Political ploys with immigration

4 free views left!

Thursday, June 21, 2012

They should have passed the DREAM Act when they had the chance in 2010. If they had, part of a sensible, constructive and practical immigration policy would be in place. American-educated youth, the product of our investment, people who prepared diligently to be contributing members of society, would be welcome in what is, absent technicality, their home country.

If they had, perhaps the Obama administration could have paused between deportations to work for more thorough immigration reform, or at the minimum come up with a proposal or a plan. Republicans could ignore their xenophobe caucus for a moment and stop feigning outrage that the Obama administration refuses to round up and deport more than a million young people brought here illegally by their parents. These are the children who have grown up among us, who should have the opportunity to become valued Americans.

But the DREAM Act was not passed. The illegal youth remain illegal. On Friday President Obama announced with appropriate election-year drama that the administration would use its prosecutorial discretion and temporarily stop deporting illegal immigrants brought to this country as children, who meet certain age and educational requirements and otherwise remain law-abiding. Republicans naturally reacted by throwing tantrums, shouting amnesty, accusing the president of using selective enforcement of the law as a tool of political pandering. The president’s duty is to execute the law, they said, not in part but in full.

But really, this is a bit comical. The president really said he will continue what was already an unofficial policy — to make deportation of students brought illegally as children a very low priority. The New York Times reported during the DREAM Act debate in 2010 that Department of Homeland Security officials were making litle effort to deport these students. Even those identified as illegal aliens were not detained and their deportations suspended. To the students who openly admitted their illegal status during highly publicized DREAM Act protests, nothing happened. The administration simply said it has more important things to do. “In a world of limited resources, our time is better spent on someone who is here unlawfully and is committing crimes in the neighborhood, as opposed to someone who came to this country as a juvenile and spent the vast majority of their life here,” said John Morton, chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to The New York Times.

Obama announced Friday that he will cease deporting the people he was not deporting. He will give them an opportunity to come forward, register their illegality and receive a two-year deferral of deportation. They will be eligible for deferral if they arrived in the United States before they were 16, have lived in the U.S. for five years, are in school or have graduated from high school, or are honorably discharged military veterans. This deferred status is already available under the law, and had been granted previously on a limited basis by the Obama and Bush administrations. With the deferred status they have the chance to apply for a work permit. This is a short two-year reprieve, granted through prosecutorial discretion all administrations exercise, if not on this scale. It is not a change in the law by executive order. The next president could undo it all. In the meantime, the Obama administration continues deporting other illegal immigrants at a record pace, nearly 400,000 a year, more than double the rate during George W. Bush’s first term.

Election-year frolics with immigration law are one thing, but this is not a drastic change and not policy with any permanence. If we are ever seriously interested in doing something constructive, the DREAM Act should pass and give these people a chance to earn citizenship in their own country, this country.

Tracy Warner’s column appears Thursdays and Fridays. He can be reached at warner@wenatcheeworld.com or 665-1163.

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

Faedrus 12 months ago

"Republicans naturally reacted by throwing tantrums, shouting amnesty, accusing the president of using selective enforcement of the law as a tool of political pandering."

Anybody who writes this, according to Rush and Fox, must HATE AMERICA!

Just kidding. Great post. :)

JimboBear 12 months ago

". . . and give these people a chance to earn citizenship in their own country, this country."

Isn't that an oxymoron? If they are not citizens and came from somewhere else, how can this be "their own country" ? I think I understand what you are saying Mr. Warner, but take issue with your word choice since obviously the country they came from is already "their own country".

BTW Faedrus, I do view his action as a bit of political pandering. Intended as such or not, you can bet that the thought crossed his mind and the collective minds of his political advisors as well.

Jim, to paraphrase George Will:

"To accuse politicians of playing politics makes no sense. That's what politicians do." :)

Anyway, given that this was already stated US Immigration policy, I don't see the harm.

I do see harm, however, in the US Congress not moving forward with a transportation bill that would lead to a lower unemployment rate, because to do so would help Obama become reelected.

To me, that's a great example of very harmful politics.

That's apples and oranges Bob. Two entirely separate issues, and that's the reason I am against that entire 16 issue package. If even one of the sixteen goes against one's thinking, then to approve the package as a whole would be foolhardy in my mind. As for a transportation bill, I'm not sure just which one you may be referring to, so I'll keep my mouth shut. Most importantly, I'm not quite ready to buy into the theory that Republicans as a whole will stand against anything that would influence Obama's chances of a second term .

"Most importantly, I'm not quite ready to buy into the theory that Republicans as a whole will stand against anything that would influence Obama's chances of a second term."

I think that's a fair statement. My question then becomes:

"Have the Republicans in Congress supported anything during Obama's tenure as president, which would help his reelection chances?"

I'm not at all sure that I am informed enough on the Congressional Record to answer that question Faedrus. Seems to me I would have to go through that record to find the truth about that.

Understood. But, you have an opinion, no? :)

kyook 12 months ago

I find it hard to even imagine that none of the more moderate republicans have never voted for anything in the Obama agenda. It's just against the odds.

"I find it hard to even imagine that none of the more moderate republicans have never voted for anything in the Obama agenda. It's just against the odds."

This isn't a test, honest, but I'm curious. Can you think of any Republicans, moderate or otherwise, who have voted for Obama-supported legislation?

I can think of three: Maine Senators Snow and Collins, and Mass. Senator Brown.

Are there others?

What difference does it make? You have already provided three which proves(?) that some Republicans in Congress have supported something in Obama's agenda during his tenure as president. Kinda renders the original point moot, doesn't it? Kinda confirms my point that the odds were against the oringinal point too, doesn't it?

Kyook, giving up so easily? It sounds like you have an opinion, but you're not necessarily up on this stuff. :)

No real need to be "up" on stuff that was rhetorical to begin with. Plus, you answered your own question anyway.

Kyook, the three senators I listed are all from the NE, which is overwhelmingly Democrat. Republican Senators there are an anachronism, and on the way out.

They vote moderately Republican because if they didn't they'd lose their jobs. Brown may be thrown out this November as it is, and Snow has already resigned.

Still, three moderate Republicans in a Senate full of right-wing Republicans is often not enough to stop Republican filibusters against Obama's legislative goals.

So, yes, the Republicans are united against Obama's goals, except for three who have to be flexible if they want to stay employed.

Kyook, you really need to read more. :)

Fascinating!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

Kyook, exactly.

You have an opinion, but no real interest, and criticize those who do.

My polite suggestion: You need to find something a bit more constructive to do with your life. :)

You have apparently forgotten what we were talking about, which is not unusual given your proclivity for taking off on unrelated tangents. Let me remind you:

You: "Have the Republicans in Congress supported anything during Obama's tenure as president, which would help his reelection chances?"

Me: "I find it hard to even imagine that none of the more moderate republicans have never voted for anything in the Obama agenda. It's just against the odds."

Beyond that, I don't really care. What you find interesting, I find mundane and boring.

"You need to find something a bit more constructive to do with your life"

Sage advice, indeed. You should too.

I agree. If this constant badgering is his idea of being civil then I'd hate to get on his bad side. (As if I'm not already)

At times, it seems like Robert might have the same obsession that he accused our buddy, Tim Lamb, of having...gotta get the last word in.

Flamebike, yes, I must admit that I've become less kind and gentle of late.

Actually, I think I've become a bit chagrined with some of the regular Safety Valve crowd: Tinges of homophobia, prejudice, reliance on "affirmation media" like Fox, narrow fields of experience, etc.

And, I suspect that Kyook is just bored and looking for a fight, as he implied yesterday... :)

Those were your words.

"Robert--as a claimed Democrat, that supposedly is "kinder, gentler and more humane" than "the other party"--why is it that you are constantly picking fights on this forum?"

Actually Flamebike, I'm a Republican. :)

However, as a Republican I can still disagree with Fox and not hate America. I think some Republicans - and many Americans in general - have forgotten that the media works for us, and not vice versa.

Flamebike, thanks much for your kind response. Maybe we should have that drink (non-alcoholic would be fine) at the Igloo Tavern. :)

Suz 12 months ago

Faedras, when they can't top your arguments, they resort to personal attacks like "Why is it that you are constantly picking fights on this forum?" or " If this constant badgering is his idea of being civil then I'd hate to get on his bad side" or "-he hasn't always been so antagonistic." I notice Tim hasn't been posting lately so maybe "the crowd" just needs a new whipping boy.

Annsboy 12 months ago

Tim has left the forum due to his biblical posts being deleted. The charge of homophobia and racisism are the standard attack of the left when faced with people who see the world in black and white rather than various shades of grey. We love the members of our families who have chosen to live a so called "gay" lifestyle but have to recognise their lifestyle, if we believe the scriptures will condemn them in the afterlife. We see so called "advocates" of minorities pushing an adjenda that contributes to minorities living in poverty not advancing them into the mainstreen of economic freedom. We see the breakdown of the traditional family as a contributor to poverty and the left as either advocates of the "free sex" "legal drugs" or non commital on the issues of morality in society. We are not racial bigots, homophobes or religious bigots we simply have, because of our upbringing a different opinion on how to repair what ails the country and ourselves. Typically it involves changing personal behavior not legislation. I guess most of on this forum have posted things we wish we could quickly delete or have posted things that were not taken the way intended, me included.

Norm 12 months ago

"Tim has left the forum due to his biblical posts being deleted."

That's a misleading description of what happened. His posts were not deleted for being Biblical; if that was the policy then 90% of his posts would have been deleted. A very small number of his posts were deleted for violating the terms of service in some way. I think all of us who post here often have had at least a handful of our posts deleted; the handful of Tim's that were deleted were deleted according to the same criteria that were applied to ours and everybody else's posts.

"The charge of homophobia and racisism are the standard attack of the left"

In many cases it is simply a statement of fact, not an attack. Obviously, sometimes people claim racism, homophobia, or some other form of bigotry when there is none there. This does not mean that people are never motivated by some form of bigotry; sometimes the charge is accurate.

"We love the members of our families who have chosen to live a so called "gay" lifestyle but have to recognise their lifestyle, if we believe the scriptures will condemn them in the afterlife."

That's fine. The only thing that bothers me is when you want to use the government to enforce that belief on others. My position on gay marriage is that the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. I think your church should decide whether or not to perform or recognize gay marriages, and other peoples' churches should be allowed to make the same decision. I think the government should stick to regulating property, custody, contracts, and other legal issues in the context of civil unions and leave the Sacrament of Marriage entirely up to individual churches, synagogues, mosques, or other associations of people. Why would you want your pastor or priest to have to say "By the authority of God AND the State of Washington" when administering this Sacrament? Isn't the authority of God all that should be required to Bless a Sacrament?

"We see so called "advocates" of minorities pushing an adjenda that contributes to minorities living in poverty not advancing them into the mainstreen of economic freedom"

Organized labor fights for better wages, better working conditions, and better total compensation. The right fights against these things. The left works to fund programs designed to help low income children get access to nutrition, health care, and education. The right fights against these things. The right fights for financial deregulation that allows the rich to prey on the poor; the left recognizes that wealth brings power that allows such predation, and that it must be restrained by regulation. The left advocates the economic policies of the New Deal era, the policies that built the American Middle Class. The right advocates the economic policies that condemned resource-rich Latin America to centuries of poverty and third-world status: extreme concentration of wealth.

Right you are on the deleted posts Norm. As you say, almost all of us have run afoul of the TOU from time to time. Tim did also, and has chosen to end his participation in the forum because of the deletions AND his frequent disputes with others. That was his choice, no one else's.

I do question this statement that you made though. "My position on gay marriage is that the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether."

Since marriage is a civil contract, performed with or without the benefit of clergy, how can the state stay out of the business? Is the state not indirectly involved in AlLL contracts? Are you suggesting that we do away with marriage altogether in the eyes of the law and make all couplings a matter of personal union while letting the various churches perform any sort of ritual they choose although it will mean nothing in the courts? That seems rather self defeating with regards the property and custody issues involved with a marriage.

"Since marriage is a civil contract, performed with or without the benefit of clergy, how can the state stay out of the business? Is the state not indirectly involved in AlLL contracts?"

What I'm saying is that the contract side of it is for the state to deal with (property, custody, inheritance, and similar issues)and the sacramental side of it is for the church to deal with. So the state should concern itself with civil unions only (and resolve associated contract issues as needed) and allow churches or other associations to perform marriages according to their own criteria.

"Are you suggesting that we do away with marriage altogether in the eyes of the law"

I suppose you could describe my proposal in those terms, but that's not a good description of how I see it. I see it as leaving the sacred to the church and the profane to the state. And I'm really curious to see any answers to this question: Why should a pastor or priest have to invoke the authority of the state to administer a sacrament? Isn't Caesar taking something that ain't Caesar's there?

"Why should a pastor or priest have to invoke the authority of the state to administer a sacrament? "

Isn't that simply because the minister must have legal standing with the state in order to place the couple in a binding agreement? For instance, I may be an ordained minister, but I must be licensed to perform marriage ceremonies due to the contractual obligation I am placing the couple in..

Um. You don't seem to be getting my point here. I'm talking about separating the Sacred from the Profane. You seem to be talking about how they are not currently separated. I get that. I'm talking about changing it so that they are separated.

I get that Norm. I understand your words. What I'm saying is that I don't see how you can have one without the other, but I guess what you are advocating is abolition of marriage in the legal sense and taking the religious ceremony out of the picture and relegating it to a status no different from a baptism, confirmation or circumcision. Meanwhile, it appears you then intend that all licenses to perform marriage be revoked since they are worthless. Do the current marriages that have been performed by members of the clergy become null and void, and must those couples go to their local courthouse where they can be joined in a civil union?

Norm 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"I don't see how you can have one without the other,"

A Sacrament needs contract law in order to remain Holy?

"abolition of marriage in the legal sense"

Essentially correct, I suppose, but I disagree with the spin.

"and taking the religious ceremony out of the picture and relegating it to a status no different from a baptism, confirmation or circumcision."

These are Sacraments. They are Holy ceremonies in the eyes of their participants. This is a much higher status than the profane world of contract law. I'm not talking about "relegating" marriage to the status of Sacrament only, I'm talking about elevating it to that exalted, Holy status.

"Meanwhile, it appears you then intend that all licenses to perform marriage be revoked since they are worthless."

Again, essentially correct, minus the spin. I'm not talking about revoking anything, but it is true that such a license would no longer be necessary.

"Do the current marriages that have been performed by members of the clergy become null and void, and must those couples go to their local courthouse where they can be joined in a civil union?"

Of course not. That would create unnecessary uncertainty and chaos for millions. There's absolutely no reason to do so. In any case, any Pastor/Priest/Rabbi/Imam that performs marriage ceremonies has already been prohibited from doing so without consenting to the authority of the government; every marriage ceremony they have performed in the past already had the required sanction from the state. (and even if this weren't the case, existing recognized marriages could easily be grandfathered).

"We see the breakdown of the traditional family as a contributor to poverty"

Causality flows both ways - and more so in the other direction. Sure, the breakdown of the family contributes to poverty, but it is more often the case that poverty contributes to the breakdown of the family.

The most effective way to revitalize the American family is to work to eradicate poverty. The most effective way to eradicate poverty is to abandon Reaganomics and return to the economic policies of the New Deal.

During the Great Prosperity era of the New Deal, a huge percentage of blue-collar workers could support a family on one income, thanks to the fact that strong unions made sure that workers received a fair share of the wealth that they helped to create. Since the time of Reagan, financial deregulation has allowed the Masters of the Universe to divert a larger and larger percentage of the wealth created by {Capital + Labor + Resources}away from working families and into their own pockets. At the same time, their investments in lobbyists and campaign contributions have allowed them to rewrite the tax code so that the burden of paying for public goods provided by government falls more and more heavily on the poor, while government subsidies and other forms of welfare are flowing more and more to the rich and less and less to the poor.

"and the left as either advocates of the "free sex" "legal drugs" or non commital on the issues of morality in society."

I think the difference here is between public and private morality. The kind of immorality in society that concerns me is the immorality of children dying for lack of a nickel's worth of vaccine, people starving while food is rotting in warehouses, and all these other forms of preventable human suffering. To the extent that I participate in an economic system that causes such needless suffering without working to change it, I am partially guilty of causing this suffering. To me this is what public morality is all about - the part of society that I have some voice in, some power, responsibility, and authority to change. This is the morality that I speak about.

What people do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business; I am not responsible for their actions, nor do I have any power or authority to change it. Other people's personal morality is their business, not mine. I don't tread on them.

The fact that political "Christians'" idea of morality begins and ends with worrying about other people's sex lives strikes my as being nearly opposite to the essential moral teachings of Christ. Care for the poor and pick the log out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in another's eye.

"We are not racial bigots, homophobes or religious bigots we simply have,"

Some people are. You may not be personally, and your friends may not be either. But some people are. And those who are often have political and economic beliefs that align with yours.

"because of our upbringing a different opinion on how to repair what ails the country and ourselves."

Ever since Rush first started broadcasting, I've heard the word liberal used as a swear word. Since his style caught on there have been more and more voices, popular with millions of listeners, including many in my home town, falsely accusing me and others who think like me of being communist, evil, stupid, vile, and all manner of other things based on nothing more than the fact that I have a different opinion about what ails the country and ourselves.

Norm, I agree. If we disagree with the Right, we're demonized as communist, etc.

However, in fairness, those on the Right as a group have been demonized as bigots, heartless, etc.

I once heard that in a marriage, both sides can feel equally maligned, and my guess is that is what we have here.

That is, both sides feeling victimized. For my part I'm trying to figure how to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. And, which ain't easy. :)

"The charge of homophobia and racisism are the standard attack of the left..."

Annsboy, sometime homophobia and racism are in fact exactly as they appear to be, i.e., homophobia and racism.

I understand that this is generally a conservative community, and I do feel that folks should be able to post their personal opinions.

However, I don't think this should become a hate site. For me, when that happens, it's up to the WW (and the community) to call that person out.

And, especially given the changing nature of the N. Central Washington community. Homosexuals, Hispanics, Muslims, and other minorities all live here. We need to make sure that they feel welcome, and accepted.

I agree for the most part Faedrus, but here's the deal, in my opinion. We all need to remember that this is a "discussion forum". It is not a place to call names and belittle anyone, even if it is in the name of attempting to ensure that everyone "feels welcome". If we look at what we say before we post it and ask ourselves if it sounds amiable and constructive rather than the opposite, it would improve things for the entire group. It's often not the words we use that are offensive to some, but the tone in which we use them.

This recent feud between kyook and yourself is a classic example. Neither of you is trying to make constructive comment on issues so much as you are attempting to degrade the other's opinion. To be honest, I believe that tends to detract from the credibility of what you say. You both have shown a reluctance to state your point and leave it be but instead try to outdo one another by pointing out what you perceive to be error in the other's position. What is gained by that? I'm inclined to think that others who read your seemingly endless bickering comments merely tend to be turned off by it and decide not to comment on the subject rather than chance being treated with the same lack of respect.

I'm not taking sides by saying that, or claiming that one is more right than the other, I'm merely trying to point out that there is a vast difference between discussion and harangue. It seems that toning it down a bit would be beneficial to us all.

Jim, I agree, and thanks much for the suggestion. :)

Right you are, Jimbo. Sorry if I offended anyone.

I am bowing out for a while, at least until something more interesting than politics comes up.

lonedog3 12 months ago

I still think that I am correct in the thought that robert smith (John Doe?) is just a pseudonym that tim uses.

That's funny. I thought lonedog3 is the pseudonym that I use. :)

Taxguru 12 months ago

NO, not even close. Tim is conservative and understands economics, the other guy, not so much.....;)

Tax, what's the correlation between consumption, income, benefit transfers, income-producing assets, appreciating assets, depreciating assets, income taxes, capital gains tax rates, dividend tax rates, Gini Coefficients, and the Matthew Effect? ;)

Flamebike, if I ever said anything bad about you, I now take it back. You're alright. :)

Norm, I agree with your posts above. If we disagree with the Right, we're demonized as communist, etc.

Good heavens Norm! Are you using this forum to sharpen your skills as a lawyer? Ok lets tackle racism; recently Some putz on msnbc (chris matthews) asked if the Eric Holder situation was due to racism. Does it EVER occur to the left that we simply disagree with the policies of president Obama or want to give an answer to the families of the dead? do they really think whites hate blacks? he and his minions such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, (black leaders) etc,, are the biggest race pushers in the states. If whites voted for Mccain at 95% would the press ignore it as the left leaning press does with blacks? Racism runs both ways and it is easy for you to claim "republicans" are the majority of the problem when in fact you have little idea what if any percent of whites, blacks, hispanics are racists. Are there white racists? yes, are there black racists? of course, else why the 95% who voted for Obama? and why did OJ Simpson get off? Instead of claiming those who disagree with you must be racisist, homophobic, religious bigots? Perhaps you should try to understand what really drives their opinion before lumping all of us conservities in a all encompasing group. (I'll try to do the same).

Hi Jim. Any thoughts on Annsboy's note above, and constructive comments?

Well, trying to look at it objectively, his post seems reasonably civil at least. I take exception to parts of it, but we expect to see differences in opinion here, don't we? What he posts in the near future in this same thread will determine if his views are constructive or not, don't you think? I mean, simply saying that we can find racists, homophobes and bigots in every group doesn't seem out of order to me. Perhaps that's because I believe that as well, but I don't see where he was casting stones except perhaps for his opener regarding Norm sharpening his skills, and if that isn't brought up time and time again as a means of demeaning Norm, I can't find too much fault there either. Is that the answer you were expecting?

I really wasn't sure what to expect in your response. However, I think that we're all sensitive to rhetoric in our own way.

Anyway, the things that I noticed in Annsboy's note that I find unnecessarily aggressive include the following:

"...recently Some putz on msnbc (chris matthews)..."

"...he and his minions such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, (black leaders) etc,, are the biggest race pushers in the states."

"and why did OJ Simpson get off?"

In the world a lot of us live in, this is "hate site" stuff.

The response from the Right might be that those of us with more moderate viewpoints need to be less sensitive.

However, I would suggest that either we agree that both sides need to be less sensitive, or that both sides just need to tone down the rhetoric.

My personal preference would be that both sides tone down the rhetoric.

Thots? Thanks.

"My personal preference would be that both sides tone down the rhetoric."

I agree, and as I said earlier, how he follows up on those statements and whether or not he does continue to harp about them in this thread will tell us if he was off base or not. I think we have to understand that all of us do not have the same command of the language. Many can be quite eloquent in their expression of their beliefs, but there are those such as myself who struggle a bit but still wish to attempt to say what I/we think. My true belief is that a one time mention of something like the "hate site" stuff that you point out above isn't a problem so much as when people just keep hammering on it. I'm sure that I have said things that are taken wrong from time to time, but as a rule, I try to state my position and then let my statement stand alone. If I have to keep jumping in the fray to support it, then it isn't a real strong position to begin with, in my mind.

Jim, thanks for your input. I'd just politely suggest that, as someone well respected, and a bit on the conservative side, you might want to jump in from time to time, and ask some of the more conservative folks to tone it down a bit.

For example, you can see that Suz, Robbins and I were pretty taken aback by Annsboy's statement. To our ears, it was pretty harsh, and I would argue not appropriate for a site like this. Thanks.

Well Bob, my intent was never so much to ask that anyone "tone down" their opinions as it was to ask that they not argue and call one another names. As I said earlier, parts of what Annesboy had to say didn't set so well with me either, such as:
"Are there white racists? yes, are there black racists? of course, else why the 95% who voted for Obama? and why did OJ Simpson get off?" That one sort of blew in on the four winds in my mind. I agree that there are racists in every race, but I fail to see what that has to do with a supposed "95% who voted for Obama" or "why OJ got convicted". I too think that's mostly drivel. My point though is I took a wait and see if he continues to hammer on that sort of comment attitude. I really don't mean to be playing favorites, or trying to control what people can and will say, just hoping to see everyone remain civil.

Annsboy 11 months, 4 weeks ago

Ok let me explain the thought process. What would the lefts response be if whites voted for their canidate at a 95% rate when the other choice was black? Would the left give them the benifit of the doubt that they only voted that way beccause of policy? I see the race baters on the left all the time, from Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters and so on telling me we're racisist and I'm not believing it. Thay cannot believe that those of us on the right simply do not want thier socialistic, welfare state thrust on our nation. Again I could happily vote for Condie Rice, Alan West and many other qualified blacks for president but not those on the left. It's that simple.

"Good heavens Norm! Are you using this forum to sharpen your skills as a lawyer?"

No, but the fact that I like to spend so much time debating on internet forums was probably what gave me the idea of going to law school--> so that I could get paid for debating things.

"Does it EVER occur to the left that we simply disagree with the policies of president Obama or want to give an answer to the families of the dead?"

I see all sorts of attacks on Obama that have nothing to do with policy or reality that are almost certainly motivated by bigotry, but I don't think racism is the biggest part of that bigotry. I think its more of a loathing of liberals, than a loathing of black people, because I remember that the vitriol directed at Clinton was very similar, although not as strong, as the vitriol directed at Obama.

"do they really think whites hate blacks?"

Some do. Others don't. Racism exists, both within people and within systems and power structures.

"he and his minions such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, (black leaders) etc,, are the biggest race pushers in the states."

Who is the "he" here, who has minions? Anyway, JAckson, Sharpton, and others work to call attention to real problems; racism still exists, and it comes out in the way the law is (or is not) enforced.

"Racism runs both ways and it is easy for you to claim "republicans" are the majority of the problem when" in fact you have little idea what if any percent of whites, blacks, hispanics are racists."

You're right, I don't know those percentages, nor do I claim to. When I claim that republicans are the problem, I'm complaining about some policy or set of policies they support that are a problem.

Because he's rich.

"Instead of claiming those who disagree with you must be racisist, homophobic, religious bigots?"

I rarely call those who disagree with me any of those things, but if when I do, its based on something they've said that is bigoted in some way.

"Perhaps you should try to understand what really drives their opinion before lumping all of us conservities in a all encompasing group. (I'll try to do the same)."

Yes, that is the best approach. It also works with foreigners.

robbins 12 months ago

"are there black racists? of course, else why the 95% who voted for Obama?"

Are you claiming that a black voter casting a ballot for a black candidate is an inherently racist act?

I think he is.

Noi but some in the black community voted for Obama due in part to his race. I suspect some (white and black) got caught up in the fever of demonstrating to the world we were over our past racism and voted for a rock star who had no real experience, voted "present" to hide his true beliefs. This type of behavior happened on the OJ Simpson trial with people saying he was innocent though the evidence clearly demonstrated his guilt. We see the same things in the Travon Martin shooting (however that sorry situatuion turns out) with Blacks alinged on his defense and whites for Zimmerman before any actual evidence is allowed to come out. I have no idea what the truth is but to have a black congressman, Al Sharpton and the rest of the race pushers out adding gasoline to the fire is not what our nation needs. I think most of us at least wanted the president to suceed in bringing us closer as a nation of diversity, how has he done with that? No need to reply we all know the answer.

Anssboy, conversely from what I can tell -

Kyook, Tim, Lonedog, Taxguru, and a few others who often write on this site are not likely to vote for Obama.

Does this mean that they are therefore also racist?

Listening to some on the left, yes. Do I choose not to vote for Obama due to his race? of course not. I would have been over joyed to vote for a qualified black man if he held most of my views.

grecoehs73 12 months ago

What does this have to do with the immigration? Every subject run's of course, but you people have taken one issue and turned into another. Almost everyone migrated to this country for one reason, to better themselves and their families.To be able to worship or not as they see fit. To say other wise is foolish.Most are not the enemy you believe, but hard working people from more then just Mexico. They are from countries all over the globe.You can no more stop them then the tide of the ocean. They will come to this country because they still see us as a beacon of hope in this world.

Faedrus 11 months, 4 weeks ago

"They will come to this country because they still see us as a beacon of hope in this world."

And, because the US provides them with work. The US economy was so strong over the last 20 years that it hired about 12 million illegals, because the local labor pool wasn't large enough.

My understanding is that the WA fruit industry alone needs about 140,000 pickers each year, most of whom have been illegal in the last forty years.

So, if we don't want them to come, we need to stop hiring them. Or, if we need them as labor - which I believe is closer to the truth - we need to stop demonizing them.

Flamebike, as far back as the early 80s, all of our fulltime orchard workers (except one), and all of our pickers were illegals from Mexico.

The border was so open, that the illegals would go back to Mexico after harvest in October, tell me that the would me back on June 1 to get ready for cherry harvest, and sure enough would be back by June 1, just like clockwork.

As far as the guest worker program, I personally don't know anyone who has used it, and I know a lot of growers.

In the meantime, I spend a lot of time in Southern California, speak Spanish, and so speak to a lot to local hotel workers. Often, they're illegal.

Basically, they're here because American businesses hire them. They often do the work that native-born American workers don't want to do, work harder, and will do so for less money.

So, as I mentioned a few times on this string (I think), if we don't want illegal workers to enter the country, make it a felony to hire them, and with a ten year minimum sentence. Problem solved. :)

Flamebike, I mentioned in a previous post (but don't know whether you saw it) that I was raised seven miles north of the US/Mexican border, y eso es un razon porque hablo Espanol (i.e., "and that's one reason why I speak Spanish").

I've lived for a number of years in two different border states, and my father presently lives in Arizona. I also lived in Latin America for a few years, and worked directly in Mexico. And, I managed orchards in Central Washington for a number of years as well.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that there are about 12 million illegals in the US now, most of them are Hispanic, and most are going to stay.

Many of them are working in industries which depend on them, including agriculture, hotels/motels, construction, and the meat packing industry.

With this in mind, my thinking is that we should do all we can to educate illegal aliens, and especially their children, to the highest extent possible, just like every other one else.

Hispanics are about 14% of the US population, and growing. My suggestion is that we accept it, and manage US policy, educational and otherwise, accordingly.

Thanks. :)

"Listening to some on the left, yes. Do I choose not to vote for Obama due to his race? of course not. I would have been over joyed to vote for a qualified black man if he held most of my views."

Annsboy, with all due respect, I just don't think you can have it both ways. That is, I don't think you can say that blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because they're racists -

But that whites aren't also overwhelmingly supporting Romney because he's white. In other words, that black votes are driven by racism, but that whites aren't.

Here's what I think is primarily happening. Blacks tend to support Democrats, and whites (especially white men) ten to support Republicans.

So, I think that's what you're seeing, rather than racism. Granted, racism might exists, but I don't think that's driving the polling numbers.

Annsboy, with all due respect, your post above, in using terms such as "race pushers", is racist. Also -

"...with Blacks alinged on his defense and whites for Zimmerman before any actual evidence is allowed to come out."

This is a generalization, and is not correct. I'm white, and from the evidence I've seen, Zimmerman appears to be guilty of 2nd degree murder, in my view.

"I think most of us at least wanted the president to suceed in bringing us closer as a nation of diversity, how has he done with that?"

I'll answer your question with a question: In your postings on the WW, how have you done that, i.e., brought the nation closer? Or, are you asking Obama to do something that you've declined to do?

That is, is there maybe just a tinge of double-standard in these postings?

I can now lump you in with Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton and the rest of those seeing racisim in a dry bread crust. You are just like the rest of us giving your opinion, nothing more. You haven't lived with racism, or religious bigotry as far as I can tell or you wouldn't post the nonsense you do all while claiming those who have a different life experience therefore must be bigots or homophobes. I don't know you and vs/vs so I will give you the benifit of the doubt and say we simply disagree. Having said that, I have hired Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Gays, Evangelicals, Catholics, Athiests etc... I don't give a darn as long as they perform the task given them, why the left has to bring up racisim all the time demonstrates they have too much time on their hands or they benifit from it (Jess Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters etc..) But let the black man off the reservation and he becomes a target of the establishment. Such men and women as Alan West, Clarence Thomas, Condie Rice and others who are told they can't vote Republican and be considered Black!

Hiring people different from you is not the same as treating those same people with respect in a public forum, such as this one.

We've already seen that you don't treat Muslims with respect. We can now also include Chris Mathews, and black leaders, whose political views differ from your own.

Annsboy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

And you don't treat Mormons with respect. Christians with respect, Republicans with respect....need I go on? Your recent behavior is just as bad as Tims, mine or anyone elces on the site so lighten up on the sensitivity and claims of racism since you haven't a clue what your talking about with regard to individuals on this site.

Faedrus 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Annsboy, we've been over this again and again.

You want a free pass to malign whatever group you are unhappy with at the moment, and then when someone asks questions about your particular religion, you claim prejudice.

And then, you say that we all mistreat people on this site anyway, so it's all the same.

Actually, it's not all the same. I have serious concerns about what you write on this site, and am constantly amazed that the WW allows it.

Sign in to comment

Or login with:

OpenID