If there cannot be a civil discussion of immigration laws here

[SwampG8r]

the odds it can happen in the real world seem doomed to me

here is a very sensible statement for everyone screaming xenophobe or racist
i stole it from a fellow DUer and i ask their forgiveness in not asking first

"Some people want to slow immigration because of concerns about or natural heritage and open spaces we have been able to enjoy.

Some people believe that we can't keep quality social nets and services if people are undocumented and cannot be accounted for and be part of both the costs and benefits.

Some people think that porous borders are a national security concern, not because most Mexicans are not a solid people, but because when people pour over the border without an orderly system that criminals are free to move through undetected as well.

Think about it. Would you be open to having undocumented people be able to hop on a plane to the US? If not why not, there is an argument they are similar concepts.

There are a range of policy and DEMOCRATIC decisions to be made around this issue and people have a right to have a wide range of preferences in what kind of immigration policy and security policies that we have.

To paint this purely as anyone who does not want a freely open and undocumented border process is somehow racist is intellectually dishonest and UNDEMOCRATIC.

Call out profiling and racist policies, but we only hurt democracy when we close our minds through pure ideology that does not allow legitimate policy discussions. And to some extent that has happened with this issue."

[Dr Morbius]

1. Um... I'm kinda new here but I've noticed...

...please cite one issue - any single issue - that can be and usually is discussed "civilly" on DU. Or any other website, and while you're at it, PLEASE give me the name of that website!

[SwampG8r]

3. i agree DU isnt usually harmonic

but the calls of racism and other ugly charges being used to shut up discussion overshoot anything ive been witness to
there are legitimate concerns being shouted down and it seems very undemocratic

[tavalon]

15. LOL

You are so right. That said, I love my DU. People are so damn passionate here and yet also (usually) well informed.

[Divine Discontent]

2. honestly. great post.

there are many things that most of us feel about the illegal immigration situation within our country. I don't like the idea of uprooting people who have been here decades and sending them back to where they came from - Reagan didn't do that to the Cubans, after all! But, there's got to be some guidelines, and they're hammering them out I suppose, let's just hope that they take security and safety of the American citizen strongly into respect, and in turn for those here illegally, our goal should be that violence doesn't occur, and their human rights are respected.

[ProSense]

4. Wait, am I seeing

double?

In any case, responded

[Go2Peace]

18. All I can say is thank goodness he cleaned up some of the spelling mistakes ;)

And thanks SwampG8r for the compliment :toast:

Does this mean I could actually rec my own post :evilgrin:

[SwampG8r]

38. you are so welcome

it hurts me when people i know agree on 99% of everything devolve into poo flinging monkeys
look at how many long time loyal DUers are backhandedly referred to as racists in the replies
i am ashamed of a lot of these folks today
the policy of bullying and cowing is more dangerous than any other

i left any personal feelings on the issue out of the OP and i am called racist
must be a lot of psychics here

[Go2Peace]

71. I know, that's the remarkable thing isn't it.

I think it is partially a product of TV. We want everything to be an emotional spectator sport with people divided into only two positions, black and white. Emotional manipulation and response actually invokes is what is involved in Racism. They are tied together. We see the forest but not the trees. We attempt to remove one prejudice while reinforcing the processes that beget them.

Hopefully, though, we are taking one step back while two forward. But I am not so sure. In recent years we seem to keep moving toward more authoritarian thinking just with a little different groundrules. Even in our party.

[sandnsea]

5. The Arizona law is a racist law

That's the current issue. If there weren't people trying to justify "papers please", there would probably be fewer charges of racism.

I think if Arizona wanted to deal with undocumented workers, they would create a task force in the labor department.

I think if Arizona wanted to deal with drug cartels, they'd increase funding for drug enforcement and drug treatment.

But since they're primarily going after brown people, I think it's pretty clear they just want the Mexicans gone.

[dkf]

14. Calling them "papers" when it's just showing the ID you handed over to the grocery clerk to prove

Could buy that beer is so over the top.

Yeah it's such a hardship to drive with an ID.

Ridiculous.

[babylonsister]

25. How about demanding a birth certificate? Is that AOK with you?

And is that what YOU carry around? I don't. AZ is specifically targeting Mexicans; believe what you wish, but watch this. It's racist profiling whether you can wrap your head around it or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=459104&mesg_id=459104

[lunatica]

30. I don't have to hand over any ID to buy alcohol

I haven't had to for years and years. Decades actually.

