J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

 Oye ese! Que hay de nuevo Miguel?

As poliitical efficacy scores in the 2000 Roper Social Capital Survey and other studies have shown, of all the admittedly arbitrary demographic groupings, Latinos have the lowest levels of political  utilitiy by far.

The times they are a changin. 

A new corps mobilizes over immigration

There used to be a kind of divide" between native-born US Latinos and undocumented immigrants, says Raul Yzaguirre, former president of the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino advocacy group. "Now, there is a sense that we're in this together."

In fact, some are saying that Latino political activism has not reached such a level of intensity since 1994, when a California ballot initiative to deny social services to illegal immigrants rallied that state's Hispanic population against it. This time, however, the intensity is on a much broader scale, as groups from Atlanta to Milwaukee to Los Angeles follow closely any government moves that could affect them.

"I have to say, it makes life easy for us," says Pablo Alvarado, a Salvadorean immigrant and leader of the National Day Labor Organizing Network in Los Angeles. "An environment of fear means people are more willing to come together. I guess it's the same anywhere in the world

I support this agenda, especially the first item.  The best way to avoid, or at least minimize, a political backlash from those threatened by immigration reform is to convince those who are here illegally that if they play by the rules from here on out, then they are on a secure path leading to citizenship rather than deportation.

 
But the best way to convince the rest of Americans, the majority, that we are serious about immigration reform is to make it crystal clear that this is not just a first amnesty to be followed inevitably by another, and another, and another, while the system remains broken - but that we will take firm and concrete steps to secure our borders and bring the current broken system to an end!  This crazy assault on American workers,  democratic governance and the rule of law must stop.

I also strongly agree with the sentiment that the argument that we can't substantially control our borders if we want to is just a canard.  This lazy negativism is completely unwarranted.  It is a dishonest excuse for playing along with the current corrupt system.  Let's adopt more of a can-do approach, and show the American public that Democrats are the one's they can count on to solve problems of bad governance, and fix something that almost all of them regard as broken.

Like world federalists, socialists, libertarians and anarcho- syndicalists, open-borders leftists are marginal cranks, and debating them is a waste of time.

You got that right.  Preach it, brother! 

---

Are you ready for A New Departure?

I don't think for a moment that it is impossible to control the borders. But at what cost? And any reply about the pure spring of American citizenship being too important to put a price tag on is at least as unserious as saying you'll never stamp out illegal immigration.

I sympathize with the goals of border interdiction, but I want metrics. How much does it cost to stop the nth illegal alien, and how much would it cost to let him pass? When y is greater than x, it's time to stop throwing money at it. And I'm willing to pay for intangibles like respect for the process, fairness to immigrants pursuing the process legally, but I'm not willing to pay an indefinite amount of money for those intangibles.

Last but not least, progressives living in the real world should ignore the chattering of open-borders, one-world leftists who claim erroneously that because of "globalization" nation-states like the U.S. no longer have the ability to control who enters their territories in the interest of high wages, low welfare costs and national security.

Now who is not living in the real world.  If there is anything that has become clear from the last ten years of stepped-up border enforcement it is that the U.S. no longer has control of who enters its territory.  It may be sad, disturbing, dangerous, or bad, but it is the reality.  Even building a fence would not stop people from coming in without permission -- think of the millions of people who come to the U.S. on tourist and student visas which keep many local economies running.  Thousands of those people never go home again.  To think that the U.S. can do what it never has been able to do before in its history, prevent people from entering the country and staying without permission, is simply living in a fantasy world.

Yes you may have some valid criticisms about the guest worker provisions in the current version of the immigration bill (I agree that tying the benefits of a work visa to employer sponsorship seems like an invitation to exploitation), but it is hard to take someone seriously who is so blind to the reality of immigration in this country.

"You're never going to be able to tell a homeowner in this country that he has to check papers before he can pay someone to mow his lawn."

Why not? Why is all the discussion of this issue by liberals dominated by "We can never do this . . ." and "We can never do that . . ."? "We could never deport 11 million people," "we could never prevent illegal immigranats from coming over the border," "we could never making hiring illegals dangerous enough for Republicans to stop doing it"?

I'm actually beginning to think that a lot of the people commenting on this topic are, in fact, employing subminimum wage, no FICA nannies and gardeners. And that they are, therefore, phonies and hypocrites.

Don't look at me, I cut my own grass. But much of the lawnmowing and babysitting in my neighborhood is done by 13-year-old boys and girls. That's what I was talking about: it's hard to imagine that the gov't is ever going to intervene in the teenage babysitter economy. And as long as it is possible to hire kids to do such work, it's hard to see how it would be impossible for illegals to get similar work under similar circumstances.

You remind me of the reactions to the Zoe Baird nannygate story. It resulted in lots of people all of sudden filing SSI for their illegal cash workers.  Since there's no scandale to promote same recently, I bet that it has dropped off.

