Immigration: ________ Peter DeFazio

[Quequeg]

Peter DeFazio is a liberal Democrat (from Oregon) in the U.S. House, who believes we should reduce immigration. There are many people who seem to think it is an oxymoron to be "liberal" and want to "reduce immigration."

Yet, Peter DeFazio was one of the Democrats who voted against the Iraq war.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3202

Also, Peter DeFazio was one of 39 members of a task force to promote universal health care. Some others on the task force include such illustrious liberals like Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers.
http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_health_care.htm

The Task Force will (1) work to develop and pass legislation to achieve comprehensive, affordable, and high quality health care for all, (2) eradicate disparities in our health care system; in particular those impacting the African American, Hispanic, Asian, and other communities of color.

Also, Peter DeFazio was one of only 10 members of Congress to cosponsor legislation to withdrawal from the World Trade Organization in the year 2005. Furthermore, only 86 out of the other 435 members of the U.S. House had the courage to vote along with DeFazio to withdrawal from the WTO.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HJ00027:@@@P

Also, Peter DeFazio votes against all the free-trade agreements.
www.GlobalismScorecard.org/USHouseTrade.htm

Also, Peter DeFazio teamed up with Paul Wellstone to support increases in foreign aid.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/12/64634.shtml

One idea is the Tobin tax, named after Yale University economist James Tobin, which would target transactions in the foreign currency markets that currently total between $1.2 trillion and $2 trillion a day.

Supporters call the Tobin tax the "Robin Hood tax" because it supposedly taxes the rich nations to benefit the poor.

But it would also affect the IRAs, Mutual Funds and pension plans of ordinary Americans that have money invested abroad.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Senator Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., introduced a resolution on April 11, 2000, calling for implementation of Tobin-style taxes. A "Tobin Tax Campaign" in the U.S. also counts the AFL-CIO, Friends of the Earth, and the World Federalist Association as supporters.

This effort to increase foreign aid clearly shows that Peter DeFazio is concerned about alleviating the economic distress experienced by many of the world's poor.

Yet, Peter DeFazio is a practical individual, and I think that's why he also voted for HR 4437, which is otherwise known as the "Sensenbrenner" bill.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3815
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll661.xml

This bill HR 4437 is the bill that was passed by the U.S. House in December of 2005 and has often been criticized for being too harsh on illegal immigrants. Yet, there's a Zogby poll that shows that a majority of rank-and-file Democrats and hispanics support this bill.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html">New Poll: Americans Prefer House Approach on Immigration

"Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea."

Though there are provisions that almost everyone disagrees with, at least some of HR 4437 would work to better enforce our immigration laws and to reduce immigration.

One of the provisions in HR 4437 was to stop the "visa lottery" which randomly hands out 50,000 green cards every year. This lottery was created in the year 1990, as part of an on-going Congressional effort to increase immigration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_4437

Eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa (also known as Green Card Lottery) program. (House Amendment 650, authored by Bob Goodlatte)

Barbara Jordan also called for the elimination of the "visa lottery" during the 1990s. Barbara Jordon was appointed by Bill Clinton to head up a commission on immigration reform. She said that we need to reduce immigration in order to protect America's poorest working families. And one of the things she recommended was stopping the "visa lottery."
http://www.numbersusa.org/about/goals.html

(By the way, Barbara Jordan was the first black woman to be elected to Congress from the "Deep South" during the 1970s. In 1994, she was awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.)

In Barbara Jordan's words:

"Legal immigration ... has costs, as well as benefits. Immigrants with relatively low education and skills may compete for jobs and public services with the most vulnerable of Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or underemployed. Jobs generated by immigrant businesses do not always address this problem. Concentrated and/or rapid entry of immigrants into a locality may impose immediate net costs, particularly in education, where expenditures are required to meet the additional and special needs of newcomers. Concentration of new immigrants can exacerbate tensions among ethnic groups. ... Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy."

Another part of HR 4437 would make it more difficult for employers to hire illegal immigrants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_4437

Mandates employers to verify workers' legal status through electronic means, phased in over several years.

The electronic means refers to the "Basic Pilot program, which was created in 1996 to assist employers in verifying that their job applicants have a legal right to work in this country. The problem is that so far this program has been a voluntary system, which of course, means that employers who believe they have a right to break the law are not going to volunteer to use this system. So, making this system mandatory would help.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/jmvtestimony022106.html

This program enables employers to electronically verify the work eligibility of newly hired non-citizens directly with the appropriate federal agencies using the Internet, and is considered one of the most promising and effective tools available to encourage compliance with immigration laws. Employers now using the web-based program report that it is easier to use than the current paperwork-reliant system, and brings virtually no disruption to employers and legal workers.
...
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important enforcement bill, H.R. 4437, known as the Sensenbrenner bill which, among other things, would gradually require all employers nationwide to use the Basic Pilot Program to verify that their workers are eligible for employment.
...
Three pilot programs were introduced in 1997 and the most successful, known as Basic Pilot, was reauthorized and expanded by Congress in 2004. An independent evaluation carried out by Temple University's Institute for Survey Research and the private research firm Westat found that Basic Pilot did reduce unauthorized employment among participating employers (the program is currently voluntary).

Also, HR 4437 does have language which recognizes that when people are illegally in this country, they should be deported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_4437

Refusing to accept immigrants from countries which delay or refuse to accept the foreign country's citizens deported from the United States

This would be keeping with Barbara Jordan's view of what all Americans should be able to expect from the enforcement of our immigration laws. In Barbara Jordan's words:

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." "...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

About 40% of illegal immigrants are illegal residents because they have overstayed their visas. Many of these people are not desperately poor and thus would not suffer great hardship if they were forced to return to their countries-of-origin after their visa expired. But the government is not enforcing the law at all.

With respect to those who would suffer economic hardship, this is what foreign aid is for.

I was watching C-Span this weekend and Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the following (paraphrasing):

The U.S. signed an agreement to give 0.70% of our GDP in foreign aid. But now, we're still only giving 0.15% of our GDP. The Scandinavian countries give 1.00% of their GDP. By this standard, the U.S. is one of the stingiest countries in the world.

Also, I've heard that France gives 0.70% of their GDP in foreign aid.

Yet, the rich people in this country act so concerned about the well-being of illegal immigrants in this country. But maybe, the rich just want cheap labor, and all this talk about concern about the immigrants is a way to pull the wool over the public's eyes. If they really cared, then why don't they lobby to have their taxes raised to increase foreign aid. But as of last week, the rich were lobbying to get rid of the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest of Americans. The rich in America only care about helping poor foreign citizens in ways which also help the rich, such as getting greater access to cheap labor.

www.StopGlobalism.com       www.VOIDnow.org

[Idioteque]

1. Peter DeFazio also wants to pull out of the WTO

Listen, I like the guy a lot but he tends to take protectionist positions economic issues. Trade and immigration are good for the economy and while I often agree with Mr. DeFazio, I think he is wrong on this.

[sandnsea]

10. He is a fair trader

He knows the disaster that our trade policy has caused workers all over the globe, here and in other countries. And the disaster it is causing to the environment. He isn't about protectionism at all, he's about the planet belonging to people, not faceless corporations. He is concerned about workers being exploited and our current immigration policy hurts everybody, US workers, undocumented workers, foreign workers. He voted for this to sign on to that particular point, he doesn't support some of the wackier parts of that bill and has said so.

[sadiesworld]

12. Care to elaborate on how "free" trade and unlimited/illegal

immigration has been good for our economy? Because from where I'm standing I see huge trade deficits, lost jobs, and falling wages.

[unlawflcombatnt]

23. Protectionist, and damn proud of it

Trade may well be a good thing. But free trade "agreements" and the WTO are not. These trade agreements are nothing but a vehicle to allow Corporate America to shop globally for the cheapest labor, set up factories in cheap labor countries, and then ship these foreign produced products back into the United States without paying tariffs.

Free trade agreements have nothing to do with opening foreign consumer markets to American production. The countries we have entered into these "agreements" with are so poor that they will never be able to purchase significant American production. The combined GDP of the CAFTA countries is in the $0.035-0.045 trillion/year range. In contrast, U.S. GDP is over $12 trillion. The amount of American production that CAFTA countries could purchase from the U.S. is minuscule. In contrast, the number of American jobs they could take is tremendous, with a combined population of over 60 million. And without labor standards, a high percentage of that number can work, including children.

The real purpose of CAFTA, and all other free trade "agreements," is to allow Corporate America to replace high-wage American workers
with low-wage, semi-slave workers of 3rd world countries.

The only "markets" they're trying to open are the 3rd world labor markets. The goal is to open 3rd world labor markets to exploitation by American capital.

Those voting FOR WTO withdrawal understand this. That's why there were "yay" votes from both ends of the spectrum, from Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich on the left, to Tom Tancredo and James Sensenbrenner on the right, and from libertarians like Ron Paul. All share at least one of the same concerns on this issue: exploitation of foreign labor forces American workers to compete with that same exploited labor. And this reduces the bargaining power of American workers.

This is not only bad for American workers, it's bad for all workers. Most world industries depend on the American consumer market for much of their sales. And a decline in American wages reduces the ability to sell production to the American consumer. Though it affects the United States the most, it also affects the countries who export to us.

