It's not just Meg: Lou Dobbs hired illegals

[Keino]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

He didn't say that at all. He just said lets allow more Mexicans to be legal so fewer will be illegal. We do need comprehensive change. I am all for a process to have the illegals put on a path to be legal, but not citizens just yet. My process would require a lot from them though and also a lot from the government. I don't expect either to want to pony up despite claims they would.



You have to be here legally. You can't just BE here.

He didn't expressly say that, but it was rather strongly implied in his comments. He has said from pretty much the very beginning of his entry into the discussion that there are two non-mutually exclusive ways to handle the problem and that the anti-illegal crowd (which I think is most people frankly) contains some xenophobes and racists who opt for only the draconian solution to the problem in part because of their views. I didn't take his comments as broad stroke painting everyone opposed to illegal immigration as racists and xenophobes, but you are kidding yourself if you don't think that like the tea baggers, have a number of these types walking amongst them.

For the record, I don't think your idea differs greatly from what people who want comprehensive immigration reform are proposing. I agree that the first path has to be to being legal before there can be an opportunity for citizenship. There is a way to do it in such a way as to not have the growers shutting down their operations and moving them to another country.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by justinskins

So you're comparing illegal immigrants to weeds? That's pretty telling.

Trust me, no comparison would work for someone like you just begging to throw out the racism catcall. Do it, just get it over with. I am quite sure I don't care.

Snide remarks aside, it's perfectly legitimate to question a law because it: 1. is difficult or expensive to enforce; 2. is frequently broken; 3. has a questionable basis. Our immigration laws fulfill all three criteria, and I don't see any less reason to change them than there was to eliminate prohibition 80 years ago, or to adjust our drug laws today.

Have you ever stopped to ask why the US government has such stringent limitations on immigration? It's because of racist, xenophobic fears resulting in exclusionary immigration laws in the early 20th century. The "reforms" of the 1960s were little more than a bandaid.

Serious? That's lame even for you. There's nothing racist or xenophobic about having immigration laws.

That only proves my point. Virginia does not require citizenship to get a driver's license. For you to compare getting a driver's license to voting (which you did) is ridiculous.

It requires citizenship or legal status. Either way, it requires what you said it doesn't. Illegals cannot get licenses without lying.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Thanks for this Keino. That's exactly what I mean, and the Dobbs example shows the hypocrisy of the situation: wealthy conservative politicians and commentators scream about illegal immigration to give their base some red meat, even as they profit from illegal immigrant labor.

You have like one and half examples of this and it is gospel yet God forbid someone use some illegal criminals as examples that it is widespread. As usual, there are different calculators used to do the math depending on how it fits your agenda.

Dave, let me ask you a question: do you really doubt that there are a lot of racists among the anti-immigrant crowd? That was the point I was arguing with you, but I wonder what you think about it.

Yes, I do doubt it. I know you think its the majority and that's exactly why we will never get past it. You want it. You need it. You love to use it whenever you can.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by dj_stouty

How about we only issue driver's licences to legal citizens? That way, when a cop pulls ANYONE over regardless of their race, and that person can't produce a driver's license, then it will give the police the option to investigate further.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Serious? That's lame even for you. There's nothing racist or xenophobic about having immigration laws.

In the abstract, no. For anyone who cares to educate himself about the history of those laws, yes.

Yes, I do doubt it. I know you think its the majority and that's exactly why we will never get past it. You want it. You need it. You love to use it whenever you can.

I have no idea if it's the majority or not. It wouldn't surprise me either way, though.

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

You have like one and half examples of this and it is gospel yet God forbid someone use some illegal criminals as examples that it is widespread. As usual, there are different calculators used to do the math depending on how it fits your agenda.

Nope, it's the marriage of big capital and the sad little frustrated people they lead around by the nose. The story of the right wing in this country.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Nope, it's the marriage of big capital and the sad little frustrated people they lead around by the nose. The story of the right wing in this country.

Like the marriage of big government and the sad little frustrated people they lead around by the pandering? The story of the left wing in this country.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Like the marriage of big government and the sad little frustrated people they lead around by the pandering? The story of the left wing in this country.

There is no left wing in this country.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by justinskins

There is no left wing in this country.

You can't be serious.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

You can't be serious.

When someone can call Obama a socialist, and anyone takes that seriously, it makes me wonder.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by justinskins

When someone can call Obama a socialist, and anyone takes that seriously, it makes me wonder.

That doesn't mean there isn't a left wing in this country. And here's a newsflash: It has its share of morons and whackos too.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

That doesn't mean there isn't a left wing in this country. And here's a newsflash: It has its share of morons and whackos too.

There are morons and whackos everywhere, no doubt. But compared to a century ago, or 50 years ago, what passes for a left wing in the US seems unbelievably timid. To the extent that there is a left wing in America today, it doesn't have a political party, while I do think that the Republicans represent a pretty vigorous right-wing movement.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by justinskins

There are morons and whackos everywhere, no doubt. But compared to a century ago, or 50 years ago, what passes for a left wing in the US seems unbelievably timid. To the extent that there is a left wing in America today, it doesn't have a political party, while I do think that the Republicans represent a pretty vigorous right-wing movement.

F for effort.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by justinskins

There are morons and whackos everywhere, no doubt. But compared to a century ago, or 50 years ago, what passes for a left wing in the US seems unbelievably timid. To the extent that there is a left wing in America today, it doesn't have a political party, while I do think that the Republicans represent a pretty vigorous right-wing movement.

I don't know. This sounds like taking a very narrow sliver of recent history to fit one's own beliefs. It wasn't long ago that idiot like Cindy Sheehan were taking center stage in this country. Folks like Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and Lyndon Larouche are certainly (and, from first to last, increasingly) left wing and most definitely have their own following. So are the 9/11 "truthers".

[CNYSkinFan]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

I don't know. This sounds like taking a very narrow sliver of recent history to fit one's own beliefs. It wasn't long ago that idiot like Cindy Sheehan were taking center stage in this country. Folks like Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and Lyndon Larouche are certainly (and, from first to last, increasingly) left wing and most definitely have their own following. So are the 9/11 "truthers".

Hold the phone. I draw the line at giving us the 9/11 truthers, The truthers for the most part are the same aniti-government militia types from the 90s now turning on the established right as opposed to the established left. The truthers/militia nutballs are anarchists, they dont care who is in power.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by CNYSkinFan

Hold the phone. I draw the line at giving us the 9/11 truthers, The truthers for the most part are the same aniti-government militia types from the 90s now turning on the established right as opposed to the established left. The truthers/militia nutballs are anarchists, they dont care who is in power.

Maybe it's a case of going far enough around and coming back on the other side. In my experience, the same people who are 9/11 truthers are the same people who don't believe we landed on the moon. And these people are leftist, neohippies -- the same kind that follow Noam Chomsky around. Further left than Fareed Zakaria but not too much further.