One has to be realistic about any of this kind of enforcement, how it really works. With taxes, the IRS simply does not have the funding or wherewithal to track down everything, we can't afford to pay them to do it, it would be counter-productive, and they rely on things like publicity about celebrities being punished for same, on "making an example." It's not fair to the example, but we cannot afford to do it "fair" without some future technology that invades everyone's privacy further.

It is the same with things like sales tax. People are supposed to be paying use tax in their own state if a seller on ebay doesn't collect it from them. They don't, no state is going to start doing that, it wouldn't be worth the cost. When a seller gets big and successful enough, then the state tracks them down and makes them collect. Not "fair" but it is the only way that's practical.  No state that I know of goes around policing rummage sales for sales or use tax collection.

Yes you would probably still be able to get away with paying the single Mexican guy outside the grocery store working for tips loading groceries to come and cut your lawn using your lawn mower once every week without reporting or being reported. But maybe not the illegal group of guys with their own truck and equipment who advertise on the bulletin board at the grocery store, that would be more risky.

There's simple realities of enforcement due to cost and people have to let go that some will get away with breaking the law depending on what level of enforcement you want. And enforcement will not be "fair" but targeted simply to get people to self-enforce.

I am not suggesting what choices would make sense with the topic being discussed. Just pointing out that it will have to be targeted, such as something like most of the bigger corporations, agriculture and trucking, and a smattering of smaller businesses as examples, like restaurants, motels--is the only realistic way.

Loren, there has simply been no serious attempt at all to limit illegal immigration into to the US. People like you, who pretend to be "realistic" about this, are simply exploiters, cheap-labor liberals, and hypocrites.

Jesus, this is getting ugly fast.

Interesting.  I was not aware that illegal immigrants were somehow paying taxes.  I was under the assumption that if you were illegal then your paycheck would be under the table, and the government would not even know you were an employee.  Therefore, no taxes.  I would like to learn more about how we tax people that aren't legally employed.  If you could elaborate more on that I would love to here it.  I would also love to here more about how employers are already paying into social security for the wages paid to illegal aliens.  That is why we have these discussions.

Are you an exploiter, cheap-labor liberal, and hypocrite becuase you,  like virtually all other US citizens, are the beneficiary of the exploitation of third world labor and natural resources?  Just wondering. 

Of course some people do work under the table, but many get paid with normal paychecks and are taxed in the usual way. Employers must legally ask for a Social Security number when hiring, but all employees have to do to satisfy this is give them a number. Sometimes it's a made-up number, sometimes it's a number they've purchased (the going rate is about $50), sometimes it's the valid number of a family member. Employers don't bother their heads about where the numbers come from unless they get a "no-match" letter from Social Security. Then they fire the worker.

   This is the very idea, that so much bothers me about the progressives.

   Rather than engage in the immigration debate, with real answers and solutions, addressing American workers rights. It appears they would rather sit on the sidelines like parasites hoping to destroy the Republican party

   A parasite is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it. Parasites also commonly show highly specialized adaptations allowing them to exploit host resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite

   The Democrats are exploiting the crisis, I am ashamed that I tended to side with the Democrats on many issues, but the cowardice they have displayed these last 5 years, The war, the spying, the lack of censure. Parasitic Cowards   

   Who will lead us? Not the progressive Democrats.

   As to the immigration problem, the problem is lack of applying the law. DEPORTATION  OR JAIL

   Why is it no one defends it when Haitians had to be shipped back, but if it's Latinos, they get preference? We have laws governing immigration, Get in line and apply, like all others seeking ciitizenship.

  The original inhabitants, the indigenous Apache's of the old West kept them out. (The original inhabitants). Fear kept most invaders out.  Fear of incarceration might help.  

Well, I think that Nathan Newman has proposed some real solutions, and the McCain-Kennedy bill also proposed some real solutions and there is the comprehensive report from the Drum Major Institute on a progressive solution to some of the immigration problems currently being debated. (the report is available here: http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/report.php?ID=21 )  Also there is the National Immigration Forum and most every major metropolitan area has some coalition of immigrant advocacy groups that has their own solution.  In fact, progressives have an embarassment of riches in terms of solutions to the problems that have dominated the current debates over immigration refor,  I suggest everyone take a look at them before jumping in to the debate and saying that pprogressives (or liberals) have no solutions/ideas. 

What you seem to be overlooking about the current situation is that the republicans -- not the democrats or progressives -- control all three branches of government, have preferential access to the media, and are not really interested in any progressive solutions to any problems.  So, while the republicans self-destruct, it might be a wise progressive strategy to stand aside.