I consider the label "protectionist" to be one of the most complimentary that could be given to a politician. After all, the mission of our governing bodies is to "protect" Americans. And protecting their jobs and incomes is one of the most noble and patriotic actions they could undertake.

I'm a militant protectionist. And damn proud of it.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[hiley]

33. excellent post

unlawflcombatnt

[TorchTheWitch]

116. very well said

Excellent post. Thanks.

[earth mom]

187. Well said! eom

[treestar]

2. This guy and others need to get a life

this planet has international trade.

Why can capital cross borders wherever it wants but labor cannot?

We should all be able to work wherever we can get a job.

Get over it. Tell this rep. to get over it. There are bigger problems to deal with an to make sure everyone is in their proper little corner of the world.

[silvertip]

4. Getting a life.

       That we have international trade is a given but I
prefer not to pay an American price for something made in
China, Vietnam, Mexico, ect. that self destructs after the
second use and is produced by slave labor. I also think people
have a right to seek jobs where they are available but I also
think that it should be done in a legal manner and that it
should not harm other people in the process. So I'm over it
DEPORT THEM ALL.

[lyonn]

44. Welcome Silvertp and nice post.

[silvertip]

48. Welcome

    Thank you glad to be here.

[PsycheCC]

50. Glad to have you!

:bounce: :hi: :applause:

[The Magistrate]

65. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Mr. Silvertip

How do you envision the deportation of twelve millions being managed?

[silvertip]

185. Deportation!

    A short smart assed answer would be one at a time, but I
do understand the problems with trying to deport that many
people and realise that it is not feasible. However I do feel
that these people have commited a crime and that they should
be required to pay the peanatly for that crime the same as
everyone else. It is also my opinion that the people that hire
and exploit these unfortunate criminals should be found and
charged and if found guilty should be punished to the full
extent of the law. If the companies that are exploiting these
people by paying them low wages without any benifits were
prevented from doing so then there would be no reason for them
to enter this country illegaly.

[sadiesworld]

11. BS.

Capital is moving OUT while cheap labor is moving IN. This isn't about labor FOLLOWING capital, it's about DESTROYING (US) labor.

[unlawflcombatnt]

31. Amen

It's about not enforcing laws designed to protect the American worker, if it reduces Corporate profits. It's about highly selective enforcement of business-friendly laws, and complete non-enforcement of worker-friendly laws. And then it's about granting amnesty to those that have broken the laws protecting workers. In this case, those laws are the ones that forbid hiring illegal immigrants.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. nah. This is why I voted for him

and will vote for him again.

He gets it, you just don't. :(

[rucky]

131. Maybe we should control the capital a bit better...

Why should farmers in Brazil starve because coffee is more profitable to grow than the beans they could've been growing AND eating?

If we let the free market control everything, we're on a race to the bottom. Cheap goods + Cheap labor = cheap standard of living. It IS the government's job to protect our standard of living - be it through tariffs, labor laws, environmental protections, etc.

We KNOW the so-called "free market" will NOT protect these standards, so the government MUST.

[Greyhound]

184. International "trade" (a misnomer if ever there was one) as it has been

foisted on us, is the problem. It is also simplicity itself to repair, we just lack the will to do so.

If you are interested in learning, I'm more than happy to point you to the resources, if, OTOH, you just want to justify the mistreatment of all those who must work for a living, move on.

[movonne]

3. He is my congressman and he makes me proud...

[PsN2Wind]

5. Once again!!!

Pete DeFazio might be the best damn congressman in the USA and is probably much closer to the blue collar workers of this country than most of the open border posters here.
He has a life, it's spent trying to benefit the common people of this country and his district.

[inthebrain]

7. Restricting immigration doesn't raise wages

That kind of thinking is absurd.

Labors ability to deny the sale of their labor is what raises wages. Taking down our safety nets like welfare is whats reducing wages.

Reducing the ammount of laborers does not create more jobs.

[unlawflcombatnt]

22. Restricting Immigration DOES increase wages

Reducing the "supply" of labor unquestionably increases wages.
It is your statement that is "absurd." You need to take an economics class.
You're trying to refute something that is well-established fact.

You're correct, however, when you state that labor's ability to deny the sale of their labor raises wages. And that "ability to deny sale" increases when there are less workers to compete with, and decreases when there are more workers to compete with.

If there are more workers than jobs, it's hard to be picky about what wages you'll work for. In contrast, if there are more jobs than workers, it's easier to be picky about what wages you'll accept. Illegal immigration increases the amount of workers to jobs ratio. As such, it forces workers to be less "picky" about the wages they'll accept.

It kind of parallels the housing market. If there are more buyers than sellers, it's a seller's market. If there are more "buyers" of labor than "sellers" of labor, it becomes a labor "sellers'" market. Since workers are the "sellers" here, that's better for workers.

But illegal immigration increases the number of "sellers" of labor, turning it into more of a "buyers'" market for labor. In other words, the employer/buyers of labor have more sellers/workers to choose from, giving the employer/buyers more leverage. More illegal immigration gives employers more leverage to keep wages down.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Vincardog]

30. Reducing the amount of ILLEGAL laborers does create more decent

wage jobs. NAFTA CAFTA and the lot are all about raping the land and people.
We are not against workers all over the world having a living wage however destroying to USA worker's ability to earn does nothing to help the poor anywhere else.

[inthebrain]

34. No it doesn't

When people are put between a rock and a hard place they have no leverage to negotiate for a better wage. Taking down and planting land mines around our social safety nets has reduced wages.

If you refuse those would exploit you your labor, the gummint will step in and MAKE YOU WORK. Those who claim that they are going to improve working conditions are not going to do so by treating labor as human contraband. Those calling for the expulsion of immigrants are not raising a good cause and effect argument as to how this will raise wages and create jobs.

All corporations need to do is cross the border (which they can do LEGALLY) and exploit over there.

[Vincardog]

36. Yes it does. The more labor the cheaper the price. I do not buy your

argument that treating labor as human contraband what we are advocating. We are saying enforce the laws against hiring illegal workers. Why is it that I have to prove my citizenship when I get a job? Or when I used to get jobs? The gummit has no interest in making me work they are paying companies to take my job to India and or China.

That is not what my government should be doing. Destroying the US working class is not in any body's best interest.

WE need FAIR trade agreements not any mythical FREE trade.

What do you propose? Do you want US workers to compete with $1 a month slave labor in China's prisons?

[inthebrain]

37. Perhaps you didnt follow the NY transit workers strike

They will find ways to MAKE YOU WORK!!!!

I also don't see the NY Mass transit Union hiring illegals. THis whole argument is nothing more than a ridiculous straw dog.

You use labor in China as an example, how is refusing immigrants citizenship here going to do anyhitng about labor in china. Allowing citizenship here offer access to Unions which are famous for BOYCOTTING corporations that exploit labor!!!!

(Not to mention that even at low wages here it is still higher than what US corporations are offering in Mexico and China)

[Vincardog]

38. Perhaps you can't read and answer my question. How can unions Boycott

corporations that exploit labor when the US Government is paying companies to send our jobs overseas?

How the hell do you think that letting all the illegal workers in the world into our job market is going to help lour wages go any where but to the bottom?

Quit pulling things out of your exist and state how your position helps.

[inthebrain]

150. Two questions

""How can unions Boycott corporations that exploit labor when the US Government is paying companies to send our jobs overseas?""


These corporations have to sell their products somewhere. They sell them here. That's how easy it is to boycott a Corporation.

""How the hell do you think that letting all the illegal workers in the world into our job market is going to help lour wages go any where but to the bottom?""

From Unlawflcombatnt's own source, it states that 24% of illegals work in farm labor. They get a nice exemption from the minimum wage. How are illegals lowering wages when 24% of them work in a sector of the economy that is not subjected to paying a min wage?

Look at your laws on the books!!!!

Immigrants did not lobby for NAFTA, CAFTA, Right to Work Laws and Taft Hartly. It wasnt Immigrants that forced the NYC transit workers back to work. It was not Immigrants that forced Reagan to fire all the air traffic controllers either. Last I checked, immigrants were not activly involved in shipping factories over seas or busting organized labor.

Our government has done one hell of a job of digging us a nice little hole.

[unlawflcombatnt]

41. Allowing citizenship here increases the labor supply,

And reduces the bargaining power of workers already here. Granting citizenship to illegal immigrants already here will increase the total supply of workers, period.

What does the NY transit strike have to do with anything here? Bringing up the NY transit strike is the real "straw dog" (whatever that is.)

The higher the percentage of unionized workers, the more bargaining power they have. Simply allowing more people into the country doesn't increase the percentage that are unionized. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. As a result, it undercuts the power of unions by increasing the number of potential "scabs."

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

77. It's a common artform of yours

to dismiss any facts that contradict your point of view.

Perhaps you should work on that. I have long claimed that there are other factors driving your viewpoint on this. You you have proven me correct every single time.

What role did illegal immigrants play in stomping out the transit strike in NY?

To further that, what role did illegal immigrants play in firing the Air Traffic Controllers in the 80's?

I suppose they were responsible for the Ludlow Massacre as well.

Fact of the matter is that you can kick out all the illegals and shut down the borders all you like. One factor that you can not remove from this equation is the historical fact that business will always find ways to skimp wages and the government will always find ways into intimadating you to work.

But it's that simple aspect of American Capitalism you have no interest in fixing. The AFL-CIO and the Teamsters have long recognized how your policy decisions contribute to the destruction of the working class.

[unlawflcombatnt]

124. What proof

What are you talking about, exactly?

What "proof" have you posted that there are "other factors driving (my) viewpoint on this." You haven't "proved" anything just because you make a statement to that effect. Do you even understand what the word "proof" means? It means you post tangible facts, or at least some logical assumptions, that verify or validate your assertion. Calling someone a "racist" doesn't qualify as "proof" of anything. More so, calling that "proof," suggests you don't even understand the word.

Try posting some legitimate proof of something you've said. So far, you've done nothing on any of your posts except make wild assertions that have no basis in fact. In addition, your entire thought process is illogical and makes no sense to anyone.

"What role did illegal immigrants play in stomping out the transit strike in NY?

To further that, what role did illegal immigrants play in firing the Air Traffic Controllers in the 80's?"

What does this have to do with anything?

You're not making any sense. You should go to sleep and come back when you're brain's a little more functional.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

139. They are examples of when people

strike to barter for a better wage. You constantly claim that immigrants drive down wages yet you give a free pass to those who ACTIVLY drive down wages.

Then again, you not excatly looking at the issue objectivly. You have declared what the root is and attempt to attatch every problem under the sun to it. Your issue is not wage suppression, it's anti immigration.

That tells most people with common sense what they need to know about your arguments.

[unlawflcombatnt]

142. Clearly you're not looking at the issue objectively

I have posted over 1100 times at DU, and with the exception of housing, I've repeatedly railed against wage suppression. It is my major theme.

It might enlighten you some if you visited either my forum or blogsite, and checked for yourself.

Your comment is a result of your own lack of research. Since I've provided a link to my forum and my blogsite, you have ample opportunity to view what I've written about wage suppression.

I do not "attempt to attach every problem under the sun to it." You simply wrong with this claim, and have made no attempt to inform yourself.

You, on the other hand, have tried to attach every aspect of the immigration debate to false claims of "racism" or "bigotry." You haven't provided a shred of evidence for those claims. That's because you don't have a shred of evidence for those claims.

Your constant retreat to playing the race card is annoying to many here. It is the result of your extremely shallow thinking, and lack of effort to follow what others are saying.

Again, you're claim that my main issue is not wage suppression is false. Wage suppression is my main issue, and illegal immigration is part of that larger issue. Unfortunately, it's the only factor causing wage suppression that's on the table at present. As such, it's the main focus of my attention at present.

Again, I strongly recommend you visit either my forum or blog, and read what I've written. Wage suppression is the underlying theme in almost all of my posts.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

148. I have researched you well enough

You're not as exclusive as you think.

When you use the same handle for every board it's kind of easy to figure out who you are. I have also posted on other boards with people who used to post with you.

It's not a secret as to what you are about. All one needs is to be capable enough to rub two sticks together to figure out what your Pat Buchannann/Reform Party slobbery is all about.

[unlawflcombatnt]

152. It must still be a secret to you

Since you obviously have read little of what I've written. You've basically solicited some arguing "tips" from some of your pro-amnesty friends on this board. Your entire purpose is to find arguing points, not to find facts or comprehend anything.

Unlike you, I make no secret of who I am or where I post. That's why I use the same screen name wherever I can.

You've started in again with your name-calling and slurs because you have nothing better to say. You got your talking points from one of your fellow pro-amnesty advocates on this board. You tipped your hand with the Reform Party comment. And you're simply lying with your Pat Buchanan nonsense.

Once again, you have no proof, no facts, no logic, and no point. And you've done no research on anything. Ever.

Why don't you read what I wrote on the "Wage-Productivity Gap," or the "Republican Tax Cuts," or the "Neocon-Artist Economy"? Or are you afraid that would disprove your idiotic assertions about me? Maybe it's because you're having trouble using the links at the bottom of my posts.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[PsycheCC]

154. Oh Please. This is so junior high.

"When you use the same handle for every board it's kind of easy to figure out who you are. I have also posted on other boards with people who used to post with you." What, did you pass notes in study hall too? Unlawful makes NO SECRET of his views. He posts under the same name so people WILL know who he is. He has a forum and a blog, both of which have a ton of great info. on the economy. Can you say "stalker"?

[pnwmom]

57. You're overlooking a couple of things.

Corporations can't cross the border and exploit "over there" when the work has to be done in this country -- for example, construction work. (A flood of illegal immigrants IS depressing wages in the construction industry in California and in other states.)

Two, our government could be doing a lot more, through our trade agreements and through our tax system, to discourage corporations from exploiting workers OUTSIDE of this country.

[inthebrain]

70. Construction work?

You mean you cant frame a house somehwere else and move the materials here?

[pnwmom]

112. It can be done, but it isn't the usual practice to move houses from

Mexico to the U.S.

[MercutioATC]

161. Try building a new roof in Mexico and installing it in the U.S.

In many areas (mine included) if I want to put a new roof on my house, some of the lowest bids come from companies with, shall we say, "questionable labor practices".

Yes, you can ship prefab parts from Mexico (or wherever), but the construction industry encompasses much more than that.

[PsycheCC]

40. You're right.

People don't like to hear it, but this is true:

"We are not against workers all over the world having a living wage however destroying the USA worker's ability to earn does nothing to help the poor anywhere else."

[Greyhound]

130. Instead of simple invective language, why don't you enlighten us

as to why less doesn't raise wages? If you hope to help people develop an opinion, it is useful to give them a reason.

[unlawflcombatnt]

133. No, reducing the amount of workers reduces the "supply"

Reducing the amount of workers reduces the "supply" of labor. And that does increase the number of jobs-to-workers ratio. And that does raise wages.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

6. He is my congressman too. Any district would be lucky too have him! He car

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. ...

to DU!

[stevedeshazer]

39. Welcome to DU, WHEN CRABS ROAR

I am a big supporter of Rep. DeFazio, however I am a constituent of the 3rd District in OR, represented quite ably by Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

:hi:

[TriMetFan]

8. Mr. DeFazio is a good man

and he does Great things not only for Oregon, but for the Nation. I'm proud that he is from my State.

[Poll_Blind]

15. Same here. If DeFazio is as good as you can get, IMO, as a...

...congressman. Hell, I've seen him at least a dozen times just walking with his wife in downtown Eugene from one place to the next. Not only is he a "real" person, he's incredibly approachable and willing to talk.

I appreciate the hell out of all he's done for Oregon and our country.

PB

[PsN2Wind]

21. Or driving around in his

'63 Dodge Dart. A common man attempting extraordinary things for the ordinary people. Wish I had a Congressman like him where I now live. Could just be that he is close enough to earth to be able to discern that importing labor, to fill those jobs you couldn't export, is very bad for those who have nothing to sell but their labor.

[sandnsea]

9. Bad vote to appeal to our hicks

Like I said the other day, every politician has to make a peculiar vote on occasion because of the district they live in. This is one for Peter. I in no way believe he thinks making immigrants felons is the right way to go on immigration. But the issue is just too complicated to explain to some of the simpletons in my district, that's all there is to it.

[sadiesworld]

13. 82% of repubs, 72% of indies, and 57% of dems support the house bill...

that's a lot of hicks.

[sandnsea]

14. In what reality??

No, people do not support putting 11 million people in prison along with anybody who might have given them a glass of water or peanut butter sandwich. The only way anybody could get poll numbers like that on the Sensenbrenner bill would be to lie about what's in it, or ask a bunch of hicks.

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

[sadiesworld]

16. The numbers are from the OP.

The link isn't working but IIRC the poll was Zogby. I don't know if anyone lied to get those numbers but I bet dems are going to want to lie about the senate bill (massive new guest worker program, caps raised on skilled worker visas, etc.).

FWIW, I believe the house bill was intentionally written/interpreted to be particularly harsh...a poison pill, if you will.

[sandnsea]

17. That's what people want

Let people come into the country, but then send them home. That's guest worker and it's not in the Sensenbrenner bill. I disagree with that, but that's what the polls show. The only way anybody could get positive poll numbers on Sensenbrenner would be to lie about it. And there has been a LOT of lying going on about the immigration bills.

[unlawflcombatnt]

35. Read the Wording in the Polls given.

The voters in these polls aren't being lied to. It's the supporters of the Senate Bill that are doing all the lying. The Senate bill is an amnesty bill, and it is deliberately designed to drastically increase immigration, and deliberately designed to suppress American worker wages. That's exactly what the effect of increasing the number of those coming into the country will do, and Bush and all the Senate supporters know it. The flood of new workers coming into the country will increase the supply of labor and reduce wages as a result.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[sandnsea]

53. That poll is a big fucking lie

Th biggest pile of shit I've seen in a while and was produced by either a right wing propagandist or a left wing idiot.

[Greyhound]

135. Do I understand that, to your mind, anybody with an opinion different than

your is obviously a propagandist or an idiot?

[unlawflcombatnt]

29. Here's the Poll

Most prefer the House Bill Over Senate Bill



Looks like most Democrats like the House Bill better, 56% to 38%, when it is worded as above.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[sandnsea]

52. What a line of bullshit

Just omit the little details of mass detention centers and mass arrests and deportation, which people clearly object to. And omit the little detail that "going home over time" actually means a revolving door guest worker program which means we're actually going to have an endless stream of intimidated workers who will never complain about working conditions and pay.

And also omit the security provisions and employer sanctions from the senate version and lie to people and tell them all it is is amnesty.

This poll is complete bullshit and absolutely worthless.

[unlawflcombatnt]

55. You'd Certainly Know

"What a line of bullshit"

That describes your own response perfectly.

[sandnsea]

59. No

I've been right on the money politically for decades now, I see this shit coming years out. Mark my words, you let them get away with the guest worker program WITHOUT citizenship, we're going to have Chinese style warehoused workers in 10 years. And in 20 years, it'll be our kids and grandkids in those "dormitories". Fuck fuck fuck, I don't know why people keep believing Republicans.

[unlawflcombatnt]

61. I'm completely against guest workers

Is there a guest worker provision in the Sensenbrenner bill?

[sandnsea]

63. "send them home over time"

The promise is massive border security, detention centers and deportation. So that's what people think they support. They're clearly being pushed to reject any citizenship as "amnesty".

Tucked away in the Sensenbrenner bill is "send them home over time". Aaah, so we're not going to get rid of undocumented workers very quickly at all.

And since the key thing the corporations want is guest worker, that's going to be sold to you as the method to keeping track of these workers until they can "be sent home over time".

Voila, you've got the exact worst possible solution to immigration.

The only way for people to be able to stand up for their rights is to have a path to citizenship. Anything else is the Mariana Islands redux.

[unlawflcombatnt]

79. Does it say that in the Bill?

Does it actually say "send them home over time in the bill"? If so, I'd like to see the quote.

[sandnsea]

88. Click it and read it

Yes it's in there. Maybe if you read it, you'll understand what a pile of shit it is.

[unlawflcombatnt]

132. I have read it, and I haven't seen it in there

That's why I'm asking you to show me the part where it says that. You could insert a quote, if there actually is one.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[The Magistrate]

67. The Form Of The Questions In That Poll, Sir

Pretty clearly distort the actual character of the bills in question in the different houses. Mr. Zogby polls for clients, who provide the questions, and this obviously was commissioned by someone who wanted a particular result, to be used for political pressure.

[unlawflcombatnt]

78. The "form" of the questions are listed at the top of the poll, Sir

The wording of the questions are included at the top of the graphic. The "question" asked is right there for all to see. And the response to that exact question is included there for all to see, as well.

[The Magistrate]

82. Indeed It Is, Sir

And my comment was based on having read that. The descriptions in the questions were shaded to get a desired result.

[inthebrain]

85. Bingo!!!!!!!

Someone just voiced a common fact about polling and polling organizations. An example that is CLEARLY displayed in the polling questions.

[PsycheCC]

101. There you go again getting excited. The questions are simple and

clear. It's the will of the average American (including Democrats) that you have a problem with.

[PsycheCC]

80. Your opinion only.

To me the questions seem very clear, not designed to elicit a skewed result. Zogby is well respected. Funny thing about polls, people always find fault when they disagree with them.

[The Magistrate]

84. Mr. Zogby, Ma'am, Polls For Clients

That is how he earns his living. He is not engaged in a disinterested search for truth. His methodologies and sampling techniques are inderd highly respected, and that is why he commands a good price for making them available to his clients.

[PsycheCC]

86. If his techniques are "highly respected", then you have again,

nothing but your opinion, to support a claim that the poll was biased.

[The Magistrate]

93. People Get What They Pay For, Ma'am

[PsycheCC]

96. Yes, they do. Maybe they paid for an honest look at public opinion

on immigration. I can tell you that where I live in Southern California, people feel as they are shown to in this poll. Do you know who commissioned the poll? Do you have some info. that I don't?

[The Magistrate]

103. That Is Always Possible, Ma'am

This is a wierd world, and full of wonders.

[PsycheCC]

109. On that we can agree, Sir.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

115. I strongly oppose penalizing people for trying to help other people

whether they are here legally or not.

[PsycheCC]

137. I strongly doubt that whatever (if anything) comes out of the conference

committee will penalize anyone for helping an illegal immigrant.

[MercutioATC]

162. Illegals shouldn't be made felons...too much spent on court costs.

There's no need to make illegal immigration a felony...just deport them.

[unlawflcombatnt]

18. Outstanding Post

Great post and very inclusive. You've even included the latest WTO withdrawal action. The direct link to the vote on WTO withdrawal is http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll239.xml

I'm going to copy the Congressional WTO withdrawal vote as a graphic and paste it into a post, so readers can see which House representatives really are on the people's side, and which ones are on Corporate America's side. The bill was submitted by Congressman Bernie Sanders and co-sponsored by 10 others: Peter DeFazio, John Duncan, Raul Grijalva, John Hostettler, Walter Jones, Dennis Kucincich, Ron Paul, James Sensenbrenner, Bart Stupak, and Tom Tancredo.

86 voted in favor of withdrawal from the WTO.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

19. WTO Withdrawal Vote Tally

The direct link to the vote on WTO withdrawal is http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll239.xml


Again, note the 86 "yay" votes. These are the House members who voted in favor of withdrawal from the World Trade Organization. These are the people who are really the champions of the American worker and the American middle class. (In fact, they are the true champions of all of the workers of the world.) We should give them a standing ovation.
:applause:


The rest of the House voted to further the interests of their rich Corporate donors. In my case, I can at least vote against one of them, Congressman Ed Royce of California's 40th district. :spank:

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Breeze54]

43. Thanks for posting this.

I see at least three of my reps are of the 86!
Lynch
Frank (MA) <--He is my rep.
Tierney

All the rest seem to have voted Nay!

[unlawflcombatnt]

45. You're welcome

I thought this would make it easier for everyone to see the WTO withdrawal vote tally.

[PsycheCC]

20. Great post! The Zogby Immigration Link is broken. Try this one.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

This poll is pretty enlightening for anyone willing to see.

[PsycheCC]

24. With the wealth of info. given here, it's easy to miss the excellent

conclusion. I think it's worth noting:

Yet, the rich people in this country act so concerned about the well-being of illegal immigrants in this country. But maybe, the rich just want cheap labor, and all this talk about concern about the immigrants is a way to pull the wool over the public's eyes. If they really cared, then why don't they lobby to have their taxes raised to increase foreign aid. But as of last week, the rich were lobbying to get rid of the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest of Americans. The rich in America only care about helping poor foreign citizens in ways which also help the rich, such as getting greater access to cheap labor.

Thanks for a great post.

[Minnesota Libra]

25. I'd like to know what is so wrong with this - its fair all across the.....

....board but mostly it would be fair to Americans first and foremost. Plus, anything that Senator Paul Wellstone was part of automatically has my vote.

[Robert Oak]

27. DeFazio gets it

That's why. He's still the liberal he always was.

He knows the plans to trade people right now in the WTO, GATS mode 4.

That's the goal of multinational corporations, they want to control labor markets and be able to literally force migrations
of people across national borders, under their control to superced labor laws, national laws and control the supply and demand
of the domestic labor market.

They also want the ability to insource...which is the corollary of offshore outsourcing..if it doesn't work, or it's too expensive
or the "goods of production" cannot be moved, instead they want to move people to the work site.

Good thread and the manipulation of the "race" card to obfuscate the concept of labor economics and the desire to remove
control and authority of labor markets from governments and local authorities and into the hands of business and multinational corporations is a fool's game to let them.

I think it's slavery all over again but at little more subtle this time. Instead of chains we have Credit cards and house payments and the need to put food on the table.

[sandnsea]

56. He voted for employer sanctions

to end the labor exploitation. He did not vote for all this crazy making felons out of immigrants and detention centers and all the rest. He's already said if the final bill has that crap in it, he won't support it. Don't try to shove political views onto him that he doesn't hold.

[unlawflcombatnt]

66. Wrong Again

DeFazio did vote Yes on H.R. 4437, and here's a link to the vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll661.xml

[sandnsea]

68. And I explained why

He said if the bill has the deportation and felony measures in it, he won't vote for its final form after the Senate and House reconcile a bill for final passage. HR4437 isn't the final bill. He voted for the labor exploitation measures in HR4437, not the punitive deportation and felony measures.

[unlawflcombatnt]

73. He's already on record as having voted for it

I'll go with what the official record actually says, not what you claim he'll do in the future.

[sandnsea]

75. Here's what he said

"DeFazio said he supported the bill because it would require employers to do more to verify that job applicants are eligible for legal employment and crack down on those who exploit illegal immigrants. He said he doesn't support the provision that would make illegal immigration a felony and will vote against the bill if that is part of the final legislation."

http://www.katu.com/education/story.asp?ID=85781

I guess a Congressman doesn't know whether this is final legislation either. :eyes:

[unlawflcombatnt]

81. Thanks for the link

Yes, it appears he did say that. However, that doesn't negate the fact that he has already voted for it in the House. Rumor is that the part of the bill making immigration a felony has already been removed.

In my opinion, the worst part of the bill is that employer sanctions aren't mandatory until 6 years after it goes into effect. Some interpret the bill to say that they won't go into effect until 2 years after the bill is in effect. The delay in employer sanctions is the worst part of the bill, because that's the only thing that's going to make a difference.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[sandnsea]

87. Did you read his words

This is not the final bill, it's printed there in black and white. And the felony part has not been removed from that bill otherwise he wouldn't say that he won't vote for the final version unless it is. Incredible, it's right freakin' there on the page.

The employer sanctions don't take affect for 6 years??? Well isn't that just swell. Fences on the border. No real employer sanctions. And immigrants sent home "over time" - some day. It's worse than I even thought.

I'll say it again, DeFazio voted for that bill because he knew how difficult it would be to explain the truth of it to some of the hicks in our district. He's hoping and praying that a better bill comes out of committee; or people wise up to what a pile this thing is.

[unlawflcombatnt]

110. I did read his words

The article was from May 10th, so the part about a "felony" may have very well have been removed by this time.

Again, regardless of his "words," his action was to vote "yay" on the Sensenbrenner. He may be able to go back and change his words, or claim he was misquoted (like the Bush administration does), but he can't change the documented vote that is already recorded.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

147. Defazio has been assured that the felony portion of the bill will be remov

The following passage is from the Daily Vanguard. It is quote from Peter DeFazio.

"There are some objectionable provisions in H.R. 4437 that I opposed.

H.R. 4437 would turn the 10 to 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally into felons (currently, “unlawful presence” is a civil violation, not a criminal felony). I did not support this change, and the Republican leadership in Congress indicated this provision will be dropped from any final bill."

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/05/26/44772a7c0a997


So the assumption by Congressman DeFazio, as of May 26, 2006, is that this provision will be dropped. So he probably will support the bill.

In other words, the portion of the bill making felons out of anyone will probably not be in the bill.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

72. He voted "yay" on the Sensenbrenner Bill - Here's the vote

Below is a partial copy of Roll Call 661 on H.R.4437 (the Sensenbrenner bill). Looks like he already voted for it to me.







unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Robert Oak]

144. yes he did vote for it

You can go to his site and he'll tell you why.

My choice was between the House bill, which contained strong and necessary border security improvements and employer sanctions, or maintaining the status quo. Annually, more than one million immigrants are captured trying to enter the U.S., 500,000 or more annually elude capture and make it into the U.S. illegally, and 10 to 12 million already live here illegally. In my opinion, the status quo is not sustainable.

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/05/26/44772a7c0a997

As I've said already, DeFazio gets it and I wish more Democrats would start paying attention to the realities of the cheap corporate labor agenda and quit with the knee boning reaction that will give corporations exactly what they want, control over labor markets.

[unlawflcombatnt]

146. Great Link

Robert,

Thanks for posting that link. According to the article, DeFazio has been assured that the 'felony' aspects of HR 4437 will be removed.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[hiley]

32. Quequeg, Outstanding OP

thank you for the information about Barbara Jordan, especially.

[unlawflcombatnt]

42. DeFazio has 97% rating on the (anti-) Globalism Scorecard also

DeFazio has the highest rating of anyone in Congress on the anti-Globalism Scorecard, which includes "guest workers" and reducing illegal immigration.

http://www.globalismscorecard.org/index.htm

[acmavm]

46. I always wonder what the Utopian crowd does for a living. I mean,

what is it that makes them think that a flood of cheap immigrant labor (legal and otherwise) doesn't diminish the wages of those without a college degree, who have always worked in the trades such as meat packing and processing, construction, roofing, landscaping, etc.? Those wages used to support a family. Until the flood of illegals. And anyone who says differently is just fooling themselves. And what is the knee jerk reaction of these people? They start calling everyone who disagrees a racist or a xenophobe.

To head off the name calling crowd I want to say that I am fully supportive of anyone who is here legally. They are entitled to all the protections and privleges that we all have. I am NOT in favor of the slimey fudge factor that corporate American wants to pass, increasing the H1-B visa quota. That is just another corporate scheme to bring in cheap labor at the expense of the American people. That scam brings in foreign labor professionals to the U.S. temporarily (6 years) to work in a specialty occupation such as in the IT area. But you know, I've never heard anyone here called a racist or a xenophone who's posted a thread against this corporate screwing of the American worker. In fact, I've never seen anything by understanding and sympathy for those posters. I wonder what the difference is, what makes it perfectly acceptable for certain people in certain occupations be be upset about the loss of jobs in their areas of employment, but not those that you might call manual laborers. Is it the college degree that makes some people 'special'?

The argument I see most is 'blame corporate America, blame big business'. Corporate American does deserve to be prosecuted for breaking the laws of this country. Yes, they feed off these people and thier ILLEGAL status. But what amazes me is that apparently the 'let everybody in we can handle it' crowd refuses to acknowlege that the illegals KNOW THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW when they enter this country illegally. They aren't innocent bystanders just caught up in circumstances beyond their control. They know what they are doing is illegal and they do it anyway. When most people are caught breaking the law, they understand that there are going to be repercussions to their acts. The illegals not only think that there shouldn't be any repercussions but that they should be rewarded. Now they are demanding citizenship, they demand better wages, and they demand healthcare, all by virtue of the fact that they successfully snuck into the country. That is just not going to happen. The majority of the people in this country are against illegal immigration. And that is not just the republicans, that's the independents, the democrats, all parties and political affiliations.

The people who were shown demonstrating here in the United States need to go back to their native country where they could and should be fighting for the their rights, and the rights of their fellow countrymen/women. Take to the streets there, wave their flags, make their demands.

For all of you people that are accusing people of being racists or xenophobe I ask you, why are you so damn against the American worker? A couple of you are the same ones who constantly freak when anyone says something that you feel is bad about a democrat in office or says something you feel slanders the democratic party (generally the DLC). You yelp about 'sticking together and standing up for our own'. Apparently that only goes as far as supporting the democratic party and your way of thinking. But when it comes to the American worker, that's a different story. And yeah, we all come from immigrants. Hell, the American Indian came across the Bering Straight to settle in this country, or so theory goes. But the economy is stretched to the max. People are losing their homes, their cars, their livlihoods. The great American Dream is fast fading away. There's less and less to go around. Why do you feel that you should support someone who was not born here over your fellow American?

[unlawflcombatnt]

47. Very Well Put

Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unlawflcombatnt]

51. Interesting Points

It does seem like the same illogical talking points keep resurfacing over and over.

The one that's really gotten to me is the "How come you don't talk about going after the employers?" This gets regurgitated repeatedly, despite the fact that employer prosecution is advocated in every single OP that opposes unrestricted illegal immigration. Even the Republicans are stressing employer prosecution.

The amnesty advocates continue to create straw men and false arguments so they have something to debate.

The reality is that they are clearly more concerned about the wellbeing of non-citizen illegal immigrants than they are about their fellow Americans. That's especially true regarding their fellow American workers.

The primary function of the American government, which is elected and paid for by the American people, is to protect the interests and wellbeing of the American people, not the interests of foreign immigrants who are in this country illegally. (Nor is it the government's role to protect the law-breakers that hire illegal immigrants.)

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[pnwmom]

54. Illegal immigration = unrestricted immigration. We can no longer afford it

I liked your designation of "the Utopians." I see so much of that on DU. I also agree with you that most Americans, regardless of party, oppose illegal immigration. And not because they are all, or even mostly, racists.

Why?

Because the government should be able to limit the number of immigrants each year based on what our economy needs and our resources can handle -- without depressing wages and benefits for working Americans.

And because illegal immigration isn't fair to the legal immigrants who are patiently waiting in line. People all over the world, of all races, want to immigrate to the U.S. Why should people from Mexico be able to cut to the front of the line? Why is it racist to think that if a person from Somalia or Cambodia has to wait for an immigration VISA, then a person from Mexico should have to also?

It is amusing, for now, to watch Republicans thrash around on the horns of the immigration dilemma. But our party will be just as torn, when and if it returns to power. Republicans have the split between big-business people -- who want immigration -- and everybody else. We have the split between the traditional, pro-worker Democrats -- who are concerned about the effects of unrestricted immigration on their jobs, schools, and hospitals -- and the Utopians, who think that everybody concerned about the issue must be a racist.

[PsycheCC]

60. Well said, pnw.

"We have the split between the traditional, pro-worker Democrats -- who are concerned about the effects of unrestricted immigration on their jobs, schools, and hospitals -- and the Utopians, who think that everybody concerned about the issue must be a racist."

[sandnsea]

58. The House bill will fuck over the American worker

That's why. I guarantee you the part that says "send them home over time" is a big load of shit which will be quietly converted into a guest worker program that is nothing more than a revolving door of intimidated and bullied immigrants who either shut up and work for peanuts or "be sent home" - only to hire the next batch who will miraculously appear to take their place. The House bill is another NCLB lie, I can't believe people still fall for Republican bullshit. This is a big shiny batch of smoke and mirrors at the border and nothing more.

[unlawflcombatnt]

62. Complete Nonsense

How will this be "converted into a guest worker program?" This is just one more of the amnesty/open border talking points that makes no sense.

This bill will help the American worker. By reducing illegal immigration, it will reduce competition for American jobs from illegal immigrants. It's just that simple.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[sandnsea]

64. see #63

In the reconciliation committee, that's how. Citizenship comes out, turning immigrants into felons comes out - guest worker goes in.

[The Magistrate]

69. You Have Played This Game Before, Ma'am

"Conference Committees" are the real legislative body, and indeed trump whatever goes on on the floor of either chamber. Very often what comes out of these back-room panels bears little relation to what entered.

[sandnsea]

71. That's what I said

No game about it. That's how the House bill ends up with guest worker in it. I would think you of all people could see the writing on the wall.

That has nothing to do with what I said about what the Sensenbrenner bill is now and that unless people support deportation and making immigrants felons, there's no reason to support it. The rest of the bill contains the same kinds of security and employer penalties as the Senate bill. People are lying about the Senate bill, plain and simple. Some are also lying about the House bill as is evidenced by the wording in that poll, which is the most manipulative bunch of garbage I've seen in quite a long while.

I rarely, if ever, talk about reconciliation bills, so I don't know how I could be playing any game about them.

[The Magistrate]

74. My Apologies, Ma'am, For An Apparently Ill-Judged Attempt At Humor

My intention was only to commend, with a grin, your understanding of how the process actually works....

[sandnsea]

76. Sorry

I really should slap a smiley face on the top of my screen so I remember to lighten up once in a while! :)

[PsycheCC]

83. Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't be the moderator on duty who has

ignored my alerts on Sandnsea's liberal use of "fuck" on this thread, would you?

[The Magistrate]

89. To The Best Of My Knowledge, Ma'am

No rule of Democratic Underground prohibits the use of profanity. There was in the past a rule prohibiting it in the topic line when starting a thread. There are some restrictions on specifically sexual terms, whether anatomical or denoting particular activities, in certain situations, but the term "fuck" has passed into usage far more general than that.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

167. the term "fuck" has passed into usage

Gee, wonder how that happened...:eyes:

[unlawflcombatnt]

173. Yes

Pretty amazing, isn't it.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[sandnsea]

90. fuckety fuck fuck fuck

isn't against the rules.

[PsycheCC]

94. Now that's elevated debate. We censor sources with a wealth of

knowledge to be gleaned, but not language that makes us look ridiculous. At least now I can quit wasting my time alerting on such disgusting, but "acceptable" language.

[sandnsea]

98. Please submit a list

Of the disgusting language to be banned from DU, and the sources that we should pay more attention to. I'd be highly interested.

[PsycheCC]

104. I'm sure you would, but as DU bans many conservative sites,

despite their sometimes worthwhile reading, I wouldn't be allowed to list them here, I'm afraid. I believe in knowing the enemy, so I read from all kinds of sources. Sometimes even conservatives have something good to say.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

165. First post of yours I've agreed with....possibly ever.

...and your choice of delivery made me smile.

:thumbsup:

[unlawflcombatnt]

91. Yes, I'd like to know the answer to that as well, Sir

Because I've also alerted on "sandnsea's" post that includes the word "fuck" in the title, which is completely inappropriate, and should have long since been deleted. What's more, I've alerted on it twice.

Meanwhile, you've deleted a post from Ellwood P. Dowd that wasn't the slightest offensive.

Are you taking sides in this and deleting the posts that disagree with your own point of view only?

Something isn't right when you come on a thread as a moderator, and then clearly take sides. How can you be a "moderator" and take one side only. Clearly you are allowing sandnsea to get away with postings that would cause anyone else to have their posts deleted.

[The Magistrate]

97. Actually, Sir

My view on the matter of immigration tends towards the position that an increase in supply of labor drives down wages, and operates to reduce the living standard of the people of the country. Business owners who benefit from illegal immigration are in about the same position as a person who buys and sells stolen goods: they not only profit by crime but entice its commission, since much theft would not occur if stolen goods could not be sold.

[unlawflcombatnt]

100. Outstanding

I'm quite happy to hear that. It sounds like we completely agree on the culpability of employers, and the wage suppressing effect of illegal labor.

My apologies for misinterpreting your position.

[The Magistrate]

102. No Difficulty, Sir

It has been my practice to avoid comment on the matter, after the first flush of interest some while ago, because it does not engage my interest deeply. But it is pretty cut and dried economic calculation.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be a matter that can readily be fixed, taken as things presently stand. Deporting twelve millions of people would be a monstrous undertaking, that simply could not be managed without a degree of injustice and suffering it would be impossible to countenance in good conscience. Put to the choice between that and a grant of amnesty and legal status or even citizenship, my preference would have to be for the latter.

[PsycheCC]

105. But it doesn't have to be that choice, does it? Why does controlling

the borders and enforcing employer sanctions automatically imply deporting anyone? I don't advocate that, and I don't know many who do.

[The Magistrate]

107. What Is To Be Done, Sir, About Those Already Here In Violation Of The Law?

Whether you have proposed such measures, or would support them, or not, the fact remains that they are being floated in this debate on the national stage. A legal policy that would, essentially, deprive such persons of work and livelihoods would amount to deportation in all but name.

Both the measures you mention are certainly adviseable to prevent the matter growing in scale, and certainly ought to have been routinely employed for msany years.

[PsycheCC]

111. I would not deport anyone. I would allow controlled borders and

employer sanctions to have whatever affect they will. Neither would I support amnesty. I have said this from the beginning, but sometimes the rhetoric gets so heated that people don't communicate well.

[The Magistrate]

120. The Effect Of That, Ma'am

Would be to strip millions of any legal livelihood. It is not a humane policy. It is certainly true that these persons stand in violation of the law, but most are not really criminals as the term is generally understood.

[PsycheCC]

122. I think many of those affected will have relatives or friends who are

legal residents. If they really want to stay, such people will help them find a way. If they find it easier to go home and organize labor in their own countries, that would be good too.

[The Magistrate]

125. How Could They Help, Ma'am, If Employment Is Illegal?

A great many people would be stripped of any possibility of legal income. They would have the choice of criminal activity or flight to their native lands. The latter would be a departure forced by government action every bit as much as if formal orders of deportation had been delivered by uniformed agents, and the former would be criminals created by government policy, or in other words, victims of a colossal act of poice entrapment. Neither thing could properly be regarded as humane or just. It is certainly anyone's right to urge such a policy, but it ought to be done with open eyes and a clear understanding of what it actually means in practical terms.

The problem is created by the long period of lax enforcement, which has set up an odd situation. If you allow someone to use your car, and they do not return it, and you do not report it stolen promptly, and take no steps to regain possession of it yourself, you will find you have difficulties being taken seriously by the police if, two years later, you summon an officer and say you want to report your car was stolen back in '04, and you want the person who has it now arrested, and the thing returned. Your innaction in pursuing available remedies for so long will have clouded the matter considerably. By not moving vigorously to vindicate its laws for so long in this matter, the government has ceded a sort of moral right to these people to continue more or less as they are, and called into question the propriety of moving now to enforce the law against them.

[unlawflcombatnt]

127. Exactly what we would hope for.

That's exactly what we want. If "stripped of any source of illegal income" their best option would be to return home. That's what the concept of attrition is all about. And I'm sorry, my heart doesn't bleed for people who have been breaking our laws for years, who are now expected to travel 150 miles (if you're in Los Angeles) and go back to the country they illegally immigrated from. It's a lot more humane and charitable than throwing them in jail, which is what we normally do with people who break the law.

[PsycheCC]

128. Your point is the reason I don't advocate deportation or in fact,

any legal action against illegal immigrants. I do not take lightly, the fact that controlled borders and employer sanctions will make life more difficult for illegals. I also do not for a minute believe that ANYONE offering help to these people will be treated any more criminally than the people themselves have been. Yes, the stolen car was not pursued, but please remember that American workers would certainly have acted to regain their property. It was their government that failed them.

[PsycheCC]

113. And it's Ma'am, just by the way.

[The Magistrate]

117. My Apologies, Ma'am

In a moment of confusion, I mistook you for your comrade, who my comment above had been directed to.

[PsycheCC]

121. Not to worry, Sir

And I do appreciate the fact that, whether we agree or not, you don't holler at me.

[inthebrain]

108. Are you an amnesty advocate?

I full support full citizenship to all immigrants in this country.

I find strict border control to be a ridiculous proposition. A mother faced with the choice of feeding her kids or starving to death is going to find a way around it. That's just simple human nature. I also think given the current situation where you have the fox guarding the henhouse that it's absued to put anyone at the mercy of our government officials.

Perhaps there are more constructive avenues for you to take than this one. Looking at what it takes to gain citizenship here might be a good place to start. Currently immigration the financial burden of citizenship favor only wealthy immigrants. It's a minimum of $5,000 given some of the least expensive scenerios.

Right now this debate centers on treating humans as contraband. There isnt much focus on what really effects wages such as welfare reform, NAFTA, CAFTA, Right To Work laws and Taft Hartly. What is redusing wages is the fact that many people can't afford to say "no" to low wage work.

Not to mention that Unions bartering for a better contract have to contend with the government forcing them back to work. The best bargaining tool at our disposal has been stripped from us. Then there are our minimum wage laws that exclude farm labor where 24% of immigrants are employed.

Poimting fingers and acting as one against the exploiters is where we need to act. Dividing labor by going after immigrants only re enforced what the exploiters want to do.

[unlawflcombatnt]

114. The best "bargaining tool" is limiting the labor force to legal residents

The supply of labor is the biggest determinant of wages when the demand for labor is fixed. In fact, with the exception of the minimum wage, it is the only determinant. More workers means lower pay for those who are employed.

And, yes, I can fault those who knowingly and willingly break the law to come here and suppress the wages of my fellow Americans. And I can also hold those at fault who illegally hire them in order to reduce labor costs, putting Americans out of work and lowering the wages of those still working.

Both the illegal immigrants, and those who employ them, are breaking the law. And their law-breaking activity is making life worse for law-abiding American citizens and workers. And that's my major concern -- the wellbeing of law-abiding American citizens and workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

118. Public Opinion is Against Immigrants

Today public opinion has been swayed by such arguments and the enormous access that anti-immigrant organizations have to the national media. A Business Week/Harris Poll in 1992 found that while 59 percent of those surveyed thought immigration has been good for the US historically, 69 percent of non-blacks and 53 percent of blacks thought present-day immigration was bad. Among the reasons cited were taking jobs away from American workers (60 percent) and using more than their fair share of government services (about 60 percent). black views may be prompted by different reasons than those of whites, since it is likely that blacks are resentful of the success of recent immigrants appearing to overtake them economically, while whites see immigrants threatening what they already have.
There is a clear lack of a sense of the history of immigration in the current out-cry. Nothing so exemplifies the lack of historical connection as a story in the Boston Globe New Hampshire Edition, headlined "Son of Immigrants Offers English Bill." The legislation offered by Bernard Raynowska, a state representative from New Hampshire and of Lithuanian descent, would restrict the state's use of bilingual ballots or forms. While Raynowska's father came up the hard way after immigrating, his son now feels, "n the year 2000 we're all going to be speaking Spanish, dressing Spanish and eating Spanish food." A letter to the editor in the November 10, 1991 Tampa Times echoes that sentiment when the writer recalls, through rose-colored glasses, his experience with immigrants in an earlier era. "There was no special consideration given those people, and their children required little time to become proficient in English."

What are the actual statistics to back up this anti-immigrant rhetoric? In fact, less than 1.5 percent of the US population is undocumented, according to the US Census. One quarter of immigrants in the US are undocumented. Most of these do not sneak across the border, but arrive legally and stay beyond the expiration of their visas. Only one-third of undocumented immigrants come from Mexico.

Nothing is as fiercely contested or as wildly divergent in their conclusions as studies on the impact of immigration on the economy. Anti-immigrant organizations point to a study by Dr. Donald Huddle that shows that immigrants cost the US $44 billion more than they contributed in 1993. Immigrant advocates point to the Urban Institute study that shows that immigrants contributed from $25 to $35 billion more than they took out in 1992. A study by Los Angeles County found that immigrants cost the county almost $1 billion, but give back four times that amount in taxes. The problem, however, for Los Angeles County is that the taxes go to the federal government instead of the county. Business Week estimated that immigrants pay $70.3 billion in taxes annually and receive $5 billion in welfare benefits, and another $11.5 billion in primary and secondary education benefits.

The Urban Institute reviewed a number of contemporary studies that "document" the draining effect of immigrants on the US economy in order to find underlying biases. They found that the studies vary in quality, but "the results invariably overstate the negative impact of immigrants for the following reasons: 1) they systematically understate tax collections from immigrants, 2) they systematically overstate service costs for immigrants, 3) none credit immigrants for the impact of immigrant-owned businesses or the full economic benefit generated by consumer spending from immigrants, 4) job displacement impact and costs are overstated, 5) they omit the fact that parallel computations for natives show natives use more in services than they pay in taxes too, and 6) the size of the immigrant population--particularly the undocumented immigrant population--tends to be overstated."
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n2/immigran.html

[unlawflcombatnt]

126. There you go again

Posting pure nonsense.

It's pretty well accepted by ALL sources that there are at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. at present. That comes out to 4% of our population of 298 million. (And that 298 million number really does come from the Census Bureau) The New York Times puts the number of illegal immigrants working at 7 million.

Illegal immigrants do cost America money. They suppress wages 4% annually, or about $1700/year per worker. This comes out to an aggregate worker income loss of $243 billion per year. This is the equivalent of 63% of our 2005 GDP growth of $382 billion. Obviously this wage reduction reduces consumer spending, demand for production, and demand for labor to provide that production. This reduction in "demand" for labor adds an additional reduction in wages to that caused by the increased "supply" of labor.

Illegal immigration causes a reduction in aggregate labor income by suppressing wages. That suppresses consumer spending, production demand, and labor demand by itself. Any money sent out of the country by illegal immigrants even further reduces consumer spending, further reducing production demand and labor demand, causing still further declines in wages.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

138. Immigration and the New Economy

One aspect of economic restructuring today involves a shift from local or national economies to a global economy. US business is moving freely without being tied to local labor forces; consequently, corporations are relocating overseas to find cheaper labor and lax environmental laws. The rise of an information--and service--based economy has contributed significantly to the dislocation of workers, since it generates a two-tier class structure of low-income jobs for most and high-income jobs for the few with the right skills and knowledge. The low-paying jobs that are being created are often jobs that new immigrants are willing to take but are unacceptable to middle class workers who are seeking jobs that allow a more affluent and secure lifestyle.
Since 1972, real average weekly earnings have fallen 18.6 percent. blacks have been particularly hard hit, seeing their family income plummet by one-third since 1973. On the other hand, in just one year, from 1992 to 1993, after-tax corporate profits increased by more than $44 billion. Between 1960 and 1988, manufacturing employment fell from 26 percent to less than 19 percent of civilian employment, while jobs in the service-providing industries (including transportation, real estate, wholesale and retail trade, service, finance, and public utilities) climbed from 56 percent to 70 percent. This has caused an uncharacteristically large-scale displacement of millions of blue collar middle class workers, as well as professionals and middle managers.

Displaced workers, along with others who fear for their livelihood, are fertile ground in which to sow anti-immigrant sentiment, since angry and frustrated people often seek some target on which to blame their problems. The right wing has organized and manipulated such anger and resentment, turned it away from corporations, and directed it against the government, decrying high taxes and the inability of the state to solve problems such as social deterioration, homelessness, crime, and violence. In addition to the target of "failed liberal policies," immigrants make a convenient scapegoat and a very tangible target for people's anger. Racial prejudice is often an encoded part of the message.

Right-wing populist themes are particularly effective at attracting working people disenchanted with the system. A cartoon in the October 1993 issue of Border Watch, a publication of the American Immigration Control Foundation, depicts "US Business Interests, Inc." as being pro-immigration. "We hire aliens cheap," reads a sign in the cartoon, implying that US corporate interests are promoting immigration and costing US workers their jobs. Under the headline, "Immigration Takes Jobs from Americans," an April 1994 issue of Border Watch claims that native born workers are being displaced from both janitorial jobs and white collar professional positions. An anonymous letter in Border Watch, identified as from a worker, captures the anti-immigrant sentiment: "hen the Mexicans get powerful enough in a job situation, they kick out the 'gringos' so their buddies can take over." The anonymous writer goes on, "Just wait until they can work their way up the economic ladder, and middle class Americans will feel the sting of Mexican racism."

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n2/immigran.html

[unlawflcombatnt]

155. More illogical race-baiting rhetoric

"Displaced workers, along with others who fear for their livelihood, are fertile ground in which to sow anti-immigrant sentiment, since angry and frustrated people often seek some target on which to blame their problems"

More of your race-baiting nonsense. Displaced workers are those most likely to feel the real economic hardship caused by unrestricted illegal immigration. It is "fertile ground" for seeing the results 1st hand of what an excess supply of labor caused by illegal immigration does to American workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[PsycheCC]

119. Believe me, I do know your view. I've read it again and again.

"Right now this debate centers on treating humans as contraband. There isnt much focus on what really effects wages such as welfare reform, NAFTA, CAFTA, Right To Work laws and Taft Hartly. What is redusing wages is the fact that many people can't afford to say "no" to low wage work.

Not to mention that Unions bartering for a better contract have to contend with the government forcing them back to work. The best bargaining tool at our disposal has been stripped from us. Then there are our minimum wage laws that exclude farm labor where 24% of immigrants are employed."

Given the current, corporate dominated, political and economic climate, I don't see any chance of changing any of the above mentioned ills. When you find a way, let me know. Until then, I'm sorry, but I don't want to watch the standard of living in this country mirror that of Mexico. It already does in some of the more heavily impacted areas. Immigration policy, in my opinion, is the only avenue that could lead to better working conditions and wages for Americans. I know, I'm buying the "divide and conquer" argument. I don't see another way. I support my fellow citizens and expect Mexico to fix Mexico.

[MercutioATC]

164. I support a PATH to citizenship for all LEGAL immigrants to this country.

1) You find border control to be a "ridiculous proposition" because some people will attempt to thwart it? I take it you're in favor of abolishing speed limits and taxes, then. There will ALWAYS be people who thwart these laws in an attempt to get someplace quicker or save a few dollars...what's the sence in enforcing them?

2) If you have an issue with the financial cost of obtaining U.S. citizenship, that's a valid process to attempt to change. If we simply grant free citizenship to all illegals, however, how does that encourage them to follow a PATH to citizenship...even if it were free?

3) Let's make one thing very clear. These people are MAKING themselves "contraband". If they obeyed the law, they wouldn't be exploited. That doesn't excuse the exploitation, but they ARE creating the circumstance that allows them to be exploited.

The simple fact is this: These people are entering the U.S. in VIOLATION of law. By doing so, they do two things...1) they expose themselves to the real probability of being financially exploited and 2) by doing so, they create a cheap, compliant labor pool that depresses wages and robs LEGAL U.S., residents of jobs.

[unlawflcombatnt]

174. Well Put

I couldn't agree more.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

176. You mean they are crossing onto land

stolen from Mexico (If we are going to talk about laws lets be honest about it. Stealing is illegal).

These people are doing what is human nature. They are Mothers and Fathers with mouths to feed. They also live in a country that is long exploited by our very own American Capitalists. I don't think it reasonable to paint them as criminals anymore than it was to paint Rosa Parks in the same light.

Some people have a just reason for breaking the law. Our laws make all sorts of exception for infractions including murder.

The immigrants themselves do not depress wages. Corporations seem to be having a fine time doing that without them. If you think that by bucking out immigrants, Master is going to toss you larger crumbs, you are sorely mistaken on that point.

[PsycheCC]

191. Decreasing the labor supply forces employers to compete more

for workers, thus increasing wages paid. It's no different than the effect of a shortage of a product. People pay more for it if they need it enough.

Regarding land, pretty much all land was once claimed/owned by people other than the current legal "owners".

[unlawflcombatnt]

192. No, it is you who is mistaken

If we gradually lost the 7 million illegal workers employed in this country, it would gradually reduce our participating labor force supply from it's current 150 million down to 143 million. The reduction in the number of workers competing for jobs would greatly increase wages (the "price" of labor.) That's undeniable. Employers pay more when labor is scarce, less when it is plentiful. This is simple supply and demand law.

And the supply and demand "law" is one that employers cannot break.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

106. Attrition

Many very learned and enlightened people, such as Thom Hartmann, believe that prosecuting employers, and turning off the magnet that brings illegal aliens into the country, will result in attrition. I share that belief. Without the draw of employment, few illegal immigrants would come here. And with employment termintated, due to employer prosecution, many of those here would leave.

I couldn't in good conscience ever endorse amnesty for those illegally here, with the clear knowledge of the suffering and hardship my fellow Americans already experience as a result of the suppression of wages and employment they have caused. My compassion for those legally here greatly supersedes my compassion for those who have knowingly and willingly broken the law to come here.

The hardship that illegal immigration has caused my fellow Americans is my greatest concern. It is in no way my fault, or that of any other American worker, that working conditions are so bad in Mexico. In my mind, it is no way justified to make Americans suffer as a result of Mexico's problems.

[PsycheCC]

92. Awaiting the dreaded padlock which seems to be some people's

goal for this thread....

[sandnsea]

95. Oh I'll bow out

For pete's sake. Have your thread.

[PsycheCC]

123. Thank you.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

163. So it's better to openly give them rights??

ANY system has the potential to be abused. That's not a valid reason to oppose legislation that makes sense.

[Greyhound]

129. Kick

[sam sarrha]

136. is there any country with a lucrative corporate migration policy that isn't

in deep S*it because of it...

england in in Big trouble.. because its liberal migration policy isn't working, the migrants are not assimilating, and are creating small cultural enclaves with their own language, schools and intolerances..

[IndyJones]

140. Sounds like So Cal.

[PsycheCC]

143. Yes, Indy, it sure does. n/t

[Igel]

141. Being both "liberal" and "anti-illegal immigration" is possible.

That seems to be your point, and it's well founded.

Most attempts to say otherwise seem to be futzing the the definitions to disprove your point.

DeFazio has always been liberal; on specific points he may be questionable, but absolute ideological purity isn't a valid goal here--even if we could all agree on what constituted ideological purity. On the other hand I left Oregon in '90 and haven't followed their politics, so for all I know he's questionable on no points.

Cheers.

[unlawflcombatnt]

145. Right on

I couldn't agree more.

[inthebrain]

149. Not it's not

That's called fake leftism!!!!!!

"Anti Immigrant" is hate speach. All these taliking points your seeing repeated on this issue are funded by right wing hate groups. For further research see;

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n2/immigran.html

[PsycheCC]

151. So much for the "big tent" Democrats are so proud of.

It certainly is possible, perhaps even likely, that RATIONAL liberals could consider all of the arguments and come to the conclusion that illegal immigration is bad for America. For the most part, these would be people who have jobs, pay bills, and have a vested interest in earning a living wage in the country of their birth. The only "hate group" around here is the one ganging up on fellow liberals with a different opinion than theirs.

[unlawflcombatnt]

153. More nonsense

You're just barfing up the same crap you've been posting over and over and over. :puke:

All these "taliking" points you keep repeating are funded by Corporate-sponsored race-baiting groups. They're funded by Right-Wing Corporatocrats. The same ones that support Bush. You've been severely duped as to who is pulling the strings. You've become a pawn of the Bush dictatorship and Corporate America.


unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

156. Prove it

Its reall that simple.

You're no liberal.

Mr Attrition

[unlawflcombatnt]

158. Prove What?

Prove what, Mr. Amnesty?

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Critters2]

160. Tyson must love you n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

182. Yes

He should work in their public relations dept.

[Critters2]

159. Really?

Where's my cut?!

[MercutioATC]

166. Nobody said anything about "anti-immigrant"...

...the phrase was "anti-illegal immigration"

There's a distinct difference.

[inthebrain]

170. These same people

Who claim that they are "anti illegal immigration" also have posts declaring that they are "anti immigration". Yes, there is a distinct difference. One would think that those that were really against "illegal immigration" would make an effort to make that distinction.

They don't.

It the same as when bozos claim they are "anti-zionist" and start rambeling about "Jews".

But lets also not dismiss the fact that whenever you post facts that contradict their "findings" they have a canary. Often followed with complaints of "Race Baiting" and "Race Card".

Now what kind of people are famous for levying that charge?

Hmmmmmm?

Leaves one to wonder.

Lets also not dismiss the love displayed by some of them for Pat Buchannan and the Reform Party. It doesnt leave much to the imagination to figure out what that's all about.

[MercutioATC]

180. I'll make myself very clear, then. I'm anti-ILLEGAL immigration.

...ILLEGAL being the operative word.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inthebrain]

169. You mean the same links

from hate groups?

The same mods that you and unlawflcombatnt often report my posts to that gave the same description of you links?

I'm the one that "race baiting" and playing the "race card"?

These are the conservative sites that you mention above.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quequeg]

177. You can get articles by Randall Burns by googling ...

google text "Randall Burns articles"

Also, his blog is good:
google text "Randall Burns blog"

Randall Burns - [e-mail] - holds a degree in Economics from the University of Chicago. He works in the information technology sector and is a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University. Burns has been active in furthering the introduction of immigration, trade, and tax realities into the progressive agenda. In 2004, he helped create the Kucinich campaign's position paper on H-1b/L-1 visas.

www.StopGlobalism.com       www.VOIDnow.org

[PsycheCC]

178. Thanks Quequeg, and thanks for the correction-U of Chicago, not

Harvard. My mistake. The post above was just my effort to thank you for taking the time to express your view so clearly.

[Quequeg]

179. You're welcome and thanks to you for all your efforts :) n/t

[AzDar]

168. Lots of good info in this thread; excellent OP! n/t

[Greeby]

171. Can't believe you missed the best thing DeFazio did

He brought up an emergency resolution to repeal the Iraq War Resolution before the war began. Of course, it was shoved into committee and left to rot, but still, the effort was made

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/hj20.asp
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.j.20:

To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. (Introduced in House)

HJ 20 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 20

To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 5, 2003

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. LEE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. OWENS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. OBERSTAR, Ms. WATERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FARR, Mr. OLVER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. WATSON, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. RUSH, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. STARK, and Mr. CAPUANO) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

JOINT RESOLUTION

To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed.

[Quequeg]

175. Can't believe I didn't even know about it. Thanks!!! n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

190. Another Good Point about DeFazio

I'd certainly vote for that resolution in a heartbeat. Too bad there aren't enough in Congress who feel the same way.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[GreenTea]

181. The progresive Peter DeFazio has it right!

No question.

[unlawflcombatnt]

183. Absolutely

We need a president like him.

[unlawflcombatnt]

186. Bump

:kick:

[PsycheCC]

188. Great OP in case anyone missed it!

:kick:

:bounce: <----this guy just makes me smile.

[unlawflcombatnt]

189. Bump

:kick: