home

Tancredo: Arizona Went Too Far

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Colorado News
Posted on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 06:51:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

MileHi Hawkeye points us to this:

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who crusaded for tough anti-immigration measures while in Congress, told KDVR-TV that while he supported the new immigration law in Arizona he thought it went too far. Said Tancredo: "I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over."

(Emphasis supplied.) As MileHi says, if Tancredo thinks you went too far in Latino loathing and immigrant bashing, then you probably crossed the line about 100 hundred miles back.

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread: Boycott Arizona! | Tuesday Blogging Schedule And Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tancredo: Arizona Went Too Far | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This will have an effect in other states (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by mexboy on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:00:17 PM EST
    And as time goes on and people get better informed, the Republicans will go down in flames.

    Colorado, Nevada, and Texas (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:16:11 PM EST
    just to being with.

    Parent
    I don't think anything saves Reid. (none / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:22:30 PM EST
    But maybe if Bennet can keep it close enough, a large hispanic turnout could make the difference.

    Parent
    No, Reid is toast (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:28:58 PM EST
    but he's not the only guy running.

    Parent
    Yeah, it will be interesting to watch the (none / 0) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:44:38 PM EST
    House races.

    Parent
    Reid raises one question (none / 0) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:18:23 PM EST
    why do we keep selecting majority leaders from purple states- why not Schumer (or pre-2008, Biden). The GOP didn't make Olympia Snowe minority leader.  

    on a side note- Reid has a chance if crazy "barter for medicine" lady wins the GOP nod- its the "Macaca" chance- he can keep it close and hope she says more nutty stuff.

    Parent

    I think Schumer has a 50/50 chance (none / 0) (#33)
    by tigercourse on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    of being the next Majority leader. And the other likely choice is Durbin so it should be someone from a solid blue state this time.

    Parent
    Bennet hasn't won... (none / 0) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:35:28 PM EST
    ...the primary yet (he will) and Norton isn't guaranteed the Repub nod either-what with the TP faction of the Party not exactly in her court--so it's hard to poll.

    One thing for sure--Bennet can raise $ like nobody's business.  He's crushing everyone else--that's what's going to allow him to keep in seat in the Gentleman's Club.  

    Parent

    That isn't exactly a recommendation... (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    ...in my mind -- being able to raise money.  And I am irked beyond words that Obama chose to intervene in a Democratic primary.

    You might guess that Bennett isn't getting my vote in the primary.

    Parent

    It wasn't meant to be. (none / 0) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    Simply a fact of politics.  Bennet will have the money to saturate the media with ads and that is going to go a long way to winning the race.  It is interesting that his branding (and website) downplays the fact he's a Democrat.  I guess with CO being fairly evenly split R/D/I, he's targeting the independent part of the equation.

    The TP faction is just as po'd that McCain chose to intervene in the Republican race on Norton's behalf.  That plus her campaign being in disarray (hiring Penry as Campaign Manager reeks of desperation, IMO) is going to make for a more interesting primary on that side.  

    On the D side, Andrew is a great guy and certainly less of a corporist than Bennet, but he's running one of the worse campaigns ever.  He hasn't shown me that he's ready to run (and win) a statewide election.  

    Parent

    As far as I can see (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:14:07 PM EST
    the only upside to not having a political "home" is that now I can vote (or not vote) without giving any thought to the horse race aspect of a political race.

    Pretty much the best that I can hope for is to not actively vote against my own interests.  It's very freeing in a way.  Although my ballot may have some blank spots for the foreseeable future.

    Parent

    PPP gives signs (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:16:24 PM EST
    that the Republicans may have screwed up their Arizona November this week.

    To be specific: (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:32:15 PM EST
    "Barack Obama won Hispanics in AZ by 15 points. Terry Goddard leads Brewer by 46."

    Parent
    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    On issues like this and immigration Reform republicans seem to be actively trying to give Obama a smooth road to re-election and Dems in general a shot at establishing a permanent majority inside of twenty-five years, in spite of themselves (seriously, how can every major Republican not named Karl Rove be this dumb-- Hispanics are the fastest growing major demographic and yet the GOP appears determined to isolate them as they did African-Americans in the mid-to-late '60s).

    Parent
    The poll came out and Brewer is (none / 0) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    only trailing Goddard by 3 points, much better then she was doing last fall.