So what's your point? That minors are being racially profiled?

[slackmaster]

49. In my state you are required by law to have ID on you when you buy or consume alcohol in public

A bar can't serve you unless you have ID.

[boppers]

52. Do you have to be a citizen to buy alcohol?

Can you be arrested for buying alcohol if you aren't a citizen?

[slackmaster]

78. Of course non-citizens can buy alcohol in California, just as they can be in Arizona legally

What's your point?

[boppers]

86. The point:

One's birth location is a potentially criminal matter.

I don't recall having a choice in the matter, do you?

Should that determine their ability to be "legal" to buy alcohol?

[treestar]

37. Neither of those issues have anything to do with ethnic background, either

And can easily be enforced across the board.

But we know the purpose of this law is not to make sure white people are here legally.

[TheKentuckian]

41. Bullshit, I don't show identification to any clerk unless it is to write a check

and that is for my own protection but not a precondition of doing business. If I want to use cash or even my debit card (in almost every case) then I pay and move on.

[frazzled]

80. This law isn't about showing your driver's license

That is not a paper that shows proof of citizenship, and fake driver's licenses are easily obtainable.

The problem with this law is that it would require people to show their birth certificate, passport, or citizenship papers (or green cards)--presumably based on their national or ethnic heritage. So Senator Bob Menendez might be pulled over and asked to produce "papers."

[slackmaster]

81. There is NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVE CITIZENSHIP in the new law

Please stop repeating that canard.

[frazzled]

83. It makes it a crime to not carry immigration papers

"It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

In addition, I never said citizenship was the only qualifier--I mentioned legal status (green card). So perfectly legal people--either citizens or permanent residents or legal immigrants, could get a criminal record if they do not have their papers on them. Sure, you can show your driver's license--but if you are a legal immigrant and don't have your papers on you, you'll get slapped with a crime.

Anything about that you don't understand?

[slackmaster]

84. "citizens... ...could get a criminal record if they do not have their papers on them"

Not true.

Citizens won't have to carry immigration papers. Only aliens will.

Sure, you can show your driver's license

A driver's license, with a few exceptions, is sufficient to prove legal PRESENCE. If you are legally present, you obviously are in a legal immigration status.

[frazzled]

85. Legal residents will get a record. /nt

[totodeinhere]

79. How can it be racist when undocumented immigrants are of all races?

There are many light skinned blue eyed immigrants too. The Arizona law targets anyone who is undocumented regardless of their race.

[ProSense]

6. Here, defend this:

The legislation requires law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone who they have a "reasonable suspicion" is in the country illegally.

She said she will not tolerate racial discrimination or profiling. Brewer also said she had worked with legislators to make sure the bill protects civil rights.

"We must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color, accent or social status," she said, adding that the bill's opponents are "over-reacting."

An estimated 1,200 protesters, many of them students, gathered outside the Capitol to demonstrate against the bill.

She urged the law's supporters and enforcers to be careful not to make "even the slightest misstep."

link

[SwampG8r]

7. im not here to defend what the woman says

i can only speak for my self
i do wonder what you see that is wrong in what she says
it seems very reasoned

you say she says
she will not tolerate racial discrimination or profiling.then you say she has worked with legislatures to protect civil rights
damn you are right this woman is Satan incarnate
then you say she said "we must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color accent or social status"
madness i say pure utter madness
then you say she says that people are "overreacting"
i have to give her that one given the things my opinion has made people feel free to call me without any knowledge of who i am
then you say she says that in the application of these laws they must not make "even the slightest mistake"
sweet jeebus save us all from this child eating monster spawned in the very loins of hell!
she wants the arizona government to not make mistakes!
what gall
so as i said i am not here to defend her but i would call your case
given the statements offered
as weak at best

[TheKentuckian]

45. What her lying lips say and what the law she signed that she admitted she could not define

Nor do her words change how the law she signed will be enforced.

The racial profiling aspect is crucial and relevant but secondary to the bigger issue of our rights to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.

They need a specific reason that the individual is committing an offense or is a threat to commit one, the authorities have no Constitutional right to spot check anyone on a random or a targeted profile.

