy because Wyoming with 500 thousand citizens has two senators and California with over 37 million citizens has two senators.

Of course we citizens are supposed to retain certain rights which we have designated as "inalienable" and government is supposed to protect a minority against the tyranny of the majority while preserving those rights.

Still politicians are elected by majority vote except for our president and vice president who need only a majority in the electoral college.

I probably strayed from the topic but my point was any candidate who hopes to win the presidency must consider the biggest states like CA, TX, FL, NY, IL.

I also cited one source that summarizes polls showing those states oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.

Sorry but that's just the way things are in current politics. :shrug:

[flashl]

26. ...

I am referencing Abraham Lincoln’s type of democracy where a government is "of the people, by the people, and FOR the people" and where the rights of minorities do not depend upon the GOODWILL of the MAJORITY.

Following push-poll-like scare tactics is a sorry way to run a campaign.

[jody]

27. I agree re Lincoln but he knew what it takes to get elected, he received 39.8% of the popular vote.

Lincoln was committed to preserving the union and was willing to compromise with the devil to achieve that goal.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

[flashl]

33. promoting xenophobia

What does promoting xenophobia has to do with getting elected?

Any astute person paying attention to what’s happening in this country should be able to discern that the infulx is about corporate profit. It is corporate profit making FOR THE FEW that brings the immigrant population into the states. That’s the focus.

[jody]

34. What does Xenophobia the fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers and people have to do with the

OP?

Your OP talked about the Immigration Issue and that means quite simply aliens entering the United States illegally.

If my cousins from another country entered the U.S. illegally, I would object to their illegal presence no differently than to any other illegal alien.

IMO it's character assassination to imply that people who object to illegal aliens are xenophobic.

[flashl]

36. The public's focus should be placed squarely on

WHY they are here not who they are.

[jody]

37. OK, they are here illegally and should be arrested and dealt with as the law requires. Is that

the position upon which you and I can agree?

[flashl]

38. ..

What I would like to see, is a functioning immigration system, before we go into the mode of deciding who should be here. That is a real problem for many people who have honestly tried to follow the rules.

At one time, I thought that I would support cracking down hard on businesses but all ICE is doing is raiding the businesses taking people away to detention camps, sometimes whole families. This disturbs me.

I truly would like to see how the situation shapes up after the government performs it duty by processing the thousands of outstanding applications from immigrants. This would be a beginning.

And, I can agree that we disagree maybe on how this issue should be addressed. :toast:

[jody]

39. Thanks for the exchange. Do you have a link showing that our immigration quotas are not being met &

"thousands of outstanding applications from immigrants" need to be processed?

[flashl]

40. ...

I will search for it and post it here.

[flashl]

42. Immigration processing 'cooked' numbers

The USCIS (former INS) backlog reduction plan, introduced by Director Aguirre during Congressional testimony, promised to reduce processing times to a maximum of six months by the end of fiscal 2006.

Immigration Backlog: Creative Numbers

The Bush administration claimed recently that it had reduced backlogs on immigration applications for green cards, citizenship and other benefits by a few million. Seems this is a new twist on cooking the books though... The decline can be attributed in large part to simple changes in reporting policy.

First, the administration "cut the backlog" from 6 million to 4 million by counting only cases that take longer than six months to complete. Next, they eliminated another 1.1 million applications when they stopped counting green card applications of children and siblings of U.S. citizens, as well as of spouses and children of legal residents.

The government claims that the changes in reporting reflect a better prioritization of applications rather than an attempt to be deceptive.

---

Skilled Workers Suffer for Years in Immigration Backlog

As of February, the Backlog for Guest Worker Applications Was 608,029 Cases

[renie408]

28. I have a problem with your math.

No, "latin Americans don't vote" doesn't equal "Democrats lose".

[Didereaux]

41. They lose if they pursue latino votes with the amnesty carrot! n/t

[treestar]

53. It's not a big deal

Let Lou Dobbs get hysterical.

[ellisonz]

55. So you support the Wall?

Nevermind the tunnels...

[Beerboy]

56. I think you're wrong.

The answer for more Democratic party victories in legal elections is to make illegal the requirement for photo ID. Photo ID is Racism! Visit Rep. Keith Ellison's webpage. (Dem-MN)