    Parent
    Does anyone know of any non Ras polls (none / 0) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:28:07 PM EST
    about the new Arizona law?

    misread (none / 0) (#10)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:53 PM EST
    if Tancredo thinks you went too far in Latino loathing and immigrant bashing

    tancredo isn't saying there is anything wrong with doing vial things to Latinos. He's only saying that the cretins method of mistreating Latinos is insufficiently accurate.

    so we're now (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:52:37 AM EST
    taking the lead from scumbags? that's kind of like saying "well gee, hitler even thinks stalin went too far, so he must be pretty bad.". do i really care what tancredo thinks, or need him to confirm what i already know?

    for those that still haven't answered, the answer is no.

    Make them pay, cash. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:24:18 AM EST
    Federal caselaw's pretty clear, you can't be penalized for failure to carry ID, except when driving, flying, or engaged in a few other specific licensed  activities. Hiibel v Nevada held that when stopped by police on reasonable suspicion (a terry Stop) you have to identify yourself, but the court stopped short of a requirement of paper ID.

    Hang on the sidewalk in one of Arizona's upscale shopping districts. Dress down, and subtly attract the attention of the local constabulary. When they demand your ID, refuse, with a slightly beligerant tone.  The idea's to get taken to jail without actually committing a crime. Bail out next day, and sue. Eventually settle for give or  $20,000, plus attorneys fees on the false arrest.

    HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
    NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. (2004)

    BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

    The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 . The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.

    KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)

    The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest.



    Good idea Ben... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:46:54 AM EST
    lots of unemployed folks could use a cash settlement of 20k or so, thats 6 months worth of bills paid in one swoop.

    Bankrupt the bastards...I like it.

    Parent

    Silly (none / 0) (#17)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    The taxpayers have to pay the bill, not the cops.

    Parent
    The taxpayers... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    are ultimately responsible for this law, are they not?

    If they are concerned about violence, they should be working on repealing drug prohibition...no?  I don't see how "papers please" addresses drug trade violence.

    Parent

    The taxpayers are respoinsible (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:24:04 AM EST
    for their rotten cops. They re-elect Sheriff Arpaio, and will continue to do so until it costs them big $.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#76)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    But in many communities, there is no accountability. Bad cops to crappy things and the public pays the bill. If what they did was bad enough, the cops get fired. But often they're protected by their union or their local government. Take a look at tasering of citizens as a method of compliance, for instance.  Lawsuits have been paid for injuries and deaths, and the cops who abused their power are still on the force.

    Parent
    Well, if the tax payers support the law (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    then it seems to me to be a good use of their tax dollars.

    Just sayin'

    Parent

    The taxpayers want to be able to go (none / 0) (#19)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:12:21 AM EST
    to the grocery store without getting mugged. They want their kids to go to school without drug related violence. Most people don't support racial profiling, they just want a solution to the problems in their communities.

    You guys act like this is all about picking on Hispanics. It's not. It's about a severe crime problem that happens to have been caused (in this case) by an influx of Mexican drug and gun dealers.

    This AZ law is problematic, but the federal government is not properly dealing with the problem caused by a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    Parent

    So is this a big problem in AZ? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    Getting mugged at grocery stores?  

    And seriously, AZ has a history of being less than racially tolerant.  

    Boycott Arizona.  I will, this summer.  My few dollars won't mean much, but at least I won't get mugged.  At the grocery store.

    Parent

    So you don't think the drug related (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    crime is a problem in Arizona? You don't agree that the crime there is exacerbated by gun dealers who happen to be Mexican citizens? Hmm.

    You sound like those knee-jerk liberals who call anyone who disagrees with Obama's corporatism a racist. This issue is more complicated than just a bunch of racists trying to be mean to their fellow citizens.

    Stereotyping an entire state doesn't get us any closer to a solution to this problem.

    Parent

    Show us the data that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    says that undocumented Latinos are more likely to commit crime than anyone else.

    And how does picking up undocumented Latinos working at the local grocery store prevent drug violence?

    Parent

    I didn't say undocumented (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    Latinos are more likely to commit crime than anyone else. And I didn't say picking up undocumented Latinos working at the local grocery store prevents drug violence.

    You guys have a serious problem understanding other people's arguments when you disagree with their opinion.


    Parent

    You argue the new law (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    is designed to stop drug violence.   That may be the demagogic appeal to the law.  

    I suppose if you stop every single Mexican from coming her illegally, you might stop the drug violence commited by Mexican drug lords.  But as it seems to me, the drug trade always evolves, and the drug lords will just find a way to use legal residents to do their bidding.  So, voila! no violence by illegals.  But did the crime rate really go down?  Or would the crime be committed by others who are here legally?

    It sounds as if Arizona just discovered a crime wave....Yet, I heard a supporter of the law claim on Tweety's show that the murder rate in Arizona has been recently cut in half.  Obviously, the new law had nothing to do with that.

