Third Party & Independents Archives

David:

So what has changed? What is the basis for this post?

David,

Perhaps their plan is to create such a bad environment here that no one sees a reason to come here anymore? The fact that each American is going to be born with a $1,500+ yearly bill on their head may be enough to give people a second thought on making the trip…

David,

I guess I understand an historical view of immigration as being detrimental to a National identity.

What I don’t really get is how this applies to the melting pot of the US.

The fear associated with illegal immigration seems out of place here, quite frankly.

Why do we need to become the new iron curtain to survive? I just don’t get that.

BTW, I read somewhere recently that pot being grown in the US is outpacing pot being smuggled in from Mexico. It seems maybe that’s more of a threat to the cartels than us. If legalizing continues to move forward, even better.

I suggest putting up pictures of Manson, Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer, and such up all around the borderlands to remind them exactly what they’re getting in to.

Most proposals should not be called amnesty, they’re more of a plea bargain - you come out from the cold and you’ll get a small punishment. That is the only way to deal with the illegal immigrants living in this country now. (Send them back - get real!)

Going forward, it would be great to have secure borders, but that will never work as long as the economic discrepancy between the US and Mex is so great. We don’t see Canadians forcing their way across the border. But even the Iron Curtain couldn’t keep the Soviet Union’s depress from try ing to flee. Remember the Berlin wall. There are 2 principle things we must do:
1) Help to improve the conditions of Mexicans - principally through trade
2) Speed up and increase legal immigration.

Good post David, I have to agree with Dr. Tom. When people talk about the illegals going home to get in line, I have to ask where is the line for poor uneducated Mexicans to legally immigrate?

The same people who broke the unions and shipped jobs over seas also set it up so Mexicans can only come to work in the U.S. illegally. That way the employers don’t have to obey the labor laws. ( I’m sorry you lost your finger Julio, but if I take you to the hospital they’ll find out you don’t have a green card.)

This is just one of the many things tearing up the Republican Party. “The people actually running the party will never allow poor Mexicans to legally immigrate. We’re over run by illegal aliens by design. But the wing nuts that have took over the party are ate up about illegals. Wilson didn’t holler “you lie” when Obama said “we’d insure millions of people but it won’t cost anything“. Or “we’ll change how insurance works but it won’t effect anyone who’s on insurance“. No, he’s worried a hand full of illegals might get something they’re not entitled to.

I just hope these Glen Beck inspired wing nuts get involved in the primaries. If the nominees are a bunch of radicals and crazies, maybe the Dems will get so strong that people won’t have to vote for one guy because the guy in the “other party” scares them so much. They’d be free to vote for a third party. The Democrats need a strong Republican Party or the whole house of cards could come tumbling down.

David why is it you think the dems cannot do exactly what the repubs did and walk and talk both sides of the issue while doing nothing about it? It is a political time bomb and why you would expect our politicians to deal with such an issue is beyond me. They don’t stay in office by dealing with the tough issues, as the repubs have proven, but then with no right answer to this problem the dems won’t stay in office by dealing with the problem. Until our politicians get permission from the corporate overlords to deal with illegal immigration why would they show any backbone?

Dr. Tom there is no place for level headed discussion on this issue. That being said how exactly do you propose using trade to better the conditions of Mexicans? We shipped manufacturing jobs to Mexico during the 80’s and 90’s yet they still came here illegally. Are you suggesting fair trade as opposed to free trade and revising NAFTA as an answer to the illegal immigration problem?

“walk and talk both sides of the issue while doing nothing about it”

Wow, you got that one right!

Would have been a poignant post some 15-20 years ago. The demreps continue to milk the immigration thing. The Corpocracy is happy, as is any entity that requires new blood to keep their coffers full. This battle was lost imcrementely over the last 30 years. The debate should be how do we deal with the consequences.
Drug wars, gangs, crime, hospital closures, etc. Yes, pot growing in the U.S. is up big time, of, by, and for the cartels. Done by illegals at the end of a shotgun. Drugs in, money out, hardly. Drugs do come in but the money stays here, except for that needed to buy more drugs. Drug money is big business in this country. One area where the U.S. is truly color blind is the color of money. Stop the drugs and a good number of businesses would belly up PDQ. The drug business is in the top 10 U.S. money makers. I notice that there is a little drug money confiscated around the world but not so much inside the U.S. The U.S. can break codes, carry out shock and awe, etc. but they can’t seem to find out where the drug money is going. IMO ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ extends beyond gays in the military.
The Fed has stiffed Sheriff Arpaio, E-verify has been left in the dust and Napolitano will personally beat the crap out of anyone questioning the identity of anyone.
In a way its all quite comical. The serious part will be when the immigrants become of voting age. Will they vote for the Republic or their pocket books? Will it matter?

Roy,

“Stop the drugs and a good number of businesses would belly up PDQ.”

Really?
And just how do you propose we do that?
America has already spent 10’s of billions of dollars to fight the war on drugs. Shall we declare Marshall law and apply shock and awe here at home?

Joe Arpaio is a political hack that has cost the state of Arizona 10’ of millions of dollars in lawsuits because he can’t control his officers and wouldn’t know the Constitution if it bit him on the butt. Joe likes to use a howitzer where a flyswatter would do the job.
Sorry, Joe, you just can’t ask someone for their papers for no reason other than the color of their skin. Or shall we descend the level of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

Napolitano and Joe go way back to when she was the Attorney General for Arizona, and then again as the Governor of Arizona, when she had to deal with his screw-ups first hand.

Rocky

The only way to stop the “guns for drugs” trade with Mexico would be to legalize drugs. And we all know the law enforcement - incarceration industry is too strong for that to happen.

Rocky, would require inspecting the 18-wheelers coming across the border. That’s the only way the tonnage of drugs required to feed the drug maw could be delivered. But, alas, that would be bad for business. And the 10’s of billions - good foreign policy and it does look good on paper, also a big help in breaking the back of the middle class.

Roy,

“would require inspecting the 18-wheelers coming across the border. That’s the only way the tonnage of drugs required to feed the drug maw could be delivered.”

That is a rather simplistic view of the way drugs get here. Drugs get here by all means possible, and the biggest problem drug right now, meth, can be manufactured here in America, in a bathtub.

If you want to stop illegal immigrants arrest those that hire them, all the way down to those that hire them off the street to do their yard work, and throw the book at them.

Rocky

Agree, inspecting trucks is simple, but would take perhaps 90% of imported drugs off the market.

Agree that perhaps 50% of illegal immigration could be stopped with E-verify. 90% with a fence.

Neither is good for the Corpocracy and will not happen.

Only way it could ever happen is through a third party with a different political attitude.

Roy,

“Agree, inspecting trucks is simple, but would take perhaps 90% of imported drugs off the market.”

You see this is where we disagree. Inspecting trucks might 25% of the drugs coming into this country BY TRUCK, because we just can’t inspect every truck. If we were to inspect every truck commerce between Mexico and America would grind to a halt.

“90% with a fence.”

Sorry I have to disagree with this fallacy as well.
First of all it would be virtually impossible to fence off the entire border, monetarily as well as logistically, just as it is now impossible to patrol the entire border for exactly the same reasons.

Secondly, this “pie in the sky” idea that a third party might come, as a gleaming white knight, to save us all from the dastardly illegals, while idealistically may be noble, assumes that a third party would be automatically less corrupt than what we have now.
Humans are humans, and unless there is some mystical test that I haven’t heard to tell the difference, we already assume the candidates we vote for are more honest than the other guy.
How is this possibly going to change for a third party candidate?

Rocky

Rocky, if we spend some of the 10’s of billions on border check point inspections I think 90% is feasible. Even with no increase in budget they could do a better job. With so much corruption they need to pysch up their game plan. At the some 26 check points they should make random lane assignments changes for the inspectors on a radom basis. Also, should be random inspections set up a mile or so down the road. In that way you pretty quick find out which guards are on the take.
With a little of the 10’s of billions being spent on chasing drugs overseas we could do even better. Control the border and the drug wars turn into sand log skirmishes. And, why would we want to spend 10’s of billions overseas when all we need to do is protect our borders? That brings us back to pissing away taxpayer money and working to break the back of the middle class.
We did the man on the moon thing in the 60’s but can’t fence the border, can’t patrol the border, can’t send them back, etc.

Not just ‘a third party’ Rocky. A third party with a diffent political attitude. Puts accountability into the political equation by sanctioning membership oversight of elected and appointed govies. If they under-perform, don’t follow the party agenda or blow up ethically, they can be rejected from the party by the voting membership. Still serve out their term but as withering grapes on the vine, so to speak. Otherwise, we will continue to have the Dodd’s and Sharpton’s running loose.

Roy,

“Puts accountability into the political equation by sanctioning membership oversight of elected and appointed govies. If they under-perform, don’t follow the party agenda or blow up ethically, they can be rejected from the party by the voting membership.”

So what you’re saying is that you will take the vote out of the voters hands and put it into the hands of the “membership”?

Somehow I don’t think that’s gonna fly.

Rocky

No. I said the party members could vote to reject the elected/appointed official from the party. If the official wants to find another party to support him or pay his own way, etc. welcome to it. And, once rejected, the official would still serve out the remainder of his term.
I do believe the demreps will act to relieve a misguided member of their party once in a while. Or a least at drop them a pay grade or two. Kind of like what could happen with Olympia Snow over the next few months.
Do you think politicians should be held accountable for their actions? Say, Phil Gramm for example. If so, to whom?

Roy,

“Do you think politicians should be held accountable for their actions? Say, Phil Gramm for example. If so, to whom?”

Those who voted for him.

The huge mistake that has been made is that the “Party” cannot be more important than the constituents or even the candidate.

If I vote for Joe Blow who happens to be (insert your political party here), I’m voting for Joe, not the party he happens to be affiliated with.

IMHO, it is the process that corrupts the politician, not the other way around.

Fix the process and the corruption will go away.

Rocky

Joe must be somewhat a product of his party or that party wouldn’t have supported him. So, you come along as a member of his party an vote for him. Then he goes sour. What are you going to do? You can wait till the next election and vote him out. Therein is a REAL problem. Incumbency is north of 95% percent year over year. And, now that he is a MADE man his party will support him as long as he is able to draw a breath. And the Corpocracy weighs in for Joe so long as he continues to be the MADE man. Once elected Joe doesn’t need you, doesn’t need to talk to you.

Now, In a third party with a different attitude Joe wins your support by supporting the party agenda. You do believe a party should have, and focus on an agenda? From time to time he can vote against the agenda if he chooses. But, he needs to keep up a high bit rate conversation with the party members (you) to gain your understanding of why he is going to vote against the thrust of the agenda and to gain/retain your confidence in him. To do otherwise, appeal to the Corpocracy or party bosses, would be to his peril at the hands of voting membership (you). Imagine, a politician talking straight to his constitutents, likely in a high pitched voice, like someone had him by the short hairs. Hieracy, dontcha think?

Another point. Let’s assum we are in the Dem party. Dodd gets caught in a lie a coupla more times. You would like to get rid of him but he is from one State and you are from another. Only his State taxpayers get to vote for/against him.
Now, assume Dodd is a member of a third party with a different political attitude. Soon as the lie leaves his mouth members would be complaining. Enough complaints, 20% of members, sets up a mandatory vote, NATION wide, to either reject him or retain him. Wouldn’t you like to get a vote at some corrupt legislator in another State? The Dems and Reps will hang on to the bad apples with all the money they can muster. And, as you noted, its always the other guys politician that is corrupt not yours.

Roy,

You assume a political party with an amount of power I don’t know if I could agree with.
18 states and the DofC already have the power to recall their Representatives, and Senators.

Political parties have agendas, or platforms. These platforms evolve and change from time to time to keep up with the needs of it’s members. Changes also come about when the party is trying to recruit new members. This has happened before and it will happen again.
There is the distinct possibility that your “new” party may evolve and change beyond your likes in order to attract even more members.

Like I said, it’s happened before.

As we saw with Lieberman, even after the Democrats bailed on him, he still retained his seat.

Now if Dodd’s constituents chose to keep him in power even after your “new” party chose to boot him out…….
I’d say that would be a real kick in the pants, wouldn’t you?

All I can say is be careful what you wish for…..

I’ll say it again, until the process is changed, nothing will change.

Rocky

Rocky, I agree with you entirely about the process being the source of corruption of effective and responsible leadership. However, a more efficacious political party toward those ends than the now corrupted Dem and Rep Parties. What Roy is proposing is needed and would augment and support better government through process improvements, and perhaps provide an example of better political organization subservient to better government for the DNC and RNC to emulate.

DR
There is no compelling reason why we cannot treat immigrants from Latin America different from immigrants from other countries. Your first paragraph is a fallacy. We already treat different immigrants and visitors differently and have for some time.
Immigrants from Mexico ARE the indigenous people of a good portion of the US.
The demographic gradient between the US and Mexico is such as to overwhelm any political border without resort to methods unlikely to be used by a democracy against a country we are not at war with. Examples: minefields,summary executions,sinking of transport vessels etc.In other words ,we cannot stop it anymore than we can can stop tree pollen or the tide. Its a natural occurence.
It can be slowed and controlled. Most of the solutions are long term. This Dem favors amnesty for undocumented people already here that can prove that they are law abiding,decent people. That does not include drug runners etc.If amnesty is made too onerous it will simply not work. People will just stay in the shadows.
Mexico is a wealthy country. It would help ease the economic incentive if that wealth was better distributed. Fat chance we will be able to help in that regard. We can’t even do that here. Ironic but our immigration problem may be may be eased by Chavez and the other leftist Latin leaders we have been fighting for years.
Amnesty coupled with an increase of legal immigration from Latin America are necessary to ever control the underground economy. That along with real employer sanctions including criminal penalties for violations of labor law would do much to to curtail the underground economy that hurts us all.
There are no quick, easy ,solutions. Unfortunatly the issue lends itself to simplistic political bombast . Blaming immigrants is as American as apple pie and has traditionally been used to divide working people and prevent real economic solutions.
There are only two possibilities. Amnesty or doing nothing.Opposing amnesty is the same as opposing solution. Deporting all undocumented people is not possible. It would take years and the military to achieve. Last I heard they are busy. The US economy would sink . Mexico would plunge into civil war leading to even more immigration,this time war refugees.Despite this we will hear lots of xenophobic bluster from the right and a percentage of the independants will swallow it,further complicating solution.

bills said: “Your first paragraph is a fallacy. We already treat different immigrants and visitors differently and have for some time.”

No, your statement is false because you do not respond to what I said. I wrote, on the basis of charity, we need to treat other nations the same as Mexico and S. America. There are other criterion for selection for LEGAL immigration, not just charity, and that does account for differential treatment of legal immigrants from other nations. But, if ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION continues to be our defacto policy, then why is the Somalian a lesser person to have a blind eye turned to, than a Guatamalan or Venezuelan?

bills said: “Immigrants from Mexico ARE the indigenous people of a good portion of the US.”

Illegal immigrants crossing our borders today from Mexico ARE NOT INDIGENOUS PEOPLE to the U.S.

bills, your argument that we cannot halt more than 90% of previous illegal immigration rates at their peaks, is just an opinion without empirical basis. The Berlin Wall halted Nearly all illegal immigration from East of the Wall. A fact the Left on this issue CONTNIUES to ignore.

No one ever suggested we could halt ALL illegal immigration. But, reducing the numbers from millions per year to thousands or even hundreds per year is entirely doable, and tracking more than 90% of those who do enter is also technologically possible. It is just a matter of cost and political will.

The majority of Americans DO NOT want to see ILLEGAL immigration continue. That makes the issue a political liability for Democrats seeking election and reelection. That political reality cannot be spun away by idle opinion or wishes to the contrary, though your comment certainly tried.

As for your doomsday scenarios, I can only ask if you got those from Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar predictions? Because your predictions appear to come from the same source as those who say health care reform will destroy capitalism and ruin our nation going forward turning into a failed socialized state. Just opinion, without any empirical or logical evidence to support such claims.

May I remind you that Brazil collapsed economically a couple decades ago, and is now one of the fastest growing economies on the planet. Predictions that Mexico or the U.S. could not adapt and adjust to a halt in illegal immigration are pure poppycock, like those who said we would never recover from the South’s secession from the Union, or that integration would be the downfall of the United States and destruction of the WASP in America. Pure poppycock.

Thank you however, for demonstrating that some on the Left are just as capable of opinions of irrational and illogical hyperbole as the some on the Right are. Your kumbaya vision of one world government with peoples freely flowing from nation to nation tapping local resources without care or concern or expectation of accountable and verifiable reciprocal contribution may sound fine on shrooms around a campfire, but, on a political debate web site, it just won’t buy it.

Globalization of economies make contributions of mutual benefit ONLY up to a point, beyond which the liabilities exceed the benefits, as the U.S. is now coming to grips with. Illegal immigration undermines order and predictability for economic resources, their allocation and budgeting, as well as rule of law and social order in which public policy is based on rational decision making: NOT mass whim and desire and migration with abandon.

There are only two possibilities. Amnesty or doing nothing
I disagree, all amnesty will do is cause more illegal immigration. As it’s been since Reagan if anyone from south of the border wants to become an American, the only option they have is to sneak in here and then hope for amnesty. The only option if they‘re poor and uneducated!

Since our founding we’ve used cheap immigrant labor. But with the successes of the unions in the 30’s 40’s and 50’s we have labor laws and OSHA. The only way to have cheap labor now is using illegals.

You might be able to get the people hiring illegals to do yard work fined, but you’ll never get the CEO’s who hire illegals in trouble, like our politicians, they’re above the law.

Roy, what are you going to do when your party gets high jacked like Pat Buchannan did with the Reform party. If and when the corporations send in the tea baggers the new kind of party could really get a new attitude.

Mike, there is a third, although unlikely, possibility. The American people could rise up and expell this invasion. If that were to happen, it is possible that the Democratic Party might have to become the DPof Mexico.

This has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with the bottom line.

In 25 years, the U.S. will be well on it’s way to becoming one of those Latin American countries.

jlw said
“In 25 years, the U.S. will be well on it’s way to becoming one of those Latin American countries.”
I sadly agree.
jlw also said “This has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with the bottom line.”
But who’s bottom line? The special interests running this country don’t give a rats ass about the good of the whole.
That paints a very glumly picture.

And the idea of sending in the military to catch the illegals is crazy. If you want to round up millions of people the police are much better equipped to do that job. Besides the military is busy on the other side of the world trying to do police work they were never intended to do.
That’s one thing that grips my ass. (please excuse the language.) Everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Amy Goodman talk about the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq ended when numb-nuts landed on an aircraft carrier and declared “mission accomplished” That day started the occupation of Iraq. If you run an occupation like a war all sorts of bad things will come of it. When you spend 90% of the money for the occupation on military you’re setting up a never ending occupation and a never ending insurrection. Remember what Colin Powell warned us about. The military terrorist industrial complex will keep us in occupation as long as it can.

I said years ago we should fire the contractors and hire the Iraqis. If the average Iraqis was making 15 or 20 grand a year, there would be a shared feeling among the population. If you have a flat panel TV, you don’t want the electricity to go out. But then working class Iraqis don’t give campaign funding like contractors and weapon suppliers do.

David, one of your more eloquent statements. Wish I had said that: “Thank you however, for demonstrating that some on the Left are just as capable of opinions of irrational and illogical hyperbole as the some on the Right are. Your kumbaya vision of one world government with peoples freely flowing from nation to nation tapping local resources without care or concern or expectation of accountable and verifiable reciprocal contribution may sound fine on shrooms around a campfire, but, on a political debate web site, it just won’t buy it”.

Rocky, my mother used to say “can’t never could do anything”. You wrote: “Roy, what are you going to do when your party gets high jacked like Pat Buchannan did with the Reform party. If and when the corporations send in the tea baggers the new kind of party could really get a new attitude”.

Not a problem Rocky. I’ve talked with Pat Choate about Buchannan’s escapade. The party is set up so that once started its a hands-off, self perpetuating operation. a gist of the rules might help, and you could visit the party website to check out the rules and agenda.

To become a member you have to agree to the rules and to serve an oversight function for ‘party members’ to include party members who are elected or serve as a party official, members who become elected to state or federal office, serve as political appointees, ambassadors, UNREPS, etc.

If 20% of membership register a proforma complaint on the party website about one of these folks a mandatory requirement for an up/down vote is ‘automatically’ triggered. If the supposed miscreant doesn’t receive 65% favorable vote he/she is rejected from the party.

In that way a Pat Buchanan might survive for a while but with each mandatory voting session the noose would tighten. Eventually he would resign or be rejected. Depends on how out of control or damaging to the party the member becomes.

I would think six or eight folks from each state would be specifically assigned to look for folks working against the party, pissing in the birdbath, etc.

Highly Internet driven, lot of communications between voters and candidates, elected officials, etc. Something similar to several cspans going on.

We need to get over this can’t do this, can’t do that. We CAN start a third party with a different political attiude. If folks like the the reform agenda they CAN join the party. If folks want to vote for a VAT tax or a flat tax they CAN. If folks want to vote to abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech they CAN, etc. Candidates come in supporting the agenda and their tenure depends on how well they do that.
Pat wouldn’t do well in such an environment.

Roy, I’ll admit Pat Buchannan wouldn’t do well with the people that started your party, but then the ones who voted for him just joined the Reform Party when he was a candidate. What Ross Perot stood for and what Pat stands for are entirely separate. What I was saying is the corporations with their bottomless pockets would send in the tea baggers to virtually destroy the party. Unless you have some sort of “purity test” to join the party I don’t see how you can stop it. The first priority of the party would be to sure up the 2nd amendment.
What I’m saying is your party would be too assessable to outside influences.

Mike, left out one of the more important rules. To change, edit, or delete a rule requires a 65% approval vote by the membership. In that sense it’s kind of like the Constitution, hard to near impossible to change the rules.

What kind of strawman are you suggesting? That hundreds of thousands of ‘teabaggers’ will join the party to destroy it? Could they garner a 65% vote to change, edit, or delete a rule? I would more near believe that in order to compete the duopoly would have to change their party structure to something akin to a party with a different political attitude.
Nope, the party, once started, is set to run on automatic. If teabaggers start attacking a reform party what would be the likely response of the public at large? Why are we berating teabaggers? I am one. Went to the DC teaparty a few weeks back. I support all who advocate for reform. FOAVC, VOID, Tenure Corrups, etc.

Roy,

After reading the “agenda” at Republic Sentry it seems that there will have to be some Constituional changes made in order to live up to the advertising.

Rocky

David,

“The Berlin Wall halted Nearly all illegal immigration from East of the Wall.”

With the 1975 “improvements” out of 96 miles of wall there were 302 guard towers and the guards were told to “shoot to kill”.

It’s not a wonder that illegal immigration dropped to zero.

Rocky

Perhaps Rocky, but we CAN work to complete the remaining 99.9% of the agenda. TDR wasn’t in the CAN’t camp either. To get around the Supreme Court of his era he started working through congress on a court comprised of 15 justice’s I believe. Got to 9 from 6 and the SCJ’s caved in if I remember correctly. Maybe we will need to use an AVC to achieve the .1% of our agenda. Where there is a will, there is a way, I’ve heard.

Roy,

This all well and good, however, not to seem rude or insulting, but this smacks of an “Our Gang” episode where we’re all gonna put on a show.

After reading the web site I find it hard to take this seriously when I read things like;

“Maybe we will need to use an AVC to achieve the .1% of our agenda.”

More like 5-10%
Yeah, good luck with that.

The target of the boomers is intresting as I am one of these, and while I agree that something must be done, there are more than a few things in your “agenda” that I just can’t agree with.

“Where there is a will, there is a way, I’ve heard.”

I am not against anybody trying, go ahead, knock youselves out. I am not against the Republic Sentry, but OTOH, I am definately not for it either.
Get a hold of me in 10, or 15 years when the bugs are worked out.

Rocky

Glen Beck continues to rip into the Chicago neophytes. He has scoped out their agenda with as much or more detail than the administration itself. Starting to become clear why all the czars. Seems they really do have a purpose. Propagandazing on everything from A to Z. Amazingly, Beck is the only media outlet diggin in on the administration. Seems the czars are working with hollywood, the NEA, liberal newspapers and the broadcast media (FOX excluded) to push Obama’s agenda. On Thursday the FCC and cohorts will decide on what, if any changes should be made to the way the Internet operates. Beck points to hollywood produced ads already running pushing ‘service and volunteerism’, the NEA pushing artform in the same vein, and that we will see government propping up liberal newspapers with taxpayer funds. He’s way out in front of the administration. All this has a marxist/socialist bent to it according to Beck. He’s got my attention and, supposedly, FOX has higher ratings than the other networks.

Rocky, thanks for your interest. A common response is ‘I’ll check back later’. It’s a chicken and the egg thing. Need people to start a party, but need a party to attract the people. Working on getting a PAC started and just try to inform as many as possible with the resources. Not sure we have 10 or 15 years but that may be about how long it will take to get up a head of steam.

Rocky, thanks. Like I said, the Berlin Wall was very effective in keeping nearly all illegal immigration at bay. The China Wall worked well for quite a long period of time as well. The Romans built a wall in the British Isles that was effective for nearly a century, until Rome could not afford to man it and other Western and Northern borders as well, if I recall correctly.

But, then, proponents of a US Mexican barrier do not claim that a simple barrier will be effective. It won’t. It must be a barrier with surveillance and interdiction teams at the ready, which make success unlikely and the cost of trying outrageous. Then the border barrier will be highly effective. And even more effective if internal domestic laws favor legal employment and disincent through fines and prosecution, illegal employment. Which leads to enforcing laws on the books regarding tax dodging cash only based businesses and illegal activities more than we currently do. Which for the most part, will produce positive gains for our society going forward as well as increased deficit reducing federal revenues.

David,

But isn’t the bigger lesson that walls don’t work?

Did the China Wall, Berlin Wall, Iron Cutain, or Hadrian’s wall ultimately work?

People will migrate when it serves their interest to do so. The fiction of political boundaries will ultimately fail.

It’s to me a smarter strategy would be to incorporate and assimilate migrations and build cultures around that.

err, it seems to me….

“Berlin Wall”, weren’t there tunnels?
“China Wall” was intended to keep out men on horses.
“Romans built a wall in the British Isles” They actually built 2 walls, the Antonine wall ,(Clyde to Forth) should have worked better but it didn’t.
Hadrian’s Wall (Tyne to Solway) is an interesting example to cite, since it functioned as a border until immigration changed the population enough to make it irrelevant, when people north of the wall were more akin to people south of the wall and the border moved northward.

gergle, the differential between the Mexican and American economies is not static and perpetual. A barrier need not survive an equalization of opportunity between the two nations to the extent that America is no longer a magnet. This response, of course, only addresses illegal immigration.

National security methodology and technology requirements will have to survive as long as America is an international power player. Still, nothing lasts forever, including illegal immigration into this country and our being the world’s main premium target for terrorists.

Like Hadrian’s Wall, they work well until they are no longer needed or held as a high priority on resource allocation. The Berlin Wall worked well until the Eastern Bloc nations and parent USSR could no longer afford the Cold War. Then the wall came down.

My Horse fencing around my 5 acres backed by two dogs hostile to trespassers, works very well. No intrusions in almost 6 years now. Everyone in the area is now aware that the occupants of this 5 acres are armed (target practice) and that the two dogs are not to be intruded upon. It’s not 100% security, but, for what I pay to maintain it, it is well worth the peace of mind and security we enjoy in our once rural, now growing x-urban area. If and when our area of the County incorporates and establishes a police force no more than a couple minutes away, we can dispense with the dogs for security purposes and give up target practice as reminder to the community of its armed occupants. Circumstances change. Security measures will change too as circumstances do.

Right now, America has an economic, political, and national security problem with illegal immigration. America needs, and will get, sooner or later, an effective border security system in place. Perhaps after the next terrorist incident in the Continental U.S. If and when illegal immigration ceases to be an economic, political, or national security problem, then the security system will change or cease to exist. That is the way of things regarding borders over time. They change, and the needs for their definition change also, over time.

Time (change) is an aspect of policy making which fails to be discussed often enough or, sometimes even contemplated in the policy design process. Given the more than doubling of our national debt in 9 years, our needs for border security are going to be more short lived than would have been anticipated in 2000. However, that’s not such good news, when one thinks about why.

While, I might agree that there is an economic problem associated with illegal immigration, I think going after the beneficiaries (i.e. corporate CEO’s) of this economic issue would stop it dead in it’s tracks. The truth is Texas and other states have benefited until recently from illegal immigration in many ways. We may be reaching a tipping point in that regard, but I still think building an iron curtain has deeper bad political ramifications than the problems it purports to solve.

I’m not sure I see the political or security issues associated with illegal immigration. Building a wall around Mexico won’t make us any safer. Frankly, if I wanted to smuggled weapons of mass destruction into the US, I wouldn’t choose the southern border, nor did the 911 terrorists.

While there is political change afoot in the demographics of the Southwest, that will come with or without additional immigration. I’m not quite sure I understand the “problem” with that.

gergle said: “I think going after the beneficiaries (i.e. corporate CEO’s) of this economic issue would stop it dead in it’s tracks.”

I would agree with you except for the fact that most illegals are hired by small and private businesses, not corporations, and the fact that halting illegal immigration to legitimate employment would do nothing to halt illegal immigration to illegitimate or underground economy jobs.

The political issues surround the divide of the public, and the parties regarding the illegal immigration issue. In close races with margins of a couple percent or less, the illegal immigration issue can easily determine the outcome of the race for both candidates and parties in those districts. Not to mention the hot potato political issue of funding the solution to the problem.

The security issue surrounds criminals and terrorists coming into this country amidst the river of illegal immigrants seeking employment. The illegal immigrants seeking employment provide cover for enemies of our state to arrive here incognito. One report by the CIA already demonstrates how a terrorist organization in S. America, Hamas or Hezbollah, I forget which now, has already come into our country over the Mexican/USA border, along with the millions of other illegals. This report was from last year.

gergle said: “While there is political change afoot in the demographics of the Southwest, that will come with or without additional immigration. I’m not quite sure I understand the “problem” with that.”

The demograpic of low wage employment centers dominating the SW due to illegal immigration is one impact that can be avoided by halting illegal immigration. I don’t believe anyone referenced the Hispanic demographic growth in the SW as being either a problem or avoidable.

In Texas, the Americans were the illegal immigrants to Mexico, before Santa Ana’s defeat and Texas’ declaration of Independence. The Hispanic culture and race has always been a major part of the population here and New Mexico as well.

“Hamas or Hezbollah, I forget which now, has already come into our country over the Mexican/USA border, along with the millions of other illegals.”

Well, Hamas would be from “palestine” and Hezbollah would be from Lebanon. We already have plenty of people from “palestine” here who didn’t come across the Mexican border.

“The Hispanic culture and race has always been a major part of the population here”
In a subdivision adjacent to where my grandmother lived, all the streets had Spanish names from when that was considered quaint or fashionable in the 1920s. Now they have changed all the names to English ones, so maybe our attitude towards Hispanic people is what has changed.

South Park ep 806 entitled Goobacks

You are correct about immigration being a political football in border states especially. That is a good point.

I think going after CEO’s whether large corporations or small businesses is at the heart of stopping illegal immigration and resolving low wage center issues. It’s not so much an illegal immigration issue, as an illegal employment issue.
The real problem seems to be an unwillingness to address this without fear of a backlash from those getting rich off the use of underpaid and “invisible” workers.

The Underground economy is I assume a reference to drug dealing and prostitution. Ending prohibition is the real solution to those issues, but not likely to happen. Until we address prohibition, a wall won’t really deter that. Drugs and prostitutes were widely available throughout history, worldwide. China executed opium dealers and users. I hope that isn’t a solution you seek.

While you may be technically correct about Mexicans not being indigenous to Texas or the Southwest, many refer to it as “returning” based on the traditional history of the region. Many popular Tejano songs are about this subject.

ohrealy, one of those organizations is established in S. America. They don’t just hop a plane from Palestine and fly to New York, you know. Think about it. Also, google S. America and both organization’s names to locate which is established in S. America. The way into the U.S. from S. America is across the US/Mexican border for those entering illegally and anonymously to our authorities, which is precisely what the CIA referred to in their report.

gergle, since Mexico is legalized personal possession of all drugs, the profit margin for many drugs in Mexico is about to plummet. Which means their cartels will be moving increasingly to the U.S. where the profits are still extraordinarily high due, thanks to prohibition.

My personal belief based on my experience with these issues is the U.S. needs to decriminalize recreational possession and usage of drugs while maintaining enforcement against illegal production of controlled substances for sale. This would reduce our budget for enforcement and more narrowly and effectively focus our enforcement efforts on the drug cartels. Non-addictive recreational drugs should be removed from the controlled substances list, and made legal for adult sales with full ID check and recording of purchasers, and enforce laws against irresponsible usage like driving on LSD or Pot and continuing to allow employers to drug test for jobs in which public or work environment safety issue require drug free employees.

Of course, such a proposal would not suit everyone; very likely not even a majority. But, change is needed in the way the U.S. is deficit spending on the war on drugs to the detriment of our children’s economic future.

I believe in the power of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Expect people to act responsibly and provide them with the education required to act responsibly, and most people will act responsibly. I have an affinity with the Libertarian Party on this belief.

David wrote: “I believe in the power of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Expect people to act responsibly and provide them with the education required to act responsibly, and most people will act responsibly. I have an affinity with the Libertarian Party on this belief”.

Pat Choate, in Saving Capitalism, wrote: “The present economic crisis is eerily reminiscent of the one faced by newly elected pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt more than seven decades ago, —”

He quoted FDR’s 1933 inaugural address speech : “In our progress toward a resumption fo work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency”.

Pat further writes: “those infected with the spirit of manic risk taking were primarily executives in America’s largest banks and invetment houses, which dominate the money industry. These gamblers destroyed a quarter or more of the national wealth, wiped out the pensions of many working people, denied educations to young people, pushed families out of their homes, destroyed the dreams of millions of people, and perhaps worst of all raised serious doubts about the economic integrity of American and the viability of capitalism among billions of people worldwide. No terrrorist in the world could have weakended America and capitalism more”.

All very well educated folks, I’m sure. And, I would add, they could not have been successful at any of this without the full complicity of the U.S. Government.

There is a reason for the Constitution.

A quote from Eammon Fingleton’s review of “Saving Capitalism”: He writes: “A powerful political majority over the past 30 years has held the zealous conviction that markets are self-regulating, the gains from industrial outsourcing exceeded the costs, and mounting trade deficits were irrelevant because other nations would eventually adopt America’s open market trade policies and trade would balance out….For almost 30 years the governing ethos has been, `Government is the problem, not the solution’ - hardly a suitable foundation for national economic policy.”

This ideology - which Choate characterizes as “free market absolutism” - originated on the wilder shores of the far right. Already by the 1970s it was being systematically promoted by the foreign lobby and it went viral in the 1980s when Wall Street spotted the possibilities. What, after all, could be wrong with an intellectual fashion in which the greedy and unscrupulous were positively lionized for fleecing the gullible and ill-informed? Washington soon succumbed. After all, for a senator in a tight reelection race, the choice between his own commonsense and the big bucks on offer from the lobbyists was no choice at all. By the mid 1990s the media were in thrall and thereafter it became almost impossible for wiser heads to get a hearing”.

All, rings true. But, what is the bigger picture, a broader perspective? What about the 30 year push to flood the US with cheap labor, adopting a covert government, the NAU, behind the backs of the taxpayers, ‘harmonizing’ our trade, security and administrative laws with that of the rest of the world? Thirty years of working to break down the middle class to one notch above the poverty level. The ‘harmonizing’ continues with the likes of Antia Dunn, WH COMMO Director making statements that Mao and Mother Theresa are her two favorite philsophers and with other admin officials making statements to the effect that Mao was a great leader. Maybe this will get us a lower interest rate but, I doubt it. A failed government in every sense. But, the outrage? About as strong as piss on a plank as I can tell.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

“established in S. America. They don’t just hop a plane from Palestine and fly to New York”

Are they going to bring the killer bees with them? This discussion is so Texas-centric that it’s a little ridiculous. Our national security and our national interest just isn’t that dependent on worrying about people who sneak across that border. It might seem like a bigger problem to people who live near there, but it just isn’t that big of a deal in the greater scheme of things. The people who are causing these worries have more to fear from us than we do from them.

A little manufactured news and a little internet is enough to create fear in the minds of people who have more than enough time on their hands and more than enough guns to make themselves into a real problem. Our country is already full of people who have no respect for themselves or any other human being. Almost any person coming here from any foreign country is most likely coming from a more civilized place to a less civilized place.

Ohrealy,

I am often cynical when someone begins talking to me about civilization. As Alan Greenspan discovered, too late, even the most educated and civil types are driven by desires that are destructive to civilization.

The modern myth about civilized Native Americans and evil invading Europeans is equally as dumb as the views of the “Indians” as heathens by the new settlers.

The truth is civilization hasn’t changed much in written history. Sociologically, I was struck by studies of the Kalahari tribesmen that noted groupings of more than 100 or so people brought about violence. It seems to be beyond human capacity to deal with groups larger in “civilized” ways.

Our wigwams may be much more comfortable with big screen TV’s, but that really isn’t a sign of civilization.

Roy,

While I don’t share your fears of NAU, I do think if we don’t start seeing some transparency and competent regulation of financial institutions and markets very soon, it may well be time for Larry Summers and Geitner to hit the road, since they were among the architects of the current financial morass.

To single out one or two from a cast of thousands makes little sense to me. Summars and Geitner work for the Corpocracy. Again, to “Saving Capitalism”: (gist) Clinton’s economic adviser and later treasury secretary was Robert Rubin, former cochairman of Goldman Sachs and later director and senior advisor at Citigroup. Rubin mentored Summers, who succeeded him as treas. sec. in 99, and Timoth Geithner, who worked for both Rubin and Summers. While advising Obama in 08, Summers also worked as managining director at the $30B hedge fund D.E. Shaw, which paid him $5.2M for on-day-a-week’s work over a two year period. He received $2.7M for forty speechs, to Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and others, later beneficiaries of fed bailouts which he now oversees.
Geithner became chair of the fed reserve of NY in 03 and was involved in the bailouts of wallst. Obama appointed him treas sec in 09. His chief of staff is Mark Patterson, who left his job as a top lobbyist for Goldman Sachs in 09. Michael Paese, who had been the top staffer at the House Financial Services Committee, which helped structure the wallst bailout in 08, filled the resulting vacuum at Goldman’s Washington office.
After leaving office in 01 Clinton advised several wallst investment funds, while Al Gore is cofounder of Generation Investment Management with david B lood, an investment banker formerly of GS. Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie, a Swiss bank, is the largest investor in the fund with assets in companies such as Novo Nordis A/S the world’s largst insulin maker, and Johnson Controls which make auto seats and batters.
The giant hedge fund Paulson & Co. in 09 hired Greenspan, chair Fed Rsv 87-2006. The fund made a reported $15B profit in 07 by shorting stocks of those holding subprime mortgages.
Prescott Bus, headed the investment firm Brown Brothers Harriman in the 30s and 40s. After the presidency George H. W. he advised the Carlyle Group, a major investment fund, and Citigroup.
John Snow, GW’s treas sec from 03-06 became chair of Cerberus, an investment firm that does billions of contract work for the federal government, owned Crysler, and was the recipient of $4b in fed rescue funds in late 08. Paulson, ex-chair GS, replaced Snow at the Treasury and led the bailout of the financial industry, including GS, which got a $10B investment by the Treas at about eh same time Warrent BUffett bough into the firm for $5B. The deal Paulson negotiated with his old firm gave taxpayers less than half what Buffet got, but at twice the price.

Fingers getting tired. But you get the idea. Not just a couple of bad apples. Not just the dems and reps. The system is so corrupt it cannot any longer sustain the delusion of a government. Took 150 years to get this way and there ain’t no easy fix(es). We need total reform, best brought about by a third party with a different political attitude, etc.

Otherwise, we have the government/corpocracy we deserve.

Roy,

We need total reform, best brought about by a third party with a different political attitude, etc.

The only problem with that sentence is the first part leads us to revolution, not the obscure idea of a third party.

I think the idea that capitalism itself is the problem, or that these kind of problems didn’t exist prior to the civil war, doesn’t really make a great deal of sense to me.

Roy Ellis said: “And, I would add, they could not have been successful at any of this without the full complicity of the U.S. Government. - There is a reason for the Constitution.”

Or the ignorance which voters elected to represent them. Our representatives were ignorant, they IGNORED the lessons of history when Bill Clinton and a Republican -Democratic Congress overturned Glass Steagal and installed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But, you see, if voters were more educated in their history, they would have known better than to elect representatives ignorant in that history.

Allowing a bank in a financial institution to take the public’s savings dollars and bet them on Red 22 at a Roulette Wheel in the investment firm of that institution, and then when facing bankruptcy run to the tax payers crying you will suffer too if we go bankrupt so had it over, was a lesson learned all too well in the 1930’s, for it to have been ignored and repeated in the 1990’s and 2000 years.

So, just why is it the current government has not altered the regulatory environment yet to reinstate provisions of separation of the Glass Steagal Act, and overturn that abyssmal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? One word: Coziness. The Regulators in our government are the primary opponents fighting regulations of this kind because they came from the financial industry which lobbied for Gramm Leach Bliley. This was discussed in depth on the Morning Joe show on MSNBC, just this morning.

Paul Voelker has no stake in the game and is on the money in calling for a breakup of these financial institutions and reinstatement of Glass Steagal provisions. But, Geithner and Summers and nearly all below them are resisting. Obama needs to side with Voelker on this and provide direction to his administration. Unfortunately, he is a Constitutional scholar, not a economics scholar, and it remains to be seen whether he will educate sufficiently to make the right move on this, or not.

gergle, what the financial institution Execs did to their corporations last year and the nation and the global economy is what capitalism leads to, when unregulated and overseen by non-vested academics who understand economics in an objective way.

Since FDR until Reagan, regulation and oversight of the capitalism were intact. Then Republicans figured out how to get the reins of power and wield it to overturn that regulation and oversight, creating the capitalism monster which we just witnessed. Unbridled capitalism is as dangerous to a nation as unbridled socialism.

And this is why a two party system has failed America. There is no third party to moderate the excesses and extremes of the binary parties which contain coalitions hell bent on extremism in economic and foreign policy-security issues. Eventually, in a two party system, those extremists will wield power, and the nation’s people will bear the brunt of the cost of that extremism.

gergle, didn’t say anything about capitalism being a problem. These problems have existed since oil was discovered in Pithole, Pa. And, yes, we need a revolution. A peaceful one brought about through a party with a different political attitude. Remember the Whigs, and others from our past? Otherwise, we will get to the violent revolution soon enough, IMO.
Pat Choate says it well: (gist) Checks and Balances of the American form of government failed spectacularly over the past three decades. Our nation presented to the world an economic model that seemed indifferent to the well-being of the people, let alone those of other nations. Public and private leaders have tolerated chicanery, inequality, tax evasion, financial looting, mass exploitation of poor foreigners, and ruin of the common good.
The tragedy is that capitalism, properly regulated, is the most efficient means in the world to allocate scarce resources and stimulate economic innovation and growth. However, as we have experienced, market capitalism is also a fragile thing, constantly vulnerable to political manipulation, ideologues, rogues, and other enemies. This book argues that systemic change is required if America is to emerge from this depression capable of reclaiming economic and political sovereignty. The goal must be restoration of a responsible capitalism …..

Pat then gives six game-changing proposals to get us on the right track. I agree with his reform proposals but he doesn’t go far enough. Leaves Corporate Personhood and Money is free speech to stand etc. Otherwise, we can expect to repeat the mass rape of the American taxpayer ever so often.

David, the Democrats are as, if not more guilty than the Republicans. The primary culprits in the OTC derivatives debacle were Rubin, Sommers and Greenspan. Their arrogance and their greed knew no bounds and they crushed anyone who challanged their position on the OTC’s or tried to regulate them.

In the last couple of weeks, Frontline has ran two excelent investigative reports on what went on. The first covered the banks, how their employees knew what they were doing would have major consequences for our economy but they did it anyway, for the bonuses, for the greed.

The second story covered Clinton’s economic advisors and their coalition with Greenspan. How they went before Congress and destroyed another Clinton appointee, a woman named Born who was trying to regulate the OTC’s.

I recomend that everyone go to the PBS website and view both Frontline stories.

jlw, we know what the problems is, no need for more videos, talk shows, etc. The Corpocracy has succeeded in feathering their nest at the expense of the middle/poor class. No matter what happens beyond this point those folks succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. I can find no reason, none, as to why it should continue. Third party, different attitude, etc.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

jlw said: “David, the Democrats are as, if not more guilty than the Republicans. The primary culprits in the OTC derivatives debacle were Rubin, Sommers and Greenspan”

You are partisanly putting the horse before the cart. Derivatives could not have affected the economy or the major banks if Gramm-Leach-Bliley had not passed at the insistence and bartering of Republicans.

Derivatives under Glass Steagle would have been a tool of investment banks ONLY, not depository banks, not insurance companies, not mortgage companies. Hence, if Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had not passed, the only losers as a result of derivative excesses would have been the investors in the investment institutions. Under Glass Steagle, banks and mortgage companies, and insurance companies were prohibited from investing in risky investment banks and corporations.

Want to blame Democrats, fine. Blame them, including Clinton, for their participation in passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I am with you. But, do so noting that the names Gramm, Leach, and Bliley, the authors of the bill, were all Republicans.

Latest CNN poll says 73% want illegal immigration decreased. 37% want illegals deported. Those over 50 most strongly against illegal immigration. No time left for the admin to push amnesty this year and next year will be bad due to mid term elections coming up. But, the Corpocracy has already won the immigration thing. The longer they can drag their feet and keep the status quo their win keeps growing. The corpocracy is certainly not in favor of illegals gaining citizenship and becoming upwardly mobile as a result.
Feds have arrested 300 in 19 states for dealing drugs, mostly meth. 2000 killings in Juarez this year, 100 more than all of last year. Police going after gangs in S. Cal where 500 have been arrested since May.

jlw,

I agree Frontline did an excellent piece on the subject, and agree that both Dems and Republicans were involved in the deregulation frenzy. The position of Greenspan, Summers and Geitner, as well as, the SEC head in direct opposition to the attempt by the CFTC to intervene exposes them as primary architects of the derivative explosion and failure. Greenspan and Arthur Levitt are no longer in public office. Brooksly Born spoke up early on.

I also recommend those here watch it. There is also an excellent piece on PBS about the demise of the middle class and the garment industry in the US.

DR
So you suggest we put up a Berlin Wall and machine gun people trying to come north to mow your lawn.And you accuse me of hyperbole? Besides the fact that OUR longest borders are on the coast line, I doubt if that remedy would be tolerated for long.
You are strawmanning again. I never proposed a one world government…blah…blah.. that you claim. The US relation with Mexico and Latin America is different and natural immigration patterns exist.Its anthropology and not particularly politically mutable for any length of time.BTW The”shrooms,campfire” thing is for sap-headed third party religionist.

bills said: “So you suggest we put up a Berlin Wall and machine gun people trying to come north to mow your lawn.”

Fail to see you how you gleaned that interpretation of what I wrote. Coastal illegal immigration drives up the cost of illegal immigration, and we know what driving up costs does to demand. It lowers it. And that’s the whole point of the fence border exercise. Drive up the cost, and drive down the demand for illegal immigration into this country.

Also, diminish the reward upon arriving here, and the demand drops precipitously. Combine the two, and as much as 2/3 of last year’s illegal immigration stops. Arrest, and put to work for 30 days on a civil project, and then deport as many of the remaining third as can be apprehended, adn the problem is solved.

No guns or slaughter required. Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Like the title of this article says, Democrats can’t walk both sides of this illegal immigration fence. They can’t claim humanitarian amnesty and refuse to take the measures to halt illegal immigration ASAP at the same time. That exacerbates the problem instead of solving it. YOU don’t want Democrats governing like Republicans do you?

Bills said ” The U.S. relationship with Mexico and Latin America is different and natural immigration paterns exist.”

There is absolutely nothing natural about what is going on. This is not natural immigration, it is an invasion and there is going to be grave consequences because of it in the future. Every day, the possibility grows that this invasion will be repelled by violent means.

Will the government use violence against it’s own citizens to protect the invaders that have been sanctioned by the government?

David, both political parties are equally guilty when it comes to both our economy and the illegal immigration.

Roy, I am all for a third party movement, the revitalization of the Progressive Party. I don’t expect it to happen in this two party system controlled by wealth but, I believe that if it could happen, the Progressive Party would take at least half the Democrats constituents and win back the blue collar workers from the Republicans who offer them nothing except guns.

jlw, in a response to raising the limit of the national debt, in today’s Wash. Post Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana, was reported as saying “people understand that we’re stealing from future generations. We’re setting the stage for another Perot moment,” referring to the 92 Perot campaign where he took 19 percent of the vote, making it impossible for G.H.W. Bush to win a second term.

Far better to be talking about solutions through third parties than rehashing old truths. Good on ye, jlw.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Progressive Party, jlw? Died in 1924 and again in 1946. There is a Democratic Progressive Party of China. Help me out here.

DR
I got the Berlin Wall thing from you. You put it up as an example of a wall that worked. It did work for a time and thankfully it no longer exist. I was taken aback at the notion of adopting one of the more repressive measures of the Soviet Union as something the US should try. Maybe we should establish some gulags also?

“They can’t claim humanitarian amnesty and refuse to take the measures to halt illegal immigration ASAP at the same time.”

As I recall the basic policy direction of the Dems was exactly what you suggest. Conditional Amnesty coupled with increased enforcement and a fair guest worker program. As for a fence, even Joe Biden supports at least a partial fence. He admits it is not something that is likely to stop people from going over,under,around or through. He argues that it may help slow drug shipments etc.BTW, The amnesty that has been discussed was never a strictly humanitarian effort. Its a realistic attempt to bring people out of the shadows as part of attempt to control immigration.
Although you may not be comfortable considering the fact,the predominentt racial background of immigrants from Mexico is native North American.Last I heard,that makes them indigenous people.Denial of the obvious is not like you.Bit touchy,are we?
Perhaps a good subject to bring up but at this time the Dems have a pressing agenda. Health care delivery reform and energy policy correction have a justified priority to my thinking and fortunately, the thinking of the administration.
One of the disgusting thing about American history is how in every economic downturn,immigrants are scapegoated. Its as predictable as the tide. Instead of blaming the people actually responsible for the problem we blame some poor shmuck just trying to feed his family.It wasn’t the grape pickers that invested billions in shaky mortgage paper. It wasn’t that construction laborer that swindled 30 billion $ in a ponsi scheme. It wasn’t those busboys and nannys that made GM keep making SUVs nobody could afford to drive, but by gum, lets kick those bastards out of here.Doesn’t matter who. Its been Germans, Irish,Italians,Chinese,Filipinos. Whoever is doing the grunt work becomes the target.

jlw

Of course there are natural migration patterns. There always have been and always will be. The population gradient between Mexico and the US is severe. So is the age of the population. Mexico has a rapidly increasing,much younger population. The situation is being intensified by the economic disparity.No reason to panic. The food is pretty good and the music,not too bad. Relax. Have a taco,listen to the music and dance with a pretty Latina. It won’t kill you.

Two excellent, back to back, presentations coming on cspan at 11pm EST. First presentation exposes the truly insidious nature of ACORN and the depth/breadth of its corruption. Followed by Jonah Goldberg speaking at the National Review on accuracy in the media.

“the predominentt racial background of immigrants from Mexico is native North American”

Stop talking about reality! This is a political forum, it’s only about theories.

bills, it is the height if ignorance to view all fences and barriers as the same, which is what you attempt to do when equating the Berlin Wall to the our own border barrier design and methods of enforcement. Someone else brought up the Berlin Wall saying it didn’t work, to which I replied, it did work while in place.

You then attempted to equate the Berlin Wall with our border barrier, and just as a dam is a barrier to water is a very different kind of barrier than a tail hook cable on an aircraft barrier, our border barrier is being erected and enforced in a very different way and under different rules and limits of enforcement than the Berlin Wall. It is pure partisan hyperbole to equate the two, for no other reason than the monumental differences between the government’s relationship to people of the USSR and the USA.

So spin on all you wish, illegal immigration must be slowed and controlled as far as our resources can afford to make it so, and legal immigration be reinstated as the primary and sole means of immigration into our country. The fantasy, as I said, of open borders between nations is economically unfeasible and unreasonable, even if security and cultural factors are removed from the equation. That is reality. And reality is what our government’s policies must address, unlike the wishful thinking that dominated policy from 2001 to 2009.

jlw said: “David, both political parties are equally guilty when it comes to both our economy and the illegal immigration.”

Yes. So? Anything other of obvious nature to comment on? But each party contributed different things in part to the economic and immigration problems we now face, and many of the same, even if for different reasons. Have to be careful about oversimplifying, it leads to false derivative conclusions. Both parties were guilty. Whether they were equally guilty is very much up for debate, since there contributions were different at times and their rationale and reasons very different at times.

If a citizen errs in providing first aid to an accident victim, does their error carry the same guilt level as a doctor who errs in providing first aid to that same victim? Equally guilty is a very subjective evaluation in the absence of some empirical way of substantiating such a claim based on quantifiable data.

I see by your reply, that you entirely sidestepped the quantifiable assessment issue on derivatives and Glass Steagal. By sidestepping the data and history, your refutation constitutes a concession to the debate. Thank you.

Bills said: “Although you may not be comfortable considering the fact,the predominentt racial background of immigrants from Mexico is native North American.Last I heard,that makes them indigenous people.”

I am quite comfortable acknowledging people like Inuits or Cheyenne or Lakota Sioux nation as indigenous peoples of the American United States. It is a false claim that those born and raised in Mexico are indigenous peoples of the United States. Entirely different geography. Got a map. Check it out. Indigenous is defined be a specific region on a map. Mexicans are not indigenous the United States any more than Inuits are indigenous to Mexico.

You can continue to spin and twist the definitions of words to fit your arguments, but, you lose the debate prima facia, in doing so. Oldest propaganda trick in history, redefine the language to make your arguments logically true. —George Orwell

But the rules of logic dictate that the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true, and the premises must conform to definition which is universally or commonly accepted, unless both parties of the debate agree to redefintion for the sake of clarity and common ground predicate for debate.

I reject your redefining indigenous as pertaining to multiple distinct regional areas including those in which the subject people are not historically, or presently, found to have their generational birth and cultural roots. There is also a temporal condition to the definition of indigenous. If you want to march back to the hominids in time, one can logically say that all people on earth today are indigenous to this earth wherever they are found, due to their common roots of evolution having been centered on a DNA trail back to Africa. However, that is NOT how we define the word indigenous in common parlance today.

I give you Merriam Webster as the common definition: “having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment

Note the use of the words and condition of “in a particular region or environment”. In discussing Mexico and the United States, we are speaking of very different regions and environments on terrestrial maps. Ergo, the people of Mexico are not idigenous to the United States anymore than the third generation Irish in America are indigenous to Mexico. Your argument is illogical on definitional grounds.

Back to the “walls”, it occurred to me that I actually know more people who live within walking distance of Hadrian’s Wall, than I do people who live anywhere in Texas. I’m a native of this country, with ancestors who were living in La in the 1820s, Il and Wi in the 1850s, and NY in the 1880s.

The southwestern boundary of this country has changed various times since my ancestors came here. What was once part of Mexico is now part of the EEUU, but is still within their cultural boundary until they change the name of San Antonio to St.Anthony, or something more English.

I’m also calling a foul ball on the use of a dictionary. We certainly wouldn’t want people to define their terms in a website for political commentary.

DR
So Mexico is no longer in North America?You wish to dismiss the exodus of Hispanics after the Mexican War? You wish to just not look at the Apaches. Mexicans are as indigenous to America as Europeans are aa indigenous to Europe. To dispute your denial I might have chosen your own words.
You are my second favorite third party advocate. My favorite is the beloved crack pot and former governor,Jesse Ventura.His comment of the migration?
“The Pilgrams didn’t have visas!What is this…First the Europeans show up…kill the Native Americans and steal their land…and now we want paperwork??!!!.”He also has pledged to climb the proposed border fence in protest,from the US side.
Actually,this is a good time for a third party. Many Reps have had it with their leadership. There leadership will never go against their corporate masters and make it harder for them to access cheap labor and the Dems are too smart to deny reality and they will pursue their already avowed policy of conditional amnesty and increased enforcement. That leaves a great number of xenophobic racist out there just ripe for the plucking by some wing nut or another. May I suggest a short cut and use George Wallace’s American Independant Party. They are still on the Ballot in many states and the new quest would be true to their founding principles.

bills digs his debate hole deeper by asking the question: “So Mexico is no longer in North America?”

Of course Mexico is in N. America, just as Russia is on the Asian Continent - but that doesn’t mean Russians are indigenous to China or vice versa. How deep are your comments going to dig its losing argument?

Your comments reject definitions of the formal language as impediments to your debate and “logic” abilities. I understand. But, continued rejection doesn’t change the fact that your argument lost this debate by the formal rules of both logic and language.

ohrealy, yes, dictionaries, what intellectual crutches, eh? bills wants to offer his opinion as debate while defying the rules of logic and debate. There simply is not substitute for education. If Americans could at the very least be educated to the point of acknowledging what they DON’T know, they would at least have the opportunity to seek out what they don’t know instead of offering ignorance as a substitute with all the confidence of Moses coming off the Mount.

Of all the foolish things I have done in my life, none embarrasses me more than recalling some of my pre-college assertions backed by yelling and aggressive tone on my behalf asserting my confidence in my ignorance.

Having played the fool and learned to recognize its hallmarks, I am a bit more forgiving of others in the role than of my recollections of my post high school drop out years before college. I dropped out; the responsibility for playing the fool and opining in debate ignorantly, was my own. Many opining the fool’s argument today do so as a result of graduating their school’s inferior curricula, and therefore are not as responsible as I for playing the role.

On the upside, having dropped out and gone on to graduate college anyway, means many others have the same opportunity - if they choose first to acknowledge that they don’t know and aspire to correct that condition. To be ignorant is a condition we are all in, just in different areas of knowledge. There is nothing foolish about being ignorant. To be foolish, one has to assert one’s ignorance as knowledge to others and defend it to oneself in the wake of other’s logical and rational critique.

The first step to education is admitting one doesn’t know. Learning actually becomes considerably easier after that difficult step, as does keeping one’s opinions to oneself when one knows one doesn’t.

I don’t opine on a wide host of topics because I am not educated in those areas. Stephen Daugherty sends me emails on cutting edge physics and technology which make me aware of expanding horizons of knowledge which I know nothing about and don’t even have the vocabulary to comprehend.

Educated doesn’t have to be mean formally, in this age of the internet. I have many a time in replying to a person here at WatchBlog, spent up to an hour researching data and information and assimilating it before replying to them. So much of what we don’t know in the form of data and schools of thought are now readily available on the internet.

I have read the Constitution many times, but, still find I have to refer to it again and again before responding to Constitutional questions. Though the original Constitution contained not that many words, what has been added, modified, and accepted since its drafting fills a library of volumes. It is now so complex our body of law emanating from that original document, that I seriously doubt anyone person exists who has a command of the breadth of American law. We have truly become a nation of specialists for all its benefits and ills. But, that’s a whole other topic.