Are Dems who want to enforce the border and deport illegals "RACIST"?

[Yollam]

Poll question: Are Dems who want to enforce the border and deport illegals "RACIST"?

Since Rove has succeeded in getting us to talk about nothing but this divisive issue...

And since I've seen a lot of posters calling people racist for wanting to enforce the border...

And even a few calling the pro-immigration protesters "neo-nazis" for using rhetoric like "La Raza"...

I thought I'd ask...


Are Dems who want to enforce the border and deport illegals "RACIST", xenophobic, whatever?


There are only three choices. I wonder just how "nuanced" most of us really are?

[Teaser]

1. not racist but certainly poor strategists

an influx of Mexican workers who can become citizens would be a bonanza for the Democratic party, electorally speaking.

So, if we're not gonna do it cause it's the right thing, do it cause it's the smart thing.

[Yollam]

2. Not necessarily.

Historically that has been the case, but Mexicans are predominantly Catholic and socially very conservative, and the GOP has been making inroads at reaching them with their wedge issues of anti-choice and anti-gay rights - much more successfully than with black voters.

I don't think throwing the doors wide open and just hoping that the new immigrants will vote dem (years later when they finally can) just because they have in past years, is a great idea.

[Teaser]

12. The GOP hasn't made much in the way of inroads

with Latinos.

That was the result of now debunked poll data (see Ruy Teixeira's analysis at emergingdemocraticmajority.com) from 2004.

And furthermore, the GOP hasn't made any inroads with immigrants here illegally. At all.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Not true at all.

It's been well proven that Hispanic-Americans do NOT vote as a bloc.

[Teaser]

11. Almost entirely true

Since I'm referring to new immigrants who have experienced being railed at by a significant fraction of one political party.

[BuyingThyme]

3. The case that seems to be emerging is that the rights of illegal

immigrants trump those of legal workers because the illegal immigrants lead a tougher life.

A similar standard is being applied to the question of whether or not illegal immigration is even a problem.

[Demit]

5. Here's a (sincere) question for you:

Any time the subject of illegal immigration comes up--I remember it from maybe 3 or 4 years ago--my brain can't get past "illegal". That is, what does helping out illegal immigrants say to those immigrants who are trying legally to become citizens? Why should illegal immigrants be allowed to jump the line?

I understand there are pragmatic aspects to the issue. But, as I say, my mind just stops at that word "illegal". Do you consider me racist?

[OhioChick]

7. Racist? Absolutely not...........

Illegal is just that......ILLEGAL. (Prohibited by law)

[Yollam]

9. Not me.

I'm 100% in favor of enforcing the border and deporting illegals. I have been a legal immigrant to Japan, and am moving back there now - and I became fluent in the language, so I totally agree we need to be fair to the LEGAL immigrants.

That being said, I think that a lot of illegals ARE behaving like good citizens and contributing to our society.

But sadly, they are illegals and should be deported. And businesses who hire them should be penalized. Doubly if they are paying sub-minimum wages.

[Marie26]

17. Not at all

But one small difference - Many people say that illegal immigrants should simply wait & apply to enter the country legally. But that is not possible for the vast majority of immigrants. Our immigration laws are very strict & favor the wealthy & well-educated. So for a laborer from Honduras, it's either immigrate illegally or don't immigrate at all. This is why we need to change the laws to allow legal immigration.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. That's my plan

Cut illegal immigration, ramp up legal immigration, and crack down on corrupt companies hiring illegals.

[dusmcj]

6. who in the US does illegal imimgration serve ?

a defective society that thinks it needs to pursue high cash-flow jobs so that it can buy expensive consumer shit (who does that benefit: the holders of capital, who make their money off those high cash flows) and wants to leave the mundane business of daily life to those poor enough to do the job.

and a business community stupid enough to believe that "the purpose of a corporation is to provide a return on investment to its shareholders" and therefore drives up the bottom line by lowering cost. What better way to do that than fuck your local workforce, what with their pesky unions and labor demands, and get a shitload of cheap labor that's moreover dependent on you benificence because there's a legality problem.

The usual suspects are benefiting from this and perpetuating it in the way they usually do.

Further, we can consider that all those folks from south of the Rio Grande might occupy themselves with demolishing the losing, I mean ruling, classes in their nations which have misserved them so well for centuries, and make their own countries nice places to live. In the next breath though we must note that big brother cracker in DC has made it a habit of propping up said defectives for the last 150 years. So that maybe we need to demolish (in a polite, legal way) our losing, I mean ruling, classes. Time to make the holders of capital work for money instead of skimming it ?

FTS

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. No, not in the least.

Firstly, there's a reason the term is "illegal immigrants".

Secondly, the ability of people to cross the border with no check whatsoever has to be one of the highest actual national security problems that we have, and yet we do absolutely nothing about it. The elaborate and highly engineered tunnel that was discovered in California that had 2 tons worth of marijuana in it wasn't just used to bring in pot from Mexico. I guarantee you that people and god only knows what else was brought in using that as well.

Thirdly, illegal immigration is harmful to the illegal immigrants themselves. Everyone talks about how they come over and "take our jobs". That's bullshit for the simple reason that illegal corporations are giving them jobs for a fraction of the legal minimum wage. Often they don't even bother to pay these immigrant workers, and since they have no legal recourse based on their immigration status, they have no hope of obtaining that pay. Further, they have little to no hope for upward mobility, being damned to the lowest of the low class because of this problem.

Fourthly, I know a number of illegal immigrants who don't even mind being deported. They repeatedly come back in hopes that another amnesty might kick in while they're here, so they'll just keep trying until that happens.

Anyone who DOESN'T think illegal immigration is a problem for everyone involved except the corrupt corporations is, quite frankly, not thinking the issue through thoroughly.

We absolutely must do the following, probably in this order:

1) Crackdown on the people that hire and abuse illegal immigrants.
2) Do everything we can stop the flow of illegal immigration.
3) Severely increase the quotas for legal immigration.

[Lerkfish]

10. skinner already weighed in today on how this cheapens the discussion

there are valid democratic reasons on both sides of the issue, he says, without dropping the "racist" or "corporatist" cards.

[Yollam]

13. Are you serious?

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were implying that Skinner is the ultimate arbiter of what to believe about a given issue.

Personally, I think the "racist" card is 90% bullshit, whereas the "corporatist" card holds more than a little water, but more power to those who disagree with me on it.

I have nothing but respect for the folks protesting in LA. As "Raging in Miami" has pointed out - THEY are out making their voices heard, and in a civil way. They deserve a lot of respect for that.


But I sure as hell wouldn't base my opinion on what any webmaster thinks...

[Lerkfish]

14. Are you jumping to conclusions? yes.

reread my post. I just stated what skinner posted and summarized his basic point.

and no, you don't know any better.

I posted it because the poll seemed to be broaching the same issue. I was stating what I read earlier this morning. If someone else had posted it, I would have said "Liveoak posted something this morning....etc."



:shrug: not sure why that makes it ok for you to jump to conclusions about what I think?

[Yollam]

15. Fair enough, since I mentioned "Raging in Miami".

But somehow, dropping Skinner's name did kind of seem like an attempt to invalidate the opinions of those who might disagree with him.

This is not one of those cut-and-dried, left-right issues where we're all in agreement. With the exception of true racists and greedhead cynics (who I believe to be a small minority, at least among dems), everybody's opinion deserves respect.

If you agree with that, then I guess we have no argument.

[Lerkfish]

16. then we have no argument.