    I wonder if one crime by an illegal is equal to ten crimes committed by others in the public's mind--more frighteningg and more widely publicized than other crimes?  Magnified because the crime was commited by a Latino.

    I think the people are scared--but I wonder given the data how rational that fear is....

    And there is an easy answer to the drug violence.....  
     

    Parent

    No, I don't argue that the new law (none / 0) (#48)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    is designed to stop drug violence. My argument to Kdog was that making the public pay for lawsuits against police profiling doesn't make the police stop profiling.

    It's generally accepted that Mexican drug lords and Mexican gun dealers are the cause of the increase in violent crime in border states during the past few years. But if you want to pretend they'd be able to accomplish the same thing even if we stopped illegal immigration, go ahead.

    Parent

    You want it both ways (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    You say you have problems with the current law....

    Yet, you imply support for the law by saying poor Arizona was just doing something to stop the violence....

    Which is it?

    And, you say K-Dog is wrong and victims of racial profiling should not be compensated because that just hurts Arizonans.....setting aside the fact that under current federal law, a section 1983 case for violation of civil rights does entitle victims to damages....  

    Parent

    Oh c'mon (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    You're making up reasons to criticize. Of course victims of a bad law should be entitled to damages. Reread my post - it says making the public pay for police profiling doesn't make the police stop being bad cops. We pay the bills, and the right wing politicians get a free ride on the continuing racial tensions.

    I don't want it both ways. I want to alleviate the racial tensions, not exacerbate them. Allowing millions of illegal aliens to access public resources that other citizens pay for creates even more problems. The AZ law is bad (gee, I said that a few times already), AND the federal government isn't dealing with the illegal immigration problem. Which means states are doing so. Which also means red state right wing politicians get to use this issue to promote their candidacy. To be clear, I'm against that and my solution is not to give amnesty but to get rid of the incentive to bypass immigration law.

    If liberals would stop being naïve and realize the answer to world poverty isn't to ignore valid immigration policy, it's to prevent our Democrats from driving us toward the plutocracy other countries are mired in. That means standing up against Bill Clinton's NAFTA and Obama's faux health care reform with the mandate to buy a product from the insurance companies that supported his bid for presidency.


    Parent

    I enjoy your posts (3.66 / 3) (#56)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    for your attempt to pretend you are liberal....

    You try to talk the lingo, e.g., "our Democrats."  Was that what came out after first writing the "Democrat Party?"  Or did you try to soften the accusation against "Democrats" of ruining the country by throwing in an "our?"  The phrase "our Democrats" is horribly awkward and shows the signs of being cut from something else.  A little editing before you sent it?   You do get points for using the term "right wing" but not too many, because that is an easy one.

    Your tells?  Numerous.  First your ideas.  But beyond that, you assume that Democrats, or progressives, champion immigration reform to cure "world poverty."  And you couple that with the term "naive."  These are conservative talking points.....I know of no liberal that wants to cure immigration issues to cure world poverty.  No, liberals and progressives care about those here because it is an issue of human rights....the dignity of those here.  It is not a poverty issue.  

    You are responding to a conservative caricature of liberals as "naively" wanting to cure all the worlds ills....

    You criticize other countries' "plutocracy."  This sounds like a cloaked criticism of Europe and socialism to my ear....

    You use the term "Free ride."  Conservative words close to the heart....

    All from one post.  The others are similar......  

    Parent

    I've voted Democrat since (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    we lost to Nixon in 1969. But according to you, I'm really a right wing racist who pretends to be liberal and awkwardly uses the expression "our Democrats." Worse, I actually criticize the Democratic Party and our President. And I'm against people getting a "free ride" at the expense of others, so I must be the enemy. Wow, you're such a psychic!

    Just because I think automatic citizenship is bad public policy, I'm no longer allowed under the Big Tent of our Dem Party. Boo hoo, I'm not part of the team because I won't buy into politically correct talking points for liberals. But hey, at least Sher and SJ will give you 5 points for insulting me. Because if you don't agree with someone, it's always a good idea to attack them, right?

    Your attitude and short sightedness is what costs our party elections like the senate race in Massachusetts. You guys can't have a debate about immigration policy without screaming "racist." Worse, you can't see that the Democratic Party is rampantly corporatist, and our failed immigration policy is a reflection of both party's unwillingness to support our nation's greatest asset, our middle class.

    For future reference, you don't get to decide if I'm really a Democrat.


    Parent

    The idea that the Fourteenth (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    Amendment is good for everyone except those whose parents are Mexican, is bigotted.  

    Sure, I understand you would have it apply to everyone now.  But there was no problem with granting automatic citizenship to everyone born here until we got too many of "them."   The problem you want to address is not too many Irish or Germans here illegally.  