But even leaving those realities aside, what you and Mr. Lind seem to be missing is that the bill just reported out of the judiciary is a COMPROMISE and not the ideal that progressives would have wanted.  It is unquestionably better in every respect than any bill that would have gained majority republican support.  No draconian criminalization provisions, border fence, no guest worker program that would have given guest workers even less rights and no chance of citizenship, no jurisdiction stripping of the federal courts.

Finally the Haitians.  The double standard applied to Haitians as opposed to Cubans who arive here as refugees is appalling and definitely something should be done.  Thankfully progressives have stepped in to advocate for a changes in federal policy, including TransAfrica Forum and the National Coalition for Haitian Rights.  Their calls to extend TPS to Haitians in the U.S. and to halt deportations to Haiti have been joined by numerous democrats including Hilary Clinton.

I guess what I am trying to say is that progressives are doing plenty, you and Mr. Lind should take a look. 

   We have a reasonable and fair policy. It's the law governing legal immigration. A law that allows all people of all the nations to apply for citizenship, regardless of color or nationallity.

   The unreasonableness and unfairness is being perpetrated by those who want to ignore the law.

   Picture your self standing in a line, to recieve something, bread line, concert line, movie line. Then hordes of people run in front of you, taking, robbing you, depriving you of the reward you had stood in line for. They wanted to be first, ahead of all others. 

   You get to the window and the sign say's Closed, sold out, No more vacancies. NO MORE, NO MORE

   Look at the pictures of the protestors , who shut down businesses, blocked roadways, calling for a general strike.

   This is shameful conduct and typifies a culture of get out of the way, make room for me, me first. lawlessnesss, if it's expedient.  

   So who was it that acted unreasonably or unfairly. Who really is the victim?

OK, I more or less agree with the policy suggestions you made. But WHY should progressives support these ideas? We humans are supposedly rational actors, right? We have reasons for what we do. Why is this right, and other ideas about this situation wrong?

I will return to this, but let's consider what you wrote about one world leftists, socialists, libertarains being marginal cranks:
I definitely agree we should ignore one world leftists. But I have REASONS for why I think this.

Now, I have been reading your stuff for a while. I agree with you on some things. I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I see them as merely tools to be used by governments of man to achieve an end. Both have their place. The nations that in my opinion provide best for their citizenry are the social democracies of northwestern Europe. And they are a mix of socialism and capitalism.

And I think "providing best for their citizenry" is a good thing; in fact it should be the basis for the actions of any government.
You see, what I just did was provide some theoretical basis for the policies I advocate. There are therefore REASONS WHY I support certain policies, like the policies YOU advocated at the top of this post. Why is it, Mr Lind, that you never talk about the reasons behind policies? In fact, you are quite similar to those TV pundits. Never talk about theory, or about why we should do anything.

That is the real juicy stuff==why you and other pundits do not talk about "why". It wouldn't take long to do it. I just provided my basis for why I support policies--because it does best by the citizens of America. And because Americans citisens own this country, in my opinion, and as owners, all rights and benefits of such ownership should accrue to us, and only us. And that mass immigration is giving too much of the benefits of AMerica to foreigners and the upper class and to corporate investors.
See, THAT didn't take up too much time....

OOh, am I getting into "marginal crank" territory here, Mr Lind?

Do we now know what TV pundits (and wannabes) never talk about the
theoretical foundation for policies. Because they might cause a REAL political debate, a debate that would not be good for those at top of the pyramid here in America.

Oh, and BTW, you, Mr Lind, have advocated certain policies that are economically rightwing, right? You have advocated a flat tax, right? Or perhaps it was a flattened tax structure? That is rightwing libertarian stuff, right? Well, really it is top-of-the-pyramid stuff, right? Let's see....Draw in the white majority with anti-illegal immigration stuff, and then use that to sell them on flat taxation. Clever. You will go right to the top of the tv pundit pyramid, mr lind.

Ooops! Did I just get into marginal crank territory there? All this wacky THEORY stuff....

///////

My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com

"Support controlling the underpoliced U.S.-Mexican border, by means of partial fencing and a greatly expanded Border Patrol."

I think it is possible to build a wall along the Mexican border. It is only about two thousand miles long. Look at The Great Wall in China. If the Chinese were able to build a wall of four thousand miles long several hundred years ago without any modern technology, why wouldn't Americans be able to build a wall of half the length now with all the modern technology?

A wall like The Great Wall in China will not only protect Americans, it can also become a tourist attraction and provide jobs for Mexicans. They work on the building of the wall. They can also work on making it more attractive to tourists by doing things like building Little Mexicos along the border. They can even build tunnels underneath the wall like those tunnels built by the Palestinians in Gaza. The tunnels can be a tourist attraction as well.

It would seem to me that the first thing we need to do is open up some more ticket booths.  The legal immigration process is absurbly curtailed at present.  However, you are right that any immigration reform needs to take care of the people who have patiently waited to get into this country under the current laws. 

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Pelosi Endorses Kennedy-McCain [NewsHour Interview]