Almost as disturbing as the profiling and the willful violation of the enumerated rights of our citizens is the insane setting neighbor against neighbor aspect that will require enforcement to act on the crazy lady down the way's accusations and questions regarding folks she sees as questionable citizenship. With the ability of the crazy "Your ball came in to my yard, I take it now" lady to sue enforcement they will be pretty much forced to harass the neighbor and very probable legal resident.

None of this crap is America in any form that I find acceptable and I reserve every right to stand for what is right.

[SwampG8r]

72. nothing cited claimed those things

i am only talking about what was quoted to me by another and i stand behind my assessment of the statements offered

[Go2Peace]

19. That is not the point of the OP. In fact you are demonstrating

what I am trying to articulate. But hey, this is not the first time we have clashed. Seriously, I don't think you have ever agreed with anything I have said?

That is ok though, I did not have my hopes up tonight. Have a good eve. :hi:

[ProSense]

56. The OP is a strawman.

Where is the uncivil discussion? The thread you posted the comment in is filled with people disagreeing with each other. Disagreement is allowed.

It's ironic that some people who have a soft spot for the AZ law are the ones making the bogus claim that disagreeing with their position is somehow engaging in a less than civil debate. The law is anti immigrant. Republicans have made numerous ridiculous and racist statements in support of it. Telling people who characterize the law as anti immigrant, people who are focused on the GOP's actions and comments, that it's misleading to call the GOP's actions anti immigrant because the intent is to curb illegal immigration is completely ludicrous.



Edited for clarity.

[EFerrari]

8. But the discussion this week has been about a manifestly racist law

masquerading as an illegal immigration counter measure.

Randomly stopping Latino "looking" people will not resolve illegal immigration but it will violate the rights of American citizens. And I put quotation marks around that because Latinos "look" like just about everybody on the planet.

Do you think it's uncivil to point that out? Or is respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens too ideologically pure? Or?

There are a range of democratic solutions but one of them is not to discriminate against American citizens on the basis of race or ethnicity and that's what this AZ law does.

/oops

[BlooInBloo]

9. You say that as if it mattered.

:P

[SwampG8r]

10. you are most civil

and i appreciate it
my personal feelings on the issue have not been stated anywhere
i left them out intentionally
what this post is about is the names being bandied about and the attempt to shout down legitimate concerns

just seems undemocratic

[EFerrari]

11. I was wondering if I misread and am glad you clarified.

What you suggest would make a lot of hot topics more satisfying to discuss.

[treestar]

35. Most of those "legitimate concerns" have been explained

Google "immigration myths." The reason there are so many out there is that the racists come up with them, thinking they are so clever and that they can hook non-racists on to them.

[tavalon]

16. One day, I am sure,

I will come across something you write that I don't agree with. It has to happen. But today is not that day.

[Go2Peace]

20. So can we only discuss a single the topic from a single angle?

I would also be surprised if anyone missed that there has been an incredible amount of "broad brush" applying what happened in Arizona and implying that anyone who does not support the position of unlimited and unregulated movement across borders is somehow exhibiting latent racist feelings.

I know that for some this place is an entertainment spot or a place to vent, but for many others that come to DU we are more into the "forum" aspect, as in an opportunity to discuss and learn and try to hash out ideas. Of course everyone rants and raves from time to time. But not everyone is into following along and posting outrage again and again. So if someone is raging and claiming that anyone on the site is a racist who has a nuanced opinion of immigration policy, well, in a forum we might want to jump on and say "hold on a minute", what are we doing?

[Bluenorthwest]

29. I see you speaking of 'unlimited and unregulated movement'

but only you. Others are saying this particular law is an offense to our American principles, which is NOT the same as 'unlimited and unregulated movement across borders'. You are framing others as having said that which they did not say. Same thing you seem to complain about.
I've not seen one person on this tread speak of unregulated borders. Except for those claiming others want that. Cheap, petty, tawdry tactics, worthy of the weak position you are foisting. You also claim that others on this thread are saying that 'everybody on this site is a racist'. Never read that either.
Your tactics are your message.

[Go2Peace]

59. So find a single post of mine that says that I approve of the AZ law

You won't. Because your premise is made out of thin air and by your bias. This is a FORUM, where people quite often talk about policy. This OP is not calling out another discussion of the AZ law, but asking for a discussion about the rigidity in discussing the policy issues that surround it. YOU, friend, are the one who is making specious arguments on that. Go back and read the OP and then tell me that you did not get caught up in the emotions and forget what it was about?

This reminds me so much of trying to talk to a conservative. Of course I know you are not one. But come on. This is a doggone (mostly) liberal site. If you are looking for a fight over racism there are better places to actually find people who want racist policies elsewhere.

In the midst of what are some real struggles with a portion of the population who are indeed racists we are getting sidetracked off into an emotional response that does nothing to solve the real problem.

[boppers]

12. 'natural heritage' IS A RACIST DOG WHISTLE.

For starters, the people being targeted are the natural residents of the Americas.

Their heritage didn't have borders the way we have them. There goes both arguments in those two words.

If your skin is anything but red and brown, your peoples are guests in the US, rather poor guests if history is any indicator.

That being said: I'm open to people hopping on a plane, a boat, a train, and coming here, because that's the whole point of building an immigrant nation. The biggest problem, so far, has been folks who get here that way, and then claim to have "heritage" (I heard this bullshit a lot in the south) that justifies them being here, but pissing on anybody else who comes after them.

[tavalon]

17. I wish I could recommend a post inside an OP

For I would surely do that with this one.

[Go2Peace]

22. then welcome to their club.

Because your mind is thinking more racist than mine is. It just tricked you into thinking that a conservation term was a racial epithet. Have you ever read the works of George Lakoff? Language is under attack. That is something the Republicans have been doing for years. If you can get someone to reduce the number of ideas by reducing the number of different words that can be used to express an idea, you can control what people are able to think of. It's quite fascinating, if it weren't for the fact that it is so heavily employed these days.

But to cut to the chase. Your wrong. It was about nature, as in mother nature, wilderness (I like to backpack and camp) and things like that. Sorry if it triggered the wrong response. But you might want to think about why that happened.

[Go2Peace]

21. Actually, it is a term used in conservation circles. It means you know, pretty mountain, clean river

If anything it says as much about the stereotypes and biases linked into our own minds that we make a leap like you just did of the one meaning you mention over another. There was enough additional information in the paragraph that if you wanted to know what I was referring to it was plain.

So instead, you just chose to subtly call me a racist and in the process you just inadvertantly made the point that brought me into the conversation.

[boppers]

51. Immigration = ugly mountain, dirty river?

That argument doesn't make any sense to me, and seems to link two totally different things by justifying racism or xenophobia as somehow being.... an environmentalist cause?

Maybe that's linked in your mind, but my mind doesn't have that stereotype or bias (as you put it) in it.

I do understand the whole conservative values thing, however, and their thinking that immigration threatens the status quo, and understand the long and twisty relationship between conservation and conservatives... so I can see how the two *could* be connected.

[Go2Peace]

55. I said "conservation", not "conservative" OMFG.

This reminds me so much of hypocritical fundamentalist Christians. They see the sins of everyone else everywhere but the reality is they are reflecting their own internal struggles? Why the hell is *everything* that someone says tied to racism in some folks minds here?
Your on a progressive site for Gods sake. If you are seeing conservative ideology and mindsets everywhere in people here you might think about why that is?

[boppers]

60. Did you miss the history part?

Conservatives created our national parks. The whole ideology is centered around avoiding rapid change, and preserving what currently exists... be that land, culture, language, law, etc.

As far as why I would call out conservative ideologies on a progressive site, well, how much confusion about that could there be?

Advocating to keep the status quo is conservative. Regardless of what that status quo is.

[Go2Peace]

61. Now you have to be a "conservative" to love the national park idea

Treestar. I am done talking with you on this. This isn't a reasoned exchange you seem to want to have, Sorry.

[boppers]

64. Loving a good idea from the past isn't conservative.

Not moving forward, and progressing beyond it, however, is.

Conservative:
"We should keep the national parks we have"
Progressive:
"We should expand parks in at-risk areas, add additional parks, etc."

[treestar]

34. Yes. And the cultural references.

This country was built by immigrants, each immigrant group contributed to the culture, so it is BS. The Know Nothings had problems with Catholic immigrants - same excuse, we all know it is BS.

The economic excuses have all been debunked a zillion times. No one is afraid of losing a lettuce picking job. In fact, they will pay higher prices or see lettuce itself imported from China - they don't mind that, they just want to go outside and never see brown people or hear Spanish.

[Truth2Tell]

13. "some people want to slow immigration" for the reasons you describe...

but not many. For most (if not all) of the anti-immigration cabal the reasons you so civilly outline are nothing but rationalizations - utter bullshit. The real motives aren't quite so civil, regardless of how you sugar coat it. A pig with a dress on is still a racist. Or something like that.

[Go2Peace]

23. Hey, your a Kucinich supporter!

I am too. We shouldn't be disagreeing! :toast:

Seriously though, I don't agree in this case. I just think there is no room allowed in the discussion for nuanced approaches. The media (and even to some extent us), have reduced the choices to two. That is part of my point.

I am absolutely sure there are many, such as environmentalists on this board, who might not be excited about mass immigration, who are likely afraid or not wanting to confront. It is quite frightening thing for Democrats, who are generally fairly fair minded people, to be called a racist or other epithets, even when it is thrown about incorrectly.

[Truth2Tell]

48. There is very little logic in environmental arguments

against immigration. The basis of that "concern" falls away very easily with a little examination. Certainly I don't want to impugn EVERYONE's motives. But frankly if people are latching on to these other arguments my opinion is that they either aren't looking very hard at the issue or they are seeking rationalizations to justify other less noble motivations (maybe even subconsciously). Usually the latter. Just my observation. Many people - most of us even - are possessed of a certain degree of ingrained prejudice. And that can affect our outlook on issues in ways that we may not even realize sometimes. That doesn't mean most people are "racists," just that most of us humans have varying degrees of prejudice to work through.

[mmonk]

24. Until the illegal employer issue is addressed, there is no real effort

to take care of the problem. Hateful laws authored by hateful people who for years have been connected to hate groups is no solution.

[boston bean]

27. Do you think Obama is gonna take on the oligarchy on this one?

Do you think some will change their minds about this when they realize Obama isn't gonna really do squat about taking on the corporations? I can almost guarantee the admin will only focus on the AZ law and we will get no meaningful legislation. ie go after businesses that hire slave labor.

[mmonk]

28. I think many politicians will let it fester in the background

until after the election before doing anything meaningful. And to answer your question, no, I don't think they will address it correctly but hope I am wrong.

[lynne]

26. The charge of "racism" has been leveled so frequently that its right up there with crying "WOLF"!

It has gotten to the point that no one can state that they have a problem with ILLEGAL immigration without being called a racist. The key word is "illegal".

What I find ironic is that many legal immigrants - those who have waited, filed the appropriate forms, and have paid to live and work in the US legally - are unhappy with the ILLEGAL immigrant situation. They feel that the ILLEGAL immigrants have not paid their dues and are creating problems for those that have worked hard to come here legally.

Does this make legal immigrants RACIST, too? I've come to the point where I ignore any thread or poster that refuses to view the situation in its entirety before crying racism.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. So you contend that if there is so much bigotry that it must be

called out frequently, that somehow makes the racism dandy and the calling out of racism wrong? So in any scenario where there is lots of racism, one can not call it out, because too many charges of racism devoid all racism? If there are 100 racists in the room, how many can be called out before the limit is passed? In the old South Africa, how much was too much for you? How soft must the kid gloves be?
When people launch into generalized claims about what has been done by others, not specific people being addressed, just 'them' and use that as a platform to defend despicable laws, not matter how they SHOUT or how often they put up walls of defense, the truth of what they are saying is clear. It is all about 'them' and your framing of 'them' and what you claim they do to frame you.
There are homophobes all over this place too. Calling them what they are is not wrong. If it is frequent, says much about the DU population. But dig this, sweetie, I'll never, ever be silent in the face of bigotry. So deal with it. Get over it. The truth will not go away to make you comfy.
I am sick of racism. You are sick of having racism pointed out. Very different points of view we have.

[BlooInBloo]

44. +1

[Go2Peace]

58. So in your zeal it is appropriate to approach it like the salem witch trials or the Red communist

scare?

We have to call all those hidden commies... um I mean hidden racists, out of their holes.

This has evolved into a kind of witch hunt. It looks way too much like what the teabaggers do to be comfortable. We are drawing a "policy line" and then declaring anyone who doesn't have the exact same policy ideas to be filled with racism. So that even people who have very similar liberal values get called out and ostrasized through a policy purity test.

You know, it's not surprising. Even at the beginning of the Russian revolution the Communist leaders split over a purity challenge and then proceeded to kill each other. But why continue to do this kind of regressive stuff. Maybe this time we can find a way to make the world better without getting into a superiority pissing contest?

[treestar]

36. When your only problem with it is that it is ILLEGAL

You're showing how little you know about it. It is not just a matter of filling out forms. It is very restrictive. The undocumented from Mexico can never be legal - the law is purposely set up so they can't, so that our lowest wage earners/latest immigrants have no protections from the law.

Learn about the history of immigration - immigrants are at the bottom of the economic ladder generally and the influx from Mexico and Central America is fueled by corn subsidies and the usual pressures that cause migration.

Just screaming "it's ILLEGAL" is no excuse - it just shows ignorance of both history and the current situation.

[Captain Hilts]

50. Well said. nt

[ProSense]

65. This is nonsense.

First of all, if it reeks of racism, why shouldn't it be called out as often as it occurs? Secondly, not a single person has accused Democrats of being racist for trying to address illegal immigration. It's a problem, one that many countries have to deal with. It's just that some in the U.S. are more interested in exploiting immigrants than actually solving the problem.

[stray cat]

31. If free republic and DU are examples of the best we have we are doomed

I don't think they are

[ItNerd4life]

42. Very true. However, there are some knowledgeable people, just have to look. nt

[olegramps]

33. If the Tea Baggers really wanted to stop illegal immigration:

They would demand that the executives of businesses that hire illegals be prosecuted, jailed and fined. When a couple of CEOs go to prison and are fined millions of dollars this situation would be resolved over night. As for those who presently in the country we have to find some way of legalizing them.

As for the Arizona law it is a ridiculous attempt to take advantage of situation solely for political purposes. It is unenforceable and only political theater that will cost the Republicans any support by the Hispanic community that is growing substantially. What is ironic is that the Republican white males are going to find themselves in the minority within a generation and the shoe will be on the other foot.

[ieoeja]

39. Amnesty addresses all but one of your points. So would amnesty be acceptable compromise?

Warning: "no" will result in rather obvious comparison to rightists claims that Democrats did not compromise on health insurance reform.

[Go2Peace]

53. There have been two amnesties already and they have only encouraged the problem

If it would work I would be all for it. But it is counter intuitive. What kind of message do we send at that point? Go ahead and ignore any laws or framework that gets setup, because people will assume that once enough people cross the border illegally again there will be a 4th and 5th "amnesty". No, it's better that we figure out how we need to deal with the problem and then apply consistantly the resolution and deal with the issue once and for all, however we solve it.

[boppers]

66. How many "amnesties" were there in the first 150 years of the country?

Hint: If you could get here, you could be a citizen.

They have encouraged the county to grow and expand, and created a massive multi-lingual, multi-cultural, nation-of-nations.

I'm not sure why you would consider it a "problem", or if I understand the "problem" as you would define it.

[Go2Peace]

68. You know ., if you would stop trying prove my intentions ill and instead listen and talk

you might understand. I am not closed to the option. Have you read the Reid Immigration Bill draft? It includes an amnesty process but at the same time deals with the root problem, something we have not done before. I am not against "amnesty" per se. If it is tied to a strategy tied to a process that actually solves the problems I can get behind it. The Reid bill seems to do that and I am fine with that kind of approach.

[boppers]

69. What is the "root problem"?

I haven't read the Reid draft, but I'm curious about the "root problem".

[Go2Peace]

70. well, what is more important. A witch hunt or reading and truth?

Just go read the PDF. I know it is more boring and intellectual than ranting and "Red Baiting" though. Are you interested in learning or just here to call out anonymous writers on the internet?

[boppers]

73. I read it.

Not seeing the "root problem", which is why I asked you to define it.

Here's my take on it:
"People who don't look white and speak English freak out white English speakers, therefore, mono-lingual and mono-cultural racists and xenophobes will single out others for punishment."

I don't define immigration as the root problem, I define *resistance* to immigration as the root problem.

[Go2Peace]

75. So then you disagree with the legislation?

Or any like it? Do you see Reid as a "Racist"?

[Cleita]

40. Immigration is an issue that has been very contentious here at DU.

Many ordinarily liberal DUers have also shown themselves to be closet racists. When we discuss immigration policy as applying to immigrants from everywhere in the world not just our southern border, then maybe some meaningful immigration policy can be hammered out.

[Go2Peace]

54. The arguments here are a little disturbing

We always chastise the Teabaggers for having emotional points of view without a basis in truth. I see the same phenominon going on in this.

Approach a teabagger and they will tell you they are angry that Democrats are "socialists". Then you ask them, how do they know that and what defines a "socialist" and they don't know. They just "feel" it and "feel" they are justified in labling others. Because they must protect their ideology even when it is based in fiction.

I see the same phenomenon here with this issue. Everyone who has a different policy opinion is angrily denounced as a "racist". You can ask them why they make that presumption and label, because most here do not approve of racial profiling? It isn't about skin color, it is about policy and other things. "No!", the angry person will retort. Anybody who doesn't like illegal immigration is a racist." But how do you know that? What proof do you have of that?". It doesn't matter what you say, because facts will get in the way of the kind of emotional response this has generated. And when we see that in our own party it is a concern. Because hopefully we understand what it can lead to?

[Cleita]

57. Let's say I have lived alongside of it for most of my life and have

witnessed the difference with which undocumented immigrants have been treated depending on whether they were whites of European ethnicity who came in here through Canada or Hispanics from Latin America. There is no ambiguity in the racism. Sorry.

[Go2Peace]

63. find the post where I every said I supported that AZ law. You won't, because I don't

This is pure idiocy. On a liberal site people are witch hunting instead of listening to each other.

Obviously a lot of others understand the problem with this, because the recs have outnumbered the unrecs on the site. So what folks have simply done is driven folks out and mostly shut people down until only a few are left posting in this OP. Folks should be proud of themselves, they just accomplished something a teabagger would be proud of. I am out of here too now. You can all enjoy your witch hunt and slap each other on the back.

I have something more fun to do than have a discussion with people who want to approach a discussion like the fundamentalists do.

[boppers]

67. Change requires work.

Fighting against change requires work.

In the end, the winners are those who don't stop and give up.

[boppers]

74. You made it clear that you don't think immigrants have rights.

'So I am not sure that cracking down on illegal immigrants can be stopped. I blame that as much on the immigrant "rights" groups who are unrealistic in their expectations.'

Yes, human rights, in scare quotes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8126180

[Go2Peace]

76. That's bullshit. Have you ever typed quickly and poorly phrased something

What this really is about is that your mind wants to take some electonic dots on a page that you see that you have developed an entire story about, a fiction that fits your preconceived notion. And you keep trying to fulfill that fantasy with every different angle, thinking you can trick those pixels into revealing this secret hidden background. Instead of simply opening your mind to the fact that reality may not be quite as simple, and that you may actually not fully grasp every angle in the discourse around the issue.

So instead of listening and giving what someone else is trying to explain to you just a little trust, which is also a "Human right" and "Human dignity" issue, you prefer to paint an innacurate picture. The little game you are playing here is quite the opposite of what you claim. You are playing a moralist game that is closer to the authoritarian views of those you claim to despise. Either that or I am dealing with someone who is a little unbalanced.

I am not going to play it. You can't mind read over the internet. Take a break. It might restore some lost humanity.

I have added you to my ignore list. So don't expect a further reply.

[boppers]

77. *You're

The "edit" capability lets us return to posts, FWIW.

[ItNerd4life]

43. My belief: Democrats want the votes, Repuglicans want the cheap labor.

But you also state some other great points!

[TheKentuckian]

46. Unless folks are calling for a hardline on employers, including Lowes stings and such

and ending the drug war then to my mind it is safe to assume a person isn't really interested in dealing with issues stemming from the border.

Tax code has a part to play with enforcement because of being able to blow off reporting for small amounts of money like a farm may pay out to a migrant worker to pick for a few days. If you take that exception for under $600 or whatever it is now then agents could fine or arrest the employers when they failed to be able to verify they employed and paid legally.

We probably have to address some economic issues that have an effect in Mexico as well, like our farm subsidies and even economic opportunities there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Nor should there be.

Racists can eat shit and die.

[BlooInBloo]

62. I like you.

[BlooInBloo]

82. Because everybody knows there's 2 sides to every Jim Crow law.