    You are specifically targeting Latinos.....because their kids are getting a "free ride."  That is bigotted.

    Parent

    Stop lying about what I said. (none / 0) (#68)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:37:34 PM EST
     "The idea that the Fourteenth Amendment is good for everyone except those whose parents are Mexican"

    Those are your words MKS, not mine. I didn't say that, I don't even think that, but you're either too stupid or too stubborn to understand what I said.

    I have no problem with Latino immigrants. I want to stop ILLEGAL immigration. Nothing I've said indicates that I would treat Hispanic immigrants any differently than any other ethnicity. By preventing illegal immigration we actually HELP Latino immigrants who chose to abide by the law. But maybe that's too complex for you to understand.

    Parent

    That is the import of your position (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    I understand your position perfectly well.

    I think you are unclear in your own mind.  When pressed about details of the statute, you say you are not for that.  Since the basic conversation is about the new statute, you are basically qualifying yourself into a corner:  It is a bad statute, it is likely to lead to profiling, and it is not targeted at those committing crime, etc.

    But you continue to offer sympathy for the Arizona effort. And want to amend the Fourteenth Amendment.  And talk about how all these kids of Latino parents are getting a free ride.

    You express resentment at Latinos and their kids.....You really think they are taking something away from you and others here.  There are all kinds of studies out there that show on the whole Latinos who are here, even illegaly, give more than they take--they are not a net drain on public resources....You have to take into account sales and property taxes, and what is spent here too.

    But no matter, you have climbed into Reagan's pink Cadillac driven by the welfare queen.    

    Parent

    I'm not sure that I got (none / 0) (#72)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    that MLM was pro this bill at all. Just not for intentionally getting jailed in order to sue as a way to break the bill. I would agree that tactic is not going to do much to positively address immigration issues - just more stupid flame wars - with money. A boycott, however, is a good idea. It targets the state's income and does not reward such a separatist pov.

    BTW, you can bet that if this law goes into effect scads of art grad students will go there in order to get arrested and then document it all for their social practice thesis. That should really piss the police off and may be more effective than litigation.

    Parent

    MLM has stated repeatedly (none / 0) (#80)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    that this law is no good.

    I think MKS has some personal issue and wants to paint me as a racist to minimize my argument against birthright citizenship.

    Parent

    Again, this isn't about one (none / 0) (#79)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    particular ethnic group. I have no resentment of "Latinos and their kids," as you put it. My issue is with federal policy. But if you think Latinos are particularly good immigrants, why don't you work on changing immigration law to allow more Latinos in as legal immigrants? I personally don't think someone's ethnicity should be a factor. Limitations and allocations should be based on individual characteristics, with a lottery for fairness when the immigration numbers are too high. The problem is that the federal government is sitting on its hands and states are having to deal with problems caused by illegal immigration.

    Parent
    And, you are talking about (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:23:55 PM EST
    Latinos' kids, man.  If you know anything about Mexican culture, you would understand what a hot button issue you have hit--to deprive Latino kids of constitutional rights that everyone else has enjoyed for hundreds of years.....because there are too many of them....

    Ain't no consolation that you would apply this new citizenship barrier to other groups too....This was never even considered until it was the Latino kids who most needed this right....

    Parent

    This isn't about ethnicity. (none / 0) (#78)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    It's about maintaining a sustainable population, managing who can be lawful citizens of this country, and preventing this issue from being used to elect right wing politicians. As long as someone can break the law to come here and have a baby that the public is responsible for raising if the parents don't, this issue will be used to divide the electorate to the detriment of other progressive causes.

    Parent
    MyLeftMind (none / 0) (#69)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:37:41 PM EST
    I've been trying to follow your arguments. One thing I disagree with is the term "amnesty". The US is a nation of squatters and I do not see wanting to live here as a crime in need of amnesty.

    If my kids grow up with and go to school with, play with, and are friends with someone who's parents did not follow immigration law, then I think it completely unfair that kid is criminalized!

    But I agree about the issue of scarce resources, and violence. Guns are a problem, and both parties are pro-gun. I suppose I am too, but I am very anti ammunition. But drugs and violence are not just border state problems - happens everywhere. So a deeper solution would be to address drug laws that create black markets for drugs.

    How would you "get rid of the incentive to bypass immigration law"? What would you consider some of the best ideas to address this issue?

