The McCain-Obama Immigration Wars (Pander Wars)

[Heracles 417]

If there was a big public pushback to the politicians on this - this would happen. It hasn't so presumably its not as big of a national issue as people here want it to be.

Most people are trying to survive and protect their dwindling wealth. It is up to the United States government to look out for the American people. After all that is their # 1 job. Going into a side topic this is why I prefer the parliamentary system. You just don't have the inefficiency of the presidential system. A system all about winning votes and campaigning for over a year.

As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly."

[Peikko 1,575]

Lol, I agree with some of BY's arguments, but none of his conclusions.

[zqt3344 21]

You would think, but just watch, these two will not do anything at all like they promise or pledge now and will switch back to reality after the election and go with the flow and that is no amnesty. American politics at it's finest.

Sixer - Pandering pure and simple. Wanting that small percentage of votes to pull them over the hump in a split nation.

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

It would make more sense to pander to the majority then. Surely...

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

But that doesn't answer the question - if it is indeed the case that a majority of people in this country do feel the exact same way about illegal immigration, it doesn't make any political (or logical) sense to sideline those people by not standing up for them on that issue. Surely if illegal immigration were a such a predominantly important frontline issue the candidate pushing for zero-tolerance would win by a landslide.

For one reason or another - this is not happening.

Which goes to show that politicians are only interested in bandwagon issues which will make them look good. No one cares about the ridiculous and embarrassing crime rate, poverty, number of ghettos in America so no politician wants to touch this.

I think this issue should be presented to the American people to vote on. Whether the government should give them amnesty, again, or whether they need to start actually enforcing the laws and send them back. As well as heavily punish anyone who hires them.

The US is one of the safest countries in the world to live. People can move out of the ghettos if the really want to change their lives. The jobs the illegals are doing most americans won't do.

I am tired of hearing "they are taking our jobs away" because it isn't true. The unemployment rate in the US is up a little but it has nothing to do with illegals, it has everything to do with the price of oil, the credit crisis, the stock market, etc. People are spending less which means less money is out there to keep businesses running.

The people will never get to vote on a single law because we are a republic, not a democracy. If the US really wanted all the illegals gone they would not buy anything if illegals were employed in any way for the poducts they buy. This would put anyone out of business if the US consumer really wants this. If people don't want a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood then everyone would only have to stop shopping there. We all want someone else to take responsabilty and fix problems well the solution is easy, just don't buy the product. Will we all pay more for our groceries if you knew no illegals were employed in the process? Would we pay more for a home if you knew that no illegals were employed to construct or manufacture? Look at the "GREEN" campaign, and the "organic" campaign, you see it everywhere on products and commercials. People are given a choice to buy regular products or organic, why not the same for illegals? It could have the word "Legal" all over it and state that no illegal alien was employed in the process to bring this product to you.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Gaby&Talbert

[peejay 327]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

Why with all the major problems in this country is homosexual marriage way up at the top with the liberal Democrats. You would get the impression from their obsession with the issue that most of the people in the USA are homosexual. And we know that is not the case. And even furthermore when said issue is put to a referendum of voters, homosexual marriage has been soundly defeated in a wide variety of venues. There again...it is the minority imposing it's will on the majority. What's up with that?

Ditto for illegal alien amnesty. Put it to a national referendum and see the same. But some people just can't handle the truth.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread...in the last 3 presidential elections the vote has been almost eavenly split. Most illegal aliens are Hispanic and a large portion of Hispanics are former illegals, have relatives that are illegal, and as such vote along racial lines on the issue. Hence the pandering for their swing votes. The majority is sh*t out of luck. Even if the majority sits at home on election day, the prize goes to the panderer who panders the most.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I support amnesty for pandas. Cute little fellows.

Brother - I heard their bamboo addiction costs the American public MILLIONS of dollars a year . And then they have the b@lls to reproduce and bring more Anchor-Pandas into the Land of the Free. That is just wrong... Rumour has it the Coalition for Polar Bears and All-American Species is moving for a motion to deport them all back... and they have signed up the support of Yogi.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I support amnesty for pandas. Cute little fellows.

Brother - I heard their bamboo addiction costs the American public MILLIONS of dollars a year . And then they have the b@lls to reproduce and bring more Anchor-Pandas into the Land of the Free. That is just wrong... Rumour has it the Coalition for Polar Bears and All-American Species is moving for a motion to deport them all back... and they have signed up the support of Yogi.

Anchor Pandas...hehehe...sis.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

Why with all the major problems in this country is homosexual marriage way up at the top with the liberal Democrats. You would get the impression from their obsession with the issue that most of the people in the USA are homosexual. And we know that is not the case. And even furthermore when said issue is put to a referendum of voters, homosexual marriage has been soundly defeated in a wide variety of venues. There again...it is the minority imposing it's will on the majority. What's up with that?

Ditto for illegal alien amnesty. Put it to a national referendum and see the same. But some people just can't handle the truth.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread...in the last 3 presidential elections the vote has been almost eavenly split. Most illegal aliens are Hispanic and a large portion of Hispanics are former illegals, have relatives that are illegal, and as such vote along racial lines on the issue. Hence the pandering for their swing votes. The majority is sh*t out of luck. Even if the majority sits at home on election day, the prize goes to the panderer who panders the most.

Quite simply - because homosexual is easy, it doesn't cost anything and contrary to popular belief it doesn't really change the established order of things. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual marriage is an equivalent issue with illegal immigration - it clearly isn't and the issues and arguments involved in both are different. Homosexual marriage (at least in CA) is based on a decision filed by the State Supreme Court. It doesn't have anything to do with voter consensus, nor should it.

[peejay 327]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

Why with all the major problems in this country is homosexual marriage way up at the top with the liberal Democrats. You would get the impression from their obsession with the issue that most of the people in the USA are homosexual. And we know that is not the case. And even furthermore when said issue is put to a referendum of voters, homosexual marriage has been soundly defeated in a wide variety of venues. There again...it is the minority imposing it's will on the majority. What's up with that?

Ditto for illegal alien amnesty. Put it to a national referendum and see the same. But some people just can't handle the truth.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread...in the last 3 presidential elections the vote has been almost eavenly split. Most illegal aliens are Hispanic and a large portion of Hispanics are former illegals, have relatives that are illegal, and as such vote along racial lines on the issue. Hence the pandering for their swing votes. The majority is sh*t out of luck. Even if the majority sits at home on election day, the prize goes to the panderer who panders the most.

Quite simply - because homosexual is easy, it doesn't cost anything and contrary to popular belief it doesn't really change the established order of things. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual marriage is an equivalent issue with illegal immigration - it clearly isn't and the issues and arguments involved in both are different. Homosexual marriage (at least in CA) is based on a decision filed by the State Supreme Court. It doesn't have anything to do with voter consensus, nor should it.

Then why is the state of California pushing ahead with its state constitutional referendum on the issue?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

Why with all the major problems in this country is homosexual marriage way up at the top with the liberal Democrats. You would get the impression from their obsession with the issue that most of the people in the USA are homosexual. And we know that is not the case. And even furthermore when said issue is put to a referendum of voters, homosexual marriage has been soundly defeated in a wide variety of venues. There again...it is the minority imposing it's will on the majority. What's up with that?

Ditto for illegal alien amnesty. Put it to a national referendum and see the same. But some people just can't handle the truth.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread...in the last 3 presidential elections the vote has been almost eavenly split. Most illegal aliens are Hispanic and a large portion of Hispanics are former illegals, have relatives that are illegal, and as such vote along racial lines on the issue. Hence the pandering for their swing votes. The majority is sh*t out of luck. Even if the majority sits at home on election day, the prize goes to the panderer who panders the most.

Quite simply - because homosexual is easy, it doesn't cost anything and contrary to popular belief it doesn't really change the established order of things. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual marriage is an equivalent issue with illegal immigration - it clearly isn't and the issues and arguments involved in both are different. Homosexual marriage (at least in CA) is based on a decision filed by the State Supreme Court. It doesn't have anything to do with voter consensus, nor should it.

Then why is the state of California pushing ahead with its state constitutional referendum on the issue?

I don't know all the details but I'm not convinced that a constitutional amendment is necessary - though given that its the opponents of gay marriage who are putting it on the ballot suggests to me that the existing legislation is rather ambiguous when it comes to the definition of marriage.

The arguments for gay marriage about simple fairness (the same fairness that gave women & blacks the vote - you think there wasn't opposition to that?) and not about what individuals want.

[peejay 327]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

Why with all the major problems in this country is homosexual marriage way up at the top with the liberal Democrats. You would get the impression from their obsession with the issue that most of the people in the USA are homosexual. And we know that is not the case. And even furthermore when said issue is put to a referendum of voters, homosexual marriage has been soundly defeated in a wide variety of venues. There again...it is the minority imposing it's will on the majority. What's up with that?

Ditto for illegal alien amnesty. Put it to a national referendum and see the same. But some people just can't handle the truth.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread...in the last 3 presidential elections the vote has been almost eavenly split. Most illegal aliens are Hispanic and a large portion of Hispanics are former illegals, have relatives that are illegal, and as such vote along racial lines on the issue. Hence the pandering for their swing votes. The majority is sh*t out of luck. Even if the majority sits at home on election day, the prize goes to the panderer who panders the most.

Quite simply - because homosexual is easy, it doesn't cost anything and contrary to popular belief it doesn't really change the established order of things. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual marriage is an equivalent issue with illegal immigration - it clearly isn't and the issues and arguments involved in both are different. Homosexual marriage (at least in CA) is based on a decision filed by the State Supreme Court. It doesn't have anything to do with voter consensus, nor should it.

Then why is the state of California pushing ahead with its state constitutional referendum on the issue?

I don't know all the details but I'm not convinced that a constitutional amendment is necessary - though given that its the opponents of gay marriage who are putting it on the ballot suggests to me that the existing legislation is rather ambiguous when it comes to the definition of marriage.

The arguments for gay marriage about simple fairness (the same fairness that gave women & blacks the vote - you think there wasn't opposition to that?) and not about what individuals want.

I really didn't want to get into a dicussion about gay marriage in this thread. I'm just pointing out how politicians are many times way out of sync with the views and wishes of the constituents they claim to represent.

Amnesty for illegal aliens fits that catagory. It's a complex issue with complex variables involved, but if amnesty for illegal aliens was put to a national referendum it would be soundly defeated by the vast majority of the American public. I have no doubt about that. Taking a poll in San Francisco or some college town in the liberal Northeast is hardly an indication of how most Americans feel about illegal aliens.

Have you ever wondered why legislation like this gets rammed through in the middle of the night or constructed behind closed doors and quickly sent to the floor for a vote. The truth is that modern politicians in the USA lack true leadership. They do what is easiest and best for themselves. Amnestying millions of illegal aliens repeatedly (7 times already) is far easier for them than actually funding and enforcing the laws they pass against it.

It's easier to sweep a mess under the rug for the next guy to clean up than to actually do the hard work to fix the problem. The lure of cheap votes and cheap labor is too alluring for the political elites. It's all about money and power. They use this issue to their advantage and against our best interests. Both parties have something to gain from illegal immigration. The vast majority of the American public has nothing to gain from it, a lot to lose, are not truely represented on the issue, and lack the resources to do anything in a 2 party system where both parties have a vested interest in the status quo.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree with you that it is the easiest option for politicians. I just don't know if it is as bad for the American public as you make out. It's very complex as you say and the characteristics of what makes America America isn't static either. How can it be when the people who make up its origins are so mixed and varied? In sense trying to keep America the way it at this moment in time doesn't really make much sense. It will change as the population changes. I guess what people are trying to do is to slow the process down because people don't really like change all that much. I could go off on a tangent re the Obama slogan at this point but I don't think I will.

In terms of straight economics, again, it's not clear cut if there is a net gain or net loss from illegal immigrants. One can make guesses but no one really knows for sure. Of course, it is true that there is always a net loss if the population grows beyond the coutries' means to sustain it and that is one of the big questions, has that happened? Are we close? I would say that in many ways it has, but simply suggesting that one can simply and easily put an end to illegal immigration and problem solved - well to put it mildly not.

[peejay 327]

I agree with you that it is the easiest option for politicians. I just don't know if it is as bad for the American public as you make out. It's very complex as you say and the characteristics of what makes America America isn't static either. How can it be when the people who make up its origins are so mixed and varied? In sense trying to keep America the way it at this moment in time doesn't really make much sense. It will change as the population changes. I guess what people are trying to do is to slow the process down because people don't really like change all that much. I could go off on a tangent re the Obama slogan at this point but I don't think I will.

In terms of straight economics, again, it's not clear cut if there is a net gain or net loss from illegal immigrants. One can make guesses but no one really knows for sure. Of course, it is true that there is always a net loss if the population grows beyond the coutries' means to sustain it and that is one of the big questions, has that happened? Are we close? I would say that in many ways it has, but simply suggesting that one can simply and easily put an end to illegal immigration and problem solved - well to put it mildly not.

Immigration is in a sense social engineering. It is basically shaping America into someones' image of what they think America should be. No...this is not inevitable. It is imposed on us by Congress. Often times against the wishes of a vast majority of their constituents. However, sometimes it is the wish of their constituents (as is the case with Rep. Luis Gutierrez-D-Illinois). He loves Hispanic illegal aliens. He's made a career out of them.

America isn't just some big plantation run for the benefit of big business and their minions in government. It is not inevitable that any country alter its character to suit the needs of the elites. Nor is immigration intended to be a big charity event or employment agency for the world. There was a moratorium on mass immigration from 1920 to 1965 because many could see it was getting out of control and against the national interest. It happened then and it can certainly happen again now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Immigration is in a sense social engineering. It is basically shaping America into someones' image of what they think America should be. No...this is not inevitable. It is imposed on us by Congress. Often times against the wishes of a vast majority of their constituents. However, sometimes it is the wish of their constituents (as is the case with Rep. Luis Gutierrez-D-Illinois). He loves Hispanic illegal aliens. He's made a career out of them.

America isn't just some big plantation run for the benefit of big business and their minions in government. It is not inevitable that any country alter its character to suit the needs of the elites. Nor is immigration intended to be a big charity event or employment agency for the world. There was a moratorium on mass immigration from 1920 to 1965 because many could see it was getting out of control and against the national interest. It happened then and it can certainly happen again now.

Now I'm curious. What is it you think that America should be?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Now I'm curious. What is it you think that America should be?

Definitely one without Pandas.