Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It's only cruel to the people in the video. They don't deserve to be compared to Congress.

Posted by wolfwalker at December 19, 2007 07:38 AM

You forgot Congress role in defeating border security efforts, which makes Democrats happy but pisses off everybody else.

Posted by Leland at December 19, 2007 09:08 AM

Democrats are unhappy with the Congress because it has failed to do many of the things that they thought they were promised when they elected them in 2006 (e.g., surrender in Iraq, raise taxes, socialize medicine, impeach Bush, etc.) The rest of us are unhappy because they're attempting to do so

Leland, I hope you remember my saying this a long while back as an explanation for why Congress has low approval. Which got you all mad. ;-)

And, I seriously doubt too many Dems are happy about the so-called "defeating border security" stuff. Not happy enough to think that Congress is doing a good job.

Congress is basically pissing off both sides. Except for the bill that was just signed by BushChimpyMcHitler, in which I find at least one thing I like a lot.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 19, 2007 10:09 AM

And almost all of the representatives will get reelected. Maybe we should get to vote for representatives for the other states.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at December 19, 2007 10:58 AM

Leland, I hope you remember my saying this a long while back as an explanation for why Congress has low approval. Which got you all mad.

I recall you saying this in August:

The American people want the same thing as the Democrats apparently. and by a ratio of over 2:1

I say we should call them traitors, cowards and defeat lovers:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Which is why I repeat that the low numbers for Congress are due to its failure to implement the wishes of the American people, whatever Rand may think to the contrary.

I have no idea how you equate Iraq to border security, but then looking back at your previous thoughts, you always seemed pretty clueless. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. A bit of a liar too, in my book, but I'll let others decide.

Ah, looking back makes me miss Carl Pham and Andrea Harris. How did we keep TnT and lose quality commenters like them?

Posted by Leland at December 19, 2007 12:19 PM

Which is why I repeat that the low numbers for Congress are due to its failure to implement the wishes of the American people

That's still true - Polls still show that even with the current low numbers for Congress, Americans want the Dems in control of Congress.

Regarding the surge, it has turned out better than most people expected. I'm terribly happy that it has. And quite willing to admit that I mis-read the tea leaves. Petraeus has done a terrific job.

Yes, I too miss Carl Pham, especially when he directed his rather stellar sarcasm and wit at me. I also miss Mac. So many missing commenters, and of such high quality too.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 19, 2007 01:23 PM

You forgot Congress role in defeating border security efforts, which makes Democrats happy but pisses off everybody else.

Not "everyone" else, Leland. Being a non-Democrat does not automatically make a person Archie Bunker (or vice versa).

If you watch the news, you might have noticed that all the immigrant bashing started (and remains strongest) in California, a very liberal, Democratic state. The most common justification is that immigrants will "use up" welfare services. Protecting the welfare state is a concern you're most likely to hear from liberal Democrats.

Texas, on the other hand, is a very conservative, Republican state, and you'll find little support there for the War on Immigrants. The last poll I saw put it at less than 40% (and based on the Texans I've talked to, I doubt it's even that high).

So, I don't see the supposed correlation between being a non-Democrat and being an immigrant basher. Instead, I see Republican politicians falling into the trap Democrats set for them. The people who believe immigrants are going to use up "their" welfare benefits are unlikely to cross over and vote Republican no matter what. All the GOP's immigrant bashing will do is to drive immigrant groups more firmly into the Democratic Party and further alienate Big Government skeptics who used to be the backbone of the Republican Party.

This shows how far the Republican Party has fallen since then 1980's, when Ronald Reagan pursued the opposite strategy, trying to bring Latinos and other immigrant groups into the Republican Party, supporting amnesty and other other policies that have been denounced or abandoned by today's "Republican leaders."

Other concerns that Republican leaders have abandoned are Federalism and private property rights. Because much of the land in border areas is privately owned, the Great Wall of America will represent another massive transfer of land from the private sector to the Federal government. That's unpopular, not just with landowners and property rights advocates but also with local governments in border areas who see their rights getting trampled over.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 19, 2007 09:29 PM

I have no idea how you equate Iraq to border security

Leland, the War on Immigration goes far beyond "border security."

It's now legal for the Border Patrol to randomly stop cars along the side of the road within the United States. Maybe you haven't been stopped yet, but I have, twice -- and I don't even look Mexican.

Politicians are also proposing bills that would require police officers to check proof of citizenship every time they do a traffic stop. ("Your papers, please?")

Both of those things would have been considered unconstitutional on Federalist grounds at one time -- and would have been opposed by the Republican Party on Federalist grounds.

Between the War on Drugs and the War on Immigrants, I wonder how long we will have any rights left.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 19, 2007 09:40 PM

If you watch the news, you might have noticed that all the immigrant bashing started (and remains strongest) in California, a very liberal, Democratic state.

I certainly agree with you about the futility, recklessness, and unfairness of the war on immigration, but what you're saying about California and Texas is out of date at best.

For instance, HR 4437 was a punitive anti-immigration measure that passed in the House two years ago. The Democrats were against it and the Republicans were for it, but there were 36 cross-over Democrats and 17 cross-over Republicans. One of the crossover Democrats was from Texas; none were from California. Three of the crossover Republicans were from California; none were from Texas. At least in that vote, Republicans were more anti-immigration than Democrats, Texas was more anti-immigration than the national average, and California was less anti-immigration than the national average.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 19, 2007 10:28 PM

At least in that vote, Republicans were more anti-immigration than Democrats, Texas was more anti-immigration than the national average, and California was less anti-immigration than the national average.

That means very little because I was talking about constituents and you're talking about politicians.

Obviously, Republican politicians have bought into the War on Immigrants. One does not necessarily reflect the other.

The immigration issue is a reenactment of the old Popeye episode, "Let's you and him fight." The Democrats are playing the role of Whimpy, encouraging Republicans and Latinos to fight for the benefit of the Democratic Party.

Republican politicians are falling for it, which is not surprising given the demonstrated political intelligence of Republican politicians (nil).

Posted by Edward Wright at December 19, 2007 11:44 PM

Ed,

Perhaps in California, they are bashing immigrants. I don't know, I don't live there. I do live in Texas. Here's my complaint; I'm required by law to have a valid drivers license and insurance to drive my car to work. I have to provide two forms of valid id in order to work. If I get sick or injured, I'm required to pay for my medical bills with or without insurance. Now, I can be law abiding and not actually work, but I could face stiff fines and jail time for illegally driving my car or failing to pay debts I owe. Why then should others get a pass on these laws for the simple fact that they have already violated immigration laws?

Note, I have no issue with the immigration laws currently on the books (perhaps why the polls don't actually capture the opinion of mnay Texans). I wouldn't mind expanding immigration opportunities, but I do expect all people to follow those laws or held accountable. After all, if I choose to go work in TnT's home country, I would have to do so by following the immigration laws of that country. Indeed, when I have worked in California for just a short time, I was required to report income, whether earned in that state or not, and pay taxes.

Anyway, good job marginalizing my hyperbole and then inserting your own in the same sentence. Who's Archie Bunker in your mind, and where did I enter him into the discussion? More over, if you mean the TV show character (if so, good job Ed using a fictional character in a fictional television series as a debate point!), what was his stance on immigrations? Wasn't that character supposedly living in Queens, NY? Yeah, a 30 year old show based on New England stereotypes from a previous decade is really relevant in discussing issues today in the southwest. Pardon me, I find your analysis, Ed, to be at the least outdated and for the most part, FOS.

Posted by Leland at December 20, 2007 06:54 AM

Speaking of FOS:

Politicians are also proposing bills that would require police officers to check proof of citizenship every time they do a traffic stop. ("Your papers, please?")

Really, you mean police officers will be required to ask for a drivers license and registration? You mean, when states like Texas and California passed laws requiring liability insurance, police officers didn't start asking for papers? I know when I got my drivers license, I was required to provide proof of citizenship. So when I had over my driver's license, I expect that to be evidence of my citizenship.

Moreover, I expect it to be evidence that I am the person represented by the license and that I live where the license says I do. I hope that law enforcement does check, because otherwise, how does law enforcement hold the person accountable once they leave the scene. The alternative is arrest and detain the person until the situation is resolved. Otherwise, the person can leave the scene and no one will have a record of who the person really is and where they can be found.

Perhaps that's a difficult concept for you, Ed. Might I suggest some grade school civic classes.

Posted by Leland at December 20, 2007 07:23 AM

Here's my complaint; I'm required by law to have a valid drivers license and insurance to drive my car to work.

You're "required" to obey the speed limit, too. That doesn't mean everyone does. The last two drivers who hit me in Texas were uninsured (and no, neither of them were immigrants).

Actually, you aren't even required to have insurance. If you can post a bond showing you have sufficient financial resources to cover damages yourself, Texas law says you're not required to buy insurance.

Why then should others get a pass on these laws for the simple fact that they have already violated immigration laws?

They shouldn't. When did I say that? The people who don't want immigrants to have drivers licences or insurance are the immigration bashers. You should be criticizing them, not me.

After all, if I choose to go work in TnT's home country, I would have to do so by following the immigration laws of that country.

Isn't he from England? The country America broke away from because we wanted greater freedom than the British government was willing to give us? (My irony meter is jumping.)

Yes, if you work in England, you will be required to obey British immigration laws, and British gun laws, and you will have to contribute to National Health, too. Does that mean Texas has to repeal its Right to Carry law and have mandatory government health insurance?

Why do people get the idea that there's something wrong with America if we don't have all the same laws and regulations as other countries?

I'm not sure British immigration is as strict as you think, either. I've been to England several times. Once, I got lost in the airport and wandered out of the terminal before I ever found Customs. The only time a British cop asked to see my passport was when I went to use an ATM machine and happened to pick a bank that was being robbed.

Who's Archie Bunker in your mind, and where did I enter him into the discussion...? Wasn't that character supposedly living in Queens, NY? Yeah, a 30 year old show based on New England stereotypes

Leland, you're ranting. New York is not in New England, and it never has been. Please don't embarass Texas in front of the Yankees. :-)

My point, Leland, is that Archie Bunker was a stereotype invented by liberal Democrats to show what they thought "everyone else" was like. Republican politicians seem to have bought into that fiction, but it *is* fiction. I know many people who are neither liberals, Democrats, nor racist nativist Archie Bunker types.

I've also encountered people who complain about immigrants but still vote the Democratic ticket. In Washington State, they even complain about immigrants from California, but they're yellow dog Democrats.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 20, 2007 11:48 AM

I know when I got my drivers license, I was required to provide proof of citizenship.

Then you know something that is not true, Leland. One does not have to be a US citizen to get a driver's license.

Moreover, I expect it to be evidence that I am the person represented by the license and that I live where the license says I do.

You're confusing "proof of identity" and "proof of insurance" with "proof of citizenship." If you don't understand the difference, you should ask a police officer to explain it to you.

(You're also confusing traffic stops with accidents, but that's a minor point.)

The alternative is arrest and detain the person until the situation is resolved. Otherwise, the person can leave the scene and no one will have a record of who the person really is and where they can be found.

That has nothing to do with immigration, Leland. If you're in an accident, the police don't ask your wife and children who were passengers in the car to show their drivers licenses and proof of insurance. They certainly don't ask them to show proof of US citizenship and throw them in jail if they don't provide it.

Until recently, you didn't even need proof of citizenship to cross the US-Canadian border.

Use your head, Leland: Why would Immigration Warriors be lobbying for a new law if the current law already did what they're asking for? Even Archie Bunker wouldn't be stupid enough to do that.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 20, 2007 12:33 PM

First, your point seems to wander. Second, it seems a pointless metaphor, particularly since you already believe that it is "fiction" and nobody fits the description.

Again, I accept I used hyperbole, but you seem to expend a lot of effort on tangental comments to correct what appears to be a massive injustice in your eyes. Ok, I take it back. Democrats are equally pissed, and "everybody else" was hyperbole. Do ya feel better, or are you going to fit George Jefferson into all this?

I still say your comment about police asking for papers is what they do now, and it's better then being arrested and detained. Yes, I deleted, for brevity, the notion that not just immigrants can violate laws. Indeed, I found it unnecessary, because my first point to you is that your "war on immigrants" is a misnomer. My second point is your tangent on police asking for papers is just that, a tangent in terms of border security.

Posted by Leland at December 20, 2007 12:53 PM

Okay, Leland. Since you still can't understand my point, I'll put it in simpler terms: politicians who think they can buy votes by pandering to racist nativists are badly mistaken.

I'm sorry that you still don't understand the difference between citizenship papers and drivers licenses or insurance cards. If the new law passes, I hope you figure it out before you and family spend the night in jail.

And no, calling a spade a spade is not a "misnomer." The mere fact that you consider it politically incorrect to say something does not make it a misnomer.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 20, 2007 01:31 PM

I'll put it in even simpler terms, Leland: Shortly before his death, Milton Friedman said that Americans can have freedom of immigration or they can have the welfare state, but they can't have both at the same time.

People who value the welfare state over freedom are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans (or Libertarians or even independents).

Supporting the welfare state over freedom is not a winning issue for Republicans. The Democratic Party owns the "welfare state" brand, and people who believe in that brand are unlikely to cross over just because the Republican Party tries to copy it. At the same time, the GOP is throwing away the "freedom" brand it used to own and alienating voters who believe in that brand.

Every time the GOP attacks free immigration (or expands Medicare to cover prescription drugs or otherwise supports the welfare state), Howard Dean smiles and lights up a cigar.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 20, 2007 01:55 PM

Ed, your simpler terms proves to me that you didn't comprehend anything I wrote, and now I see you want to go further into the murky world of your tangents with medicare and prescription drugs. Mercy man, I can only take so much of moronic drivel. I give.

Posted by Leland at December 20, 2007 02:12 PM

So I decided to fact check Ed:

Q: Dr. Friedman should the U.S.A. open its borders to all immigrants? What is your opinion on that?

A: Unfortunately no. You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.

Sounds like my stance on border security. So again, I have no idea why Ed cannot comprehend what I wrote.

Posted by Leland at December 20, 2007 04:50 PM

>You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.

Sounds like my stance on border security. So again, I have no idea why Ed cannot comprehend what I wrote.

Now you're being disingenuous.

Here is my paraphrase: "Americans can have freedom of immigration or they can have the welfare state, but they can't have both at the same time."

Any honest person would have to admit that those two statements are essentially synonymous.

As for my not being able to "comprehend" what you wrote, that's also less than honest. I do comprehend what you wrote, I simply disagree with it.

I disagree because give the choice between immigration freedom and the welfare state, you choose the welfare state and I choose freedom. I know many Democrats who would agree with your choice and many Republicans, libertarians, and independents (and yes, some Democrats) who would agree with mine. Not all Democrats are "happy" when Immigration Warriors lose and not everyone else is "pissed off."

I could follow your lead and accuse you of not being able to comprehend what I wrote, but I won't. I'm sure you are capable of understanding what I wrote and that you do understand what I wrote. Pretending you can't understand is a rhetorical ploy, and a poor one at that.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 20, 2007 06:09 PM

I disagree because give the choice between immigration freedom and the welfare state, you choose the welfare state and I choose freedom.

Not only do you not comprehend me, but you don't comprehend Friedman. What Friedman said is that it is impossible to have immigration freedom while there is a welfare state. Moreover, he was very specific that you cannot open the borders while you have a welfare state. All my comments have spoken to that fact, and I didn't need Friedman to explain it to me. I reached the conclusion on my own, and turns out I'm in good company, because Friedman agrees.

Leland: You forgot Congress role in defeating border security efforts

Friedman: Q: Dr. Friedman should the U.S.A. open its borders to all immigrants?
Unfortunately no.

Edward: (Leland) choose the welfare state

Ed is a moron

Posted by Leland at December 21, 2007 06:17 AM

Jeez, someone get a mop and bucked all this pissing is stinkin' up the place.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 23, 2007 11:47 PM

Post a comment