    Parent

    You get rid of the incentive (none / 0) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:36:35 AM EST
    by eliminating birthright citizenship. Many other nations have done so already. It's long past time for the US to ensure that babies of temporary foreign workers and students, international travelers, and the millions who break the law to enter this country are not granted automatic citizenship. This is a separate issue from what to do about the millions that are already here. Removing birthright citizenship would mean the public is no longer financially responsible for babies of foreigners who manage to get here to give birth. Not that all foreigners dump kids on the public, but enough do that it's become an issue.

    Without change, we won't ever be able to stabilize the US population or create a sustainable environment. Clearly, people will still have other incentive to come to this country illegally, but at least their children won't be eligible to be wards of the state.


    Parent

    Drug related crime... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    is a problem in many places...Arizona especially.  But nobody is talking about our violence-creatin' drug policy.

    Parent
    Well, you know, (3.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    we still have all kinds of violence caused by bootleggers.....and turf wars between liquor stores....

    Parent
    To be fair... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    playing "kick the brown dude" is a lot easier on small minds than tackling entrenched prohibition policy and its nasty side effects.  Or tackling the inequity between capital and labor in this here global economy.

     

    Parent

    ZtoA, huh? (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:17:44 PM EST
    You must have missed my point....

    The idea is de-criminalizing drugs would lead to less crime.  I am not sure you want to downrate that comment....but who knows....

    Parent

    MKS, annoyed with this thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:51:06 PM EST
    It seems some here are actually putting in enormous effort at NOT understanding MLM's points. And, no, bootlegging is not like drug violence. I agree that most drugs should be de-criminalized and regulated.

    Since drug violence is an issue for immigration, it seems to me that money is an issue - so poverty is an issue.

    I don't know any answers and I don't live in a border state, but I get tired of people accusing each other of racism. I'm sure racism exists but IMO underneath it is competition for scarce resources. So, money, again.

    In the US we have a growing underclass and it is causing terrible tensions. From my perspective we have underclass whites, AAs and immigrants. And political parties use them like waldoes in their proxy spats.

    I'll re-rate. Nerves run raw sometimes.

    Parent

    Hey now bootleggers went legit (none / 0) (#73)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:36:13 PM EST
    and founded political dynasties, heck they helped house a Presidential canidate last year.

    Parent
    Bigot (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    Your comments are a text book example of bigotry and racism.

    Parent
    Pfffttt (none / 0) (#26)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    You don't even know my ethnicity. But if you want to pretend that Mexican drug lords aren't causing problems in Arizona and other border states, feel free. Perhaps it's not PC in your book to acknowledge their country of origin.

    I happen to think that our immigration laws should be upheld. I respect those immigrants who abided by the law and entered this country legally. Allowing others to jump ahead of the line is just spitting in the face of legal immigrants. I care about the poor children in Mexico whose parents did not illegally enter this country. Why should those kids be a lower priority for us than kids of people who crossed the border? I also think it's naïve of lefties to support amnesty for people who broke the law while ignoring the plight of those who didn't.

    That's not bigotry. That's looking beyond simplistic, false solutions and realizing that these problems are complicated and require sophisticated solutions. If the federal government properly dealt with the illegal immigration problem, racism would actually be less of an issue in border states.


    Parent

    Your Ethnicity? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    WTF does that have to do with your bigory? Nothing.

    The assumption that ethnicity would has something to do with bigotry, racism or sexism, is another textbook example of your bigotry.

    Parent

    I've worked for The Hunger Project (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:41:51 PM EST
    helping create and develop income generating projects through women's enterprises in Mexico. In my opinion, Mexico's biggest barrier to equality and stability is its extreme economic disparity. The poorest 10% of Mexicans use only 1.52% of the nation's GNP, while the richest 10% use 38.7% (CIA Factbook). Because of this disparity in resources, and the lack of social services in Mexico, their poor face hardships that we don't often see here. Their minimum wage is less than $4 a day, while food and other necessities cost as much as here in the U.S. Clinton's NAFTA benefitted the superrich in both Mexico and the U.S., but exacerbated the extreme poverty in Mexico and degraded our middle class by encouraging the outsourcing of American jobs.

    I believe that our country's greatest strength is our middle class. Illegal immigration destabilizes our social structure by bring us closer to the economic disparities of countries like Mexico, India and some other Asian nations. That's why I dislike liberal naïveté that clamors for amnesty while ignoring the plight of those who don't break the law by coming here.  

    This AZ law will create more racial tension. It will likely result in profiling. But something needs to be done about the problems border states have as a direct result of illegal immigration. To pretend that someone who is against illegal immigration is a bigot is exactly why we can't solve these problems. It's also why we can't hold Obama's feet to the fire. Progressives are too busy calling anyone who disagrees a racist to notice that Obama's promoting corporatist policies that will destroy our middle class.


    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    This AZ law will create more racial tension.
    A certainty
    It will likely result in profiling.

    Absolutely

    But something needs to be done about the problems border states have as a direct result of illegal immigration

    OK, fine. But to defend unconstitutional fascist law is no answer to the problem.

    Parent

    I didn't defend the law. (none / 0) (#36)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    I don't agree with it and I think it'll make racial tensions worse. However, if it causes the federal government to stop illegal immigration, that would be a good thing.

    By the way, a bigot is irrational and tends to have animosity toward others with a different ideology. That would be like, well, just what you did here. Calling someone you disagree with a bigot.


    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:17:14 PM EST
    You are both defending the law and making bigoted comments. The fact that I disagree with you has nothing to do with the fact that your comments are bigoted.

    Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that when you take a negative and generalize it over a large group of people that is bigotry.

    Many people, including myself, make bigoted, sexist, or racist comments on occasion, unaware of the fact that they are offensive. The usual key to understanding whether or not the person saying something bigoted is often the level of defense they have when their offensive comment is called out.

    You seem to be quite defensive.

    Parent

    No squeaky, my comments are not bigoted. (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    Reiterating with emphasis: The taxpayers want to be able to go the grocery store without getting mugged. They want their kids to go to school without drug related violence. Most people don't support racial profiling, they just want a solution to the problems in their communities.
    You guys act like this is all about picking on Hispanics. It's not. It's about a severe crime problem that happens to have been caused (in this case) by an influx of Mexican drug and gun dealers.

    The truth can be painful, but recognizing that Mexican criminals are creating problems in American border states is not racist. It's just acknowledging reality. Just as some on the left have used knee jerk claims of racism to silence those who disagree with Obama, many amnesty supporters call those of us who want immigration law enforced racist and bigoted.

    It's a policy disagreement. My comment above about my work supporting the poor in Mexico was even troll rated with a 1 by Sher. That's pretty naïve to assume I'm racist when I've spent my time and money helping poor people in Mexico. But that's what happens when you don't toe the party line at Talk Left.


    Parent

    So, you are against citizenship (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    for those already here....no pathway to citizenship?  That would be a very hard line.

    Kids born here to non-citzens are a priority over kids born in Mexico because those kids are here.  We have a responsibility first to those who are here.

    The wage disparity is what drives illegal immigration.  If Mexcio could improve its wages even  a little, it would lessen the number of those seeking work here.  Bad laws like this new one from Arizona will not change that.

    The new law is about scapegoating not stemming the tide of illegal immigration.  The numbers of those coming here has diminished because of the recession.  What is now happening is that all Latinos are being scapegoated for the crimes of a few drug dealers that you mention.  And, the new statute is not even aimed at the drug dealers  but at average people....
     

    Parent

    Once again, (none / 0) (#44)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    This AZ law is problematic, but the federal government is not properly dealing with the problem caused by a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    I'm obviously against the economic disparity. Did you even read my post about my work helping the extremely poor in Mexico? Did you understand my analysis that ties economic disparity to the potential loss of America's middle class?

    "Bad laws like this new one from Arizona will not change that."  Well, duh.

    The AZ law is bad, scapegoating and racial profiling are wrong. AND the federal government is exacerbating the problem by not dealing with illegal immigration. Progressives don't help the situation by screaming for amnesty for people who broke the law. What about our responsibilities to those immigrants who chose to abide by the law? Do we just say tough luck sucker, you should have jumped to the front of the line? What about the future of immigration policy enforcement?

    But the real issue here isn't that we disagree on policy, it's that you guys can't agree to disagree, you have to resort to name calling and pretending my posts say things that they don't.

    Parent

    Pray tell, so I do not (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    wrongly assume, what did you mean by misinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.  I think I have an idea, given your comments about people born here, but I'd rather you explain....

    Parent
    Oh dear (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    thank you for asking for that explanation.  Words fail me.

    Parent
    The assumption that the 14th Amendment (none / 0) (#49)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    should give automatic citizenship to babies of illegal aliens has never been tested by the SCOTUS. That amendment comes on the heels of the 13th Amendment because it fixed the problem of children of freed slaves not having U.S. citizenship. The 14th Amendment was never designed to provide incentive for non-citizens to break the law in order to have babies on U.S. soil. The term "anchor baby" describes the unintended consequence of the misuse of the 14th Amendment whereby these "instant citizens" are able to access full medical benefits, welfare and federal housing benefits in spite of the fact that their parents may never have paid into the government systems that are forced to support them. After utilizing public support their entire lives, when they turn 18 they can then sponsor their parents and other relatives to jump ahead in line before potential immigrants who have waited years to come to this country, and who have skills and a work ethic that could help this country rather than drain its coffers. I'm not saying they don't have a good work ethic, I wouldn't want to generalize. I'm saying it doesn't matter if they don't, their relatives will still be prioritized over others.

    Today's push for the so called "immigration reform" is a misnomer for providing amnesty to those who broke the rules to enter this country, and is specifically pushing for increasing the number of Mexican immigrants allowed into the U.S., even at the expense of citizens from other countries immigrating. I understand liberal desire to help those in need and I know it's not considered Politically Correct to state what I'm saying here, but I do so because I believe federal policies should not encourage people to break the law. More importantly, we should always support legal immigrants over illegal aliens. And if we want to help people, why not help the poor children of Mexican citizens who don't break the law by sneaking across the U.S. border? What makes those children less important to us than the kids of illegal aliens?

    Progressives should think carefully about why we're so knee-jerk willing to help illegal aliens at the expense of 1) immigrants who followed the law to live here, 2) potential immigrants who are currently waiting their turn to live in this country, and 3) citizens of countries like Mexico who are just as much in need of our help as those who break the law to have babies on American soil. I submit that the harm done to our country in allowing and even encouraging illegal immigration does a disservice to all three of the above groups of law abiding people, as well as the taxpayers who have to support anchor babies to the detriment of our own neighbors who desperately need our assistance.

    If and when the 14th Amendment is challenged in court, or amended so it no longer provides incentive to enter the country illegally, we'll be able to regulate a more sustainable immigration process. If you think illegal aliens don't take the good jobs, talk to professional carpenters who pay union fees and should be making $30-50/hour for their work, but instead have to compete with a pool of people willing to work for $6-10/hr under the table. Not only does this force our skilled builders to work under the table or to leave the trade, it also allows those property development investors and employers to not pay employee taxes, social security, workers comp, etc. Again, the rest of us have to foot the bill by paying more taxes and higher fees and co-pays for health care while the rich people rake in the profits.

    The fact is, giving ANY form of amnesty will simply encourage others to break the law in the future. Legal immigrants who followed the law are given a slap in the face for their efforts. We need to clarify or revise the 14th Amendment so that non-citizens don't use it as incentive to sneak into this country to have babies. The 14th Amendment was meant to deal with children of slaves, not to give illegal aliens the opportunity to have "anchor babies."


    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:57:34 PM EST
    Your take on the Fourteenth Amendment was what I thought it was.  I did read you correctly.  Your take is wrong and held by the truly reactionary....I wonder where you got all this from.....Some right wing website I suppose.

    I doubt you are really of the Left in any way....

    You asked why you were given a "1" when you said in another post on this thread that you felt so bad for the kids in Mexico and did charitable work in Mexico.  I was a bit put off by the remark, and can only assume, but I think that your remark was given a troll rating--because it is horribly condescending....

    I grew up hearing racists say the proverbial "but some of my best friends" are...(fill in the blank about racial identity)  And, you use the word "they" alot.  And you bring up "work ethic."  Huh?  Those who come here have extraordinary work ethic--of that there can be no doubt....Yes, you say you are not generalizing...but why even bring that up?

    I could go on and on about how charity by religious wingers in Latin America has served to cover for horrible things...such as genocide....while not doing anything really long-lasting for the objects of charity.

    And, here is the Supreme Court case that holds that children born here are automatically citizens:  U.S. v. Wong, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  In that case, Wong's parents were Chinese and citizens of China but he was still held to be a natural born citizen.

    What is interesting about Wong is that it explains how this rule of automatic citizenship goes back hundreds of years under English Common Law--back to at least the time of Queen Elizabeth I of Armada fame.  The Fourteenth Amendment just clarified that it applied to everybody and that the U.S. followed English Common Law.

    Parent

    I was gonna say (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:19:12 PM EST
    I was pretty sure it was clarified in the courts not due to the children of slaves but due to the racist nature of immigration policy that followed.  Specifically towards those of Asian descent.

    Parent
    My comment about my work (none / 0) (#58)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    with The Hunger Project is not condescending, and your objections to my use of the word "they" is ridiculous. I'm not them, of course I'll use the word "they." Somehow in your mind that indicates I'm racist and compensating by saying "some of my best friends..."

    You belittled my work helping Mexican women create sustainable agriculture and businesses by comparing it to religious wingers. That should help you feel better about ignoring the political points in my argument. You don't agree with me, so it's easier to just insult me. And if I did something good for the world, well I probably am just a racist trying to atone for my sins or something. That's the problem with Leftie blogs. Dissention over policy turns into attacks on someone's character.

    Granting automatic citizenship to children of people who break the law to come here is bad policy and needs to be changed. English Common Law is not a good foundation for the kind of illegal immigration we face here today. And please don't stereotype all immigrants as hard working, good new Americans. Surely you realize that giving a baby of illegal immigrants free medical care, free housing, free social services and even free college at the expense of citizens who've paid taxes their entire lives does not make for good public policy and does not help our Party. (Oops, I you've kicked me out of the Dem Party now.)

    But keep on labeling people like me as right wing. That'll get you a lot of mileage in upcoming elections.


    Parent

    Your views on immigration are right wing (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:49:55 PM EST
    And, I have not ignored the political points in your posts....I cited you the Wong case, for example....

    This thought that Latinos born here of Mexican parents get a free ride, as opposed to others here, is amazing.   Citizens should all be treated alike regardless of who their parents are....U.S. kids whose parents are Mexican citizens are not entitled to anything more or less than anyone else. There is no across-the-board free ride--except if you buy into the stereotype that Latinos are lazy.  

    You are expressing tremendous racial resentment....

    I am glad you do work for the Hunger Project.  But that was irrelevant here until you brought it up as cover for expressing some really ethnically charged concepts....You use your charity work as a defense to a claim you have expressed racist views.   B.S.  Doing charity work does not mean you have not you expressed racist views here.  Your expressions stand alone.

    Parent

    Baloney (none / 0) (#61)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    I'm not expressing racial resentment, I'm describing a public policy that allows children of illegal aliens to access services we all pay for in spite of the fact that their parents my have never paid taxes. Those children could come from Russia or Scandanavia, they could even be lilly white from Great Britain. Regardless of their skin color, the misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that encourages people to break the law to have a child on American soil is bad public policy. Citizens should all be treated equally. The issue is who gets to be a citizen. In the case of illegal immigration from Mexico, the problems are so extreme that border states are suffering. And it's counterproductive to prioritize a baby of Mexican immigrants over babies of Mexican parents who don't break the law to come here. Oh wait, maybe it's because I noticed that most of the illegal immigrants in border states are from Mexico that you've judged me as a racist. Sorry MKS, Mexican isn't a race it's a country of origin. Maybe that's why it's so hard to resolve racial tensions in this country. Because people like you judge others as racist if they're in disagreement on immigration policy.

    This thought that Latinos born here of Mexican parents get a free ride, as opposed to others here, is amazing.

    Do you deny that a Mexican citizen can sneak across the border and have a baby here in the US and that baby will receive full benefits under federal and state law? In spite of the fact that the baby's parents never paid taxes? Do you deny that if millions of tax dollars are spent raising babies of illegal aliens, there are fewer resources for the poor children whose parents are U.S. citizens?

    Please find at least one sentence in my posts that is racist. And quit making up stuff, I didn't say Latinos are lazy, it's in your comment so you can pretend I said it. But then, according to you, my work for The Hunger Project is just a "cover" or something. Classic knee jerk response to someone who doesn't toe the party line.


    Parent

    For green baloney (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:36:10 AM EST
    visit Sheriff Arpaio's jail.

    Parent
    And, I almost forgot--Boycott Arizona! (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    No excuses after opposing MLK day....

    Parent
    if the stereotype fits............ (3.00 / 2) (#42)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    Stereotyping an entire state doesn't get us any closer to a solution to this problem.

    nice try (sort of, on a very low budget) mr. strawman. you sound like one of those "knee-jerk" right-wingnuts who call anyone who points out facts that don't agree with your ditto-headedness "knee-jerk" liberals. but i digress.

    so, it's a proven fact (please supply the data) that all crime, drug related or otherwise, in AZ is caused solely by those in the state illegally?

    yeah, i thought not. next contestant please.

    Parent

    Once again, (sigh) (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    I didn't say "that all crime, drug related or otherwise, in AZ is caused solely by those in the state illegally."

    You guys have a serious problem understanding other people's arguments when you disagree with their opinion.


    Parent

    I am indeed a knee-jerk liberal (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:13:53 PM EST
    Thank you for noticing.  But somehow I missed the memo that Obama's corporatism is racist.  Rather, I consider corporatism to be classist.

    Just to be clear.


    Parent

    Or are you saying (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    that we knee-jerk liberals support the corporatism?  If so, you don't many knee-jerk liberals, do you?

    Parent
    The linked post was updated (none / 0) (#16)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    Apparently Tancredo is fine with the law.

    How does he know? (none / 0) (#64)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    How does Tancredo know that the Arizona cops will go to "I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over."  See how the law actually works before letting the hysteria begin.

    Tancredo: Arizona Went Too Far | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment