RNC Chairman Sen. Martinez Blasts Immigration Bill Foes
If you thought the era of bad feelings within the GOP was over with the defeat of White House supported bipartisan immigration bill by opponents that included a good chunk of the Republican party’s base, you may be wrong:
The Chairman of the Republican Party on Friday lambasted Democrats and Republicans who helped kill an immigration bill in the Senate and challenged them to come up with a solution beyond “just build a fence along the border.”
“The voices of negativity now have a responsibility to come up with an answer,” RNC Chairman and U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla. said.
So you now have the RNC Chair blasting other Repuublicans — which should make for a day or two of fiery rhetoric on conservative talk shows Monday and should raise some eyebrows and generate some posts among conservative blogggers. MORE:
“How will you fix the situation to make peoples’ lives better? How will you continue to grow the economy? How will we bring people out of the shadows for our national security and for the sake of being a country that is just?” he demanded.
Martinez spoke during a gathering of more than 1,000 Hispanic officials from across the country at Disney World, a day after the immigration bill’s Senate supporters fell short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate and clear the way for its final passage.
Martinez promised to work with members of the U.S. House of Representatives to try to revive the legislation, a measure the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials supports.
Bottom line: all the fireworks that go off may not be on the 4th of July. It’s likely that there will be a clamor among some for Martinez to step down.
43 Responses to “RNC Chairman Sen. Martinez Blasts Immigration Bill Foes”
This can’t be good for the Republican party. Bush’s goal in appointing Martinez in the first place was to bring more Hispanic voters into the fold. That goal is now DOA. Whatever else you want to say about him, Bush understands the need for diversity within the party, which is made up mostly of white Christian southerners. This vote will push more Latinos into the Democratic camp, and will hurt the GOP in national races in ’08.
I forgot to add that no one from here on out should doubt the raw power of Conservative talk radio, which more than any other factor led to the defeat of the immigration bill. We saw this phenomena earlier with the Dubai Ports deal- talk radio is a powerful entity unto itself.
Well, in general it’s nothing other than non-liberal public opinion, and I wonder how powerful it is now as compared to several years ago, not only because there are few powerful liberal or Democratic individuals who draw widespread opposition (this will have to wait until after Hillary Clinton returns to the White House), but also because many of us tire of the loud voices and one-way conversations (which was even more true for some of what was on Air America than some conservative shows — I was still listening when I could hear childish Stephanie Miller or mentally ill Randi Rhodes, gripey Al Franken, Jeanine Garafalo and her nut-case male colleague, etc.). I haven’t listened as a rule for two-plus years to any conservative radio show no matter how much time I’m on the road. I tired of the cheap shots and the loudness and often self-centeredness by the host. Nor do I watch any teevee, so I’ve avoided the stupid, elitist East Coast talking heads and the competing-barking-dog interruption contests such as McLaughlin or multiple interviewees on TV shows that feature multiple guests at once, like Hannity and Colmes.
NPR is sappy and downright unprofessional (“Morning Edition”; “All Things Considered”) and is tough to listen to frequently with its frequent bias (misuse of public funds!), but it’s easier to take than the loudest talk shows (which are like sports talk — truly low-class loud). Smarmy (and worse) is easier to take than loud (and sometimes worse).
Do you realize, K., that the US public at large, not merely talk show listeners, did not like this bill and want more meaningful immigration reform, and they resent the lies and slander about their goals and their character? (Not that you’re guilty of the latter, but others are.)
Mel Wants A Solution
Senator and RNC chair Mel Martinez apparently had a temper tantrum yesterday in his home state of Florida after the collapse of the immigration reform bill. He angrily challenged the bill’s opponents to come up with their own plan, saying…
He is lying as well as engaging in emotive nonsense. The public was negative because the bill was bad. The public has long advocated reforms; there is no “responsibility” [sic] to come up with anything.
The business community, which wants to exploit imported labor, not merely ease future labor shortages, is simply complaining through a mouthpiece named Martinez.
Senator and RNC chair Mel Martinez apparently had a temper tantrum yesterday in his home state of Florida after the collapse of the immigration reform bill. He angrily challenged the bill’s opponents to come up with their own plan, saying…
I have posted my plan which is workable and is favored heavily by most of those who are on the fence, which in effect would put a workable bill into play.
Here it is AGAIN:
This bill should be broken up into 4 parts and tackled after each part is accomplished.
1.) Enforce current immigration laws and develop a national ID system of back ground checks and begin Legalizing current immigrants IF they pass a background check and kicking them out if they do not. Pass legislation that allows guest worker numbers to increase from 165,000 per year now to 450,000 per year which adjusts yearly on a sliding scale. In other words if only 400,000 return their visas then next year allow only 400,000 guest workers into the country.
2.) Build a fence and hire guards to enforce the drug and human trafficking issues. The drug cartels in Mexico are killing more people daily in Mexico then any terrorists are killing daily in Iraq. During this phase then current legalized immigrants and permanent residents can then petition for the admittance of their family members into the USA.
3.) Once these issues are resolved, in place and working we can then pass legislation that addresses hiring ILLEGALS. IE. punish employers and Landlords for not hiring or housing only legal immigrants. Enforcement of the use of the national ID carried only by non citizens. National ID goes away once they become US citizens.
4.) Once that is working fairly smoothly then address the needs for changing the current numbers of immigrants to meet the needs of an expanding and growing economy.
Agreeing on this format in order will make sure that the speed in which each of these items is implemented will increase so that each political base gets what they want~!
[...] their own plan, saying the “voices of negativity” had to start offering solutions (via TMV): The Chairman of the Republican Party on Friday lambasted Democrats and Republicans who helped [...]
DLS- I’m actually not taking a position for or against the bill, because I don’t believe that I understand its complexities or the complexities of the problem. But, the grass roots movement that defeated it sprung from talk radio hosts, who were adamantly against it, and urged their listeners to take action (also Lou Dobbs’ show demagogued the issue). Even Senator Lott, who initially supported the compromise, blamed talk radio for raising public outrage. Two years ago, who even knew much about illegal immigration?
A lot of people here comment that its irresponsible for the left to want to withdraw from Iraq without discussing the consequences. Here the bill was defeated without anything of substance put in its place. It doesn’t do anything to make the problem disappear or to protect American jobs to do nothing.
K. Ritter:
The bill is huge — that alone should disqualify it.
The problem should be simplified. We need to control future immigration, we need to reform from the 1960s-era-feel-good “family reunification” system to an individual-evaluation and points system (which so many other nations have), punish those who are hiring illegal aliens, and divide or perform triage on all the illegals currently here. Criminals and other unfit ones should be deported, and the rest can be set on the road to citizenship.
Also needed is reform of “birthright citizenship” (which has long been abused) and more radical would be deportation of more aliens than listed above, or all aliens here illegally. I believe that is too costly or impractical and long term the most important objective is to control (and reduce or stop) future immigration while we get a handle on everything else. There necessarily wouldn’t be a need to stop all immigration forever (which would be radical); many who come here do fine but are somewhat invisible, while others who come here are either criminals or are a drain by using public services.
Also more tough would be strict job restrictions in addition to border access controls, which would eliminate the large “pull factor” in this country, jobs, which is a greater pull factor than public services and “birthright citizenship” coupled with “family reunification.” Don’t let many or any aliens work here at all and that gets rid of the big draw. This is not what I would seek but is certainly a possibility; other nations can be very harsh about eligibility to work. They want their own citizens to be employed!
??? Huge numbers of us did! OK, if you didn’t live in the Southwest, you wouldn’t have been aware of it, say, 20 years ago, as everyone in California was…
It doesn’t do anything to make the problem disappear or to protect American jobs to do nothing.
But alternatives have long, long, long been advocated and sought, by the majority in this country (beginning with access control along the Mexican border, screening of aliens here, deporting at least the most undesireable, like criminals followed by long-term unemployed). They have been advocated and sought for several years. They simply have been rejected, both by the Democrats, who want as many immigrants as possible, not just to feel good about hosting all who wish to come here, but to get as many new votes as they can, not only with minorities who feel more welcomed by the Democrats in general, but also by those who receive public benefits, an obviously Democratic contrivance in this country; and by the Republicans, whose most powerful special interest group has been the business community, which welcomes not only illegal immigrants to exploit (though they won’t officially support anything illegal), but large legal immigration, because it lowers labor costs.
What you have seen for years, a decade, two decades, even, has been Washington’s ignoring what the majority of the public wants in favor of what their party leaderships and special interests want.
The bill is huge — that alone should disqualify it.
Believe it or not I am about 2/3rds of the way thru reading it.
Let me put summarize:
Build a fence and hire guards….but to get the other side to agree increase immigration to massive amounts….100,000,000 in the next 20 years.
Set quotas….sounds reasonable till you look at them.
Put triggers into effect that will NEVER be met, thus the bill will just fall apart on its own while drastically increasing immigration.
National ID but not for those here now. Thats too hard. But we will start ID’ing the new immigrants….this one makes me laugh. We cant ID the 10,000,000 here now but we can ID the 100,000,000 that will come?????
There are some good points to this bill. Reuniting of families but all in all the bill is just mindboggling complex and it really needs to be put together in 4 parts which I listed above. Do it in steps. This is a massive problem and it cannot be solved with one be all end all bill.
Once our congress realizes this and narrows the scope of their debate to workable solutions that then build upon one another they can effectively create a sound and wonderful bill that meets everyones expectations and solves this problem without anyone being a bigot. ON either side.
Total population of Mexico: approx. 109 million.
So, according to Somebody, the purpose of the immigration bill is to get nearly the entire country of Mexico to immigrate to the United States.
Um, riiiiiiiiiiiight……….
Gawd Jason.
Why is everyone so hung up on Mexico. There are 198 other countries Immigrating people to the USA.
Ok then, would you please offer a breakdown of the probable sources and proportions of 100 million figure that you claim so that we can assess your argument better?
For that matter, can you provide the analysis that led you to the 100 million number in the first place? Please make sure to specify exactly how you controlled for future variations in economic and social as well as political and legal incentives facing potential immigrants.
Martinez is absolutely right.
The failure of reaching a compromise on Immigration reform leaves all the problems we had, pluts all the problems will just get bigger with each year of inaction.
Deling with immipration in step-by-step pieces just means warfare at each step. Trying to achieve something for one side, without something to balance it for the other side just ensures embittered opposition, at each step.
It was talk radio and Lou Dobbs yelling ‘amnesty’ day in and day out that killed the bill.
Those without equal access to the airwaves lost their free speech rights on the issue, and they lost the chance for moderation and compromise to be the guiding principle for the nation.
Some people just cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas under current law each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million.
The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants.
The bill changes the law so that the total quota on secondary family members would be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase in the number of immigrants under this provision would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years.
The bill would increase the number of employment-based visas from 140,000 to 450,000 per year and For the first time, it would also exempt the spouses and children of workers from the cap. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons.
CIRA would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the guest worker program in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20 percent per year. the total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years.
Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number of entrants would be 24 million over 20 years.
The number of spouses and children who would enter the U.S. as a result of amnesty would be at least six million.
Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents who would enter the U.S. as permanent legal residents as a result of CIRA would be around five million
Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years.
No one can figure the economic repercussions of the future but if things remain constant then this is the potential immigration that will result from this bill
You make a serious error in your calculations on the guest worker program as you assume that every participant year-to-year would be a unique individual. In reality, many if not most of these workers and family members would be repeat participants.
Since your calculations in this area account for 44% of your total claim of 100 million, the effect of this error in exaggerating the number is substantial.
Furthermore, since you include amnesty recipients in your claim of 100 million new immigrants, you exaggerate your number by counting the people that are already here as coming in the next 20 years.
In short, because of this and several other errors, your claim is based on very poor methodology and is an unsuitable basis for any serious discussion of the issue of immigration.
Good job Jason. This entire debate has been diluted with made up figures and statistics.
And I wonder. Why now?
The number of immigrants in the guest worker program will be driven by employer demand. The bill allows the number of H-2C visas to increase by 20 percent per year; this level of growth would result in an extraordinary 60 million guest workers in the U.S. over the next twenty years. I assumed the number of immigrants in the guest worker program would increase at a more moderate rate of 10 percent per year.
Guest worker Visas fall into several categories. Since 1985, over 17 million visas have been issued to allow aliens to work in the United States. These non
immigrant visas, or NIV, are company sponsored visas that use a variety of different names including H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, J-1, L-1, and TN.
The focus of this bill was to match up employers with immigrants. Thus the people would NOT be returning home because given the new Immigration bill they can remain here 4 years before applying for permanent residence. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GO HOME.
These are the powerline worker visas, IT, Computer Tech, Doctors, Lawyers etc. They also take into account the Melon Pickers that everyone seems to be focused upon. That is why the increase in Guest worker Visas was so important in this bill. Because squeezing out the Melon pickers in place of the Drs. and Lawyers was hindering Businesses from getting their crops to market.
And No the 10 million granted amnesty that are already here are not counted twice in my numbers. But even so then make that 93 million instead of 103 million.
Somebody,
Even if we overlook your continuing methodological errors (assuming maximum utilization of every program AND assuming that all participants in all categories will be unique individuals AND assuming zero overlap, I am left with the following question: so what?
The fact is that Europe and Japan are in decline because of a crippling labor shortage brought on by an aging population and restrictive immigration policies. The only chance the U.S. has to avoid a similar labor shortage and a budget collapse under the weight of intractable social programs like Social Security is to bring in large numbers of immigrants over the “next 20 years”. You sneer at businesses getting their crops to market as if it was some kind of rent-seeking special interest, but I think that’s a pretty good thing when I want affordable food.
In light of that fact, the concoction of scare statistics like “100 million” seems suspicious. It is not an argument in itself and seems designed to provoke an emotional reaction rather than draw a logical conclusion. It is, in short, similar to Michelle Malkin’s attempt to frame the issue in terms of an “invasion”. But such characterizations presume that immigrants are some how bad for the people already here. No evidence has been presented on that point, though “superdestroyer” has posted comments indicating that all brown people are criminals. Is your objection to large-scale immigration based on similar grounds or would you like to offer a different scenario? Is your objection to “100 million” social, cultural, or economic? Please explain and justify specific scenarios, using evidence rather than conjecture or stereotypes, if you don’t mind.
The way I see it, immigration is just another aspect of the same globalization processes that have enriched the American economy immeasurably in the last 30 years. I don’t see the anti-immigration (and yes, your comments in opposition to increased legal immigration indicates that this is about anti-immigration, not just anti-illegal immigration) case as yet, in spite of repeated requests of anti-immigration activists to do something more than bloviate wildly.
What a load of crap. The pro-business tax policies of this administration have sent way more–and way better–jobs overseas than those taken by unskilled agricultural and factory workers from Mexico. The “opponents” have no responsibility except to say “not good enough”. Like every other problem facing America, the failure to fix immigration policy is the responsibility of the party that has had control of all three branches of government since the turn of the Millennium. Every failure of the last 7 years belongs to the Republicans. The voters know it.
Such partisan framings are politically useful in elections for appealing to a poorly informed electorate, but are woefully inadequate as the basis for policymaking.
Anyone who has studied globalization knows that labor and trade flows accelerated WAY before January 20th, 2001. Ross Perot even made this the centerpiece of his campaign in 1992. And Clinton was one of the best promoters of economic globalization we have ever had — way more effective at it than Bush. It was Clinton, not Bush, that put the institutional infrastructure in place for outsourcing and globalization: NAFTA, GATT –> WTO, etc.
The funny thing is that the Democrats could take credit for globalization rather than fighting it, if only they would wise up.
This is, of course, bunk from a policymaking perspective. To expect that only saying “not good enough” is reason enough to give voters legitimate reason to prefer your leadership over the status quo is a recipe for paralysis — it is always easier to criticize than to propose and if the burden on the opposition is solely to whine and complain about every proposal, well, every proposal will look like garbage and nothing will ever get done no matter who is in charge.
In truth, the above line is usually a “red flag” for “I don’t have any ideas of my own, but I know yours suck because I hate you”. It’s not particularly good for making policies that deal with actual problems.
I don’t see the anti-immigration (and yes, your comments in opposition to increased legal immigration indicates that this is about anti-immigration, not just anti-illegal immigration)
Is your objection to large-scale immigration based on similar grounds or would you like to offer a different scenario?
case as yet, in spite of repeated requests of anti-immigration activists to do something more than bloviate wildly.
See my post number 6 above Jason.
I bloviated my bill. What have you done lately other then to just call those of us opposed to this travesty “Bigots.”
I have laid out an entire position paper in this post and all I get from it is that Im an implied anti immigration Bigot.
Great quote Jason. This is exactly what you have been doing to me. You are very good at it.
it is always easier to criticize than to propose and if the burden on the opposition is solely to whine and complain about every proposal, well, every proposal will look like garbage and nothing will ever get done no matter who is in charge.
You offer a plan in #6 (one with many practical problems) but no reason that it should be adopted. Why should immigration be restricted to the low numbers you suggest in the first place? Your plan never addresses this prior question.
In short, nice job of the always-annoying “playing gotcha” by cross-posting an irrelevant comment from another thread, but you’re still not dealing with the challenge you face on THIS thread.
Bottom line: What is wrong with large-scale immigration? What is wrong with “amnesty”? What is wrong even with “100 million” as you claim the current bill would allow?
I’m not saying your answers to these questions are based in bigotry, but I know some people’s are. So I’m pressing you to answer them fully and completely before I draw conclusions about where you are coming from.
Currently we allow 955,000 immigrants into the United States. In addition we allow 145,000 Guest workers into the United States. It is estimated that a number around 455,000 have entered illegally. Thus the numbers 455,000 in addition to enforcing current law. In addition this is a starting point.
Something for debate, discussion and revision. My program is not etched in stone, nor should it be. But at least I have proposed something as a starting point. You have proposed nothing except once again………..Criticism.
Jason Do you even know anything about our Immigration policy? Or are you just so absorbed with trying to out debate me that your brain turns to mush?
I will concede right here and now. Jason is a better debater then I am. He is good. He is intelligent and he is wise. I am humbled to be in his presence.
Now can we have a discussion of the issues instead of trying to have a college debate?
The reason I reposted my comment on the other thread is because this isn’t a debate trick, it is the core of the issue. Your claim is that legalization would result in a more “intrusive” government. It is essential to a discussion in ANY forum (college debate or academic classroom or political blog) to establish what your definition of “intrusiveness” is that you are using.
My point is that your definition is absurd. Intrusion is not measured by counting number of regulations, but rather by assessing the significance of limits on personal freedom. And a ban is a much more significant limit than any other regulation.
Also, just FYI, the method I was using to make this criticism of your argument does not, in fact, derive from my experience in college debate. In fact, I found college debaters that made your particular error and others far worse quite commonly. The points I have been making are methodological, drawn from a post-graduate career in social sciences rather than from my undergraduate career in debate competition. So there.
Now, as for THIS thread, I simply repeat my prior question about why your limits are even desirable. Please stop trying to attack me personally (oddly by constantly referencing something that I am actually proud of and by exploiting your anonymity to do so from a position of unfair advantage even if I was embarrassed by it) and simply answer the questions.
P.S. Do you think you are the first person to discover Google?
What if those were 100,000,000 Fundamentalist Muslims from the middle east coming to America for jobs and the land of opportunity?
100,000,000 Muslims who believed they were Muslims first and then Americans. Who wanted to pray 5 times a day and you know…….all the usual stuff associated with Muslim fundamentalists.
What if they built 10,000 Mosques and the people went to them and listen to the Immans preaching their fatwahs and their hate and their discuss for western Values. What if we elected 60 senators who were Fundamental Muslims???
What then?
Or what if the 100,000,000 Were all straight and hated Gays and were homophobes? Or what if they were all Conservatively Social Christians coming to America?
What Then?
I believe in realistic immigration quotas because I believe that the integrity of America should be preserved. I do not care what their skin color, or their religion as long as one thing above all else is maintained.
The Integrity of the American dream which is?
Liberty for all.
This bill would open the flood gates and the country would be unable to assimilate its citizens. Europe is wrestling with this problem. America can choose not to.
I am not opposed to immigration. I am only opposed to this bill which would and could:
Theoretically allow 100,000,000 Muslims into our country in 20 years. Or 100,000,000 Conservative Social Christians, or Gay haters, Or Drug Addicts or pick your poison.
In theory the numbers in this bill are possible. I pointed out how.
And aint google wonderful.
If they weren’t associated with al-Qaeda or similar groups, I couldn’t care less if they are Muslim Arabs or Catholic Mexicans. But I take it that your concern is cultural — in short, you buy Huntington’s argument that the numbers and lack of assimilation of current immigrants is (1) historically unique and (2) a threat to American national identity.
I disagree with both points of Huntington’s argument (as I am prone to do with many of Huntington’s arguments, actually). I don’t think that the immigrants we are talking about constitute any threat to American national identity (which is not based on ethnicity or religion anyway) nor to I think that there is any evidence that they won’t assimilate just like previous generations of immigrants like the Irish, Italians, or whatever. The number “100 million” doesn’t scare me — these are just people looking for jobs. Europe’s failure to assimilate is largely because they have laws that deny citizenship opportunities or which empower reactionary elements within immigrant communities with pseudo-legal powers independent of the state. The United States has a much greater ability to assimilate immigrants because it has a tradition of allowing a path to citizienship (the most powerful tool of assimilation possible).
Also, hidden in your asking rhetorical questions about Muslims is the fact that you STILL haven’t identified any actual scenario about what would actually be bad about 100 million or whatever immigrants. You’re obviously expecting me to read some valid concern between the lines because you don’t want to say it straight out. Think again. What kind of “liberties” would be lost, in your opinion? How exactly would that happen?
With your cartoonish examples about gay haters and fundamentalist Muslims, you seem to assume that these immigrants will in some way be hostile to traditional American notions but you offer no evidence that this would actually be the case. Historically, the evidence is very strongly against your position, so you have a substantial burden of proof that you need to meet.
There is no evidence that incoming immigrants would be fundamentalist Muslims, gay haters, or drug addicts. Thus, you still haven’t answered a question of what would be wrong with even 100 million immigrants in 20 years. TRY AGAIN.
Finally, congratulations that you were able to find out that I once was a champion debater and still help run a championship debate tournament. I’m at a loss as to how you thought that was a bad thing. In fact, 10 years of competing, judging, and coaching gave me a very solid ability to identify a bad argument in ANY forum. And yours thus far on this issue is really, really bad.
The fact is that Europe and Japan are in decline because of a crippling labor shortage brought on by an aging population and restrictive immigration policies. The only chance the U.S. has to avoid a similar labor shortage and a budget collapse under the weight of intractable social programs like Social Security is to bring in large numbers of immigrants over the “next 20 yearsâ€.
Well said Jason. You must have read my book.
This begs the question of policy. Does this not go to the heart of the problem which is for a government to encourage Procreation so that a nation can grow numerically?
Does this not bespeak of the need to reexamine our immigration policy as opposed to just willy nilly opening the flood gates to prevent budgetary crisis?
Should we not be examining alternatives other then just opening the gates and letting them all into our country? The crisis lies not in the looming shortage. The crisis lies in the inability of this nation to address it logically and with reasonable policies.
Any policy that derives its strength from things that it cannot control is a policy waiting to fail. When we as a nation address our budgetary deficits and inability to pay our bills by focusing on allowing immigration into our country then we as a nation have totally lost control of our own destiny.
This is the crux of why I argue against massive Immigration. It begs a failed policy in which this country loses control of her own destiny and puts it in the hands of 198 other countries.
Perhaps. I did read a book that discussed this topic and pro-natalist policies recently. If you actually are Mark Steyn, perhaps you could stop playing coy and just be open about it. After all, you Google’d me and reciprocity as to one’s own identity seems the very minimum of courtesy and integrity.
Yes, I’ve been supporting a reexamination of immigration policy consistently. If you are Mark Steyn or one of his adherents, where we differ is in defining the goal of that immigration policy. I prefer to have as open a borders as is consistent with security because doing so is economically most efficient. Accordingly, I support background checks and I am open to the idea of physical security measures IF someone can convince me that they would be effective. But I’m not willing to just put the whole issue on hold until the “enforce the border!” people take two decades to figure out that perfect physical security is not possible.
And this is the part where I see zero evidence again. The idea that people are a threat to national identity merely because they are outsiders is an argument from prejudice, not evidence. Huntington’s argument and, to a lesser extent, Steyn’s, seems to me xenophobia with an academic veneer.
But if you really are Steyn, please just come straight out with it so we can continue this discussion in a more direct fashion after I have a more stable and complete account of what your entire position is from having read (listened to, actually) your book.
If you are Mark Steyn, please contact me by email at tutakai on gmail dot com and perhaps we can arrange to have a more complete public debate on this issue than is possible on a mere comments thread.
Jason Steck is Resident Instructor in Political Science and International Relations at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. In his research and writing, he focuses on civil-military relations as well as the coexistence of conflict and cooperation in international security relations. Prior to his graduate education at the University of Minnesota, he served for 15 years in the United States Air Force, including 5 years at the United States Strategic Command. As a self-proclaimed “militant moderateâ€, Jason specializes in discussions on the nature and core principles of moderate politics and the role that centrism can play in redressing an increasingly polarized political culture. His residence also bridges the red-state/blue-state chasm, concurrently living in Omaha and in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Sorry I didnt google you. This is listed on the side bar in the about TMV’s authors. I have nothing but respect for you as a college professor and former Air force officer.
Oh sorry I didnt realize that being a professor you would take that seriously about the book….I meant that as a slang verbage….My apologies.
My bio said nothing about college debate. Clearly, you did a bit more research than just on the sidebar.
I’m disappointed, actually, as I had thought that you might be Mark Steyn and we could have a real debate about his book “America Alone” wherein he makes arguments very similar to some of yours.
BTW, I was enlisted in the USAF, not an officer. There are very few of us who become academics, so the assumption is understandable, albeit unfortunate.
Sorry man you are the one that jumped all over this Mark Steyn thing. I just coyly threw out that “read my book thing.”
To continue. If you have read my posts. I also advocate an open border. No fence. No increase in border guards and no massive budgetary hit to bring this bill into effect. Estimates have ranged from 45 billion to over 100 billion dollars on this thing.
I believe in amnesty for all those who can pass a background check because I do not want some other countries wife beaters or child molestors in my country.
I believe that as a government we must retain control of our borders and we do this through internal policies that reflect outwardly in a show of strength and unity.
I believe the only way a bill that deals with this immigration issue has to be passed in parts because the whole is just to Immense and overwhelming for a single bill to adequately address the core issue which is Economic.
No Jason you and I had one other debate here in which you mentioned that.
I think your quote was something along the lines of I teach even my debate team this that or the other. I forget now but it was actually a pretty impressive quote……cant you tell…..I remember it clearly………..:)
We’re not that far off. I think you see more of an underlying cultural threat from lack of assimilation than I am willing to grant. The reason I thought you might be Mark Steyn is because he makes very much the same argument, including the pro-natalist reference.
BTW, I was enlisted in the USAF, not an officer. There are very few of us who become academics, so the assumption is understandable, albeit unfortunate.
That is okay. More Impressive.
Im just nobody who promoted himself to somebody. But honestly I respect you for your stand on at least moderate values. Hard to find moderates on a college campus these days.
Since you have me at a disadvantage identity-wise and since we may share some interests, I would appreciate it if you contacted me by email even though you are not Mark Steyn.
So just to sum up what I believe.
This bill failed not because it was bigoted but because people via the internet are becoming smarter and more informed.
It failed for 3 reasons.
It fails to address the economic impact that massive immigration will have in this country.
It failed because it fails to address the social aspects of assimilating people into this culture in a timely and creative fashion.
And it failed because we have elements in this country who are very paranoid about our open borders. The solution was to fence in part of the border in exchange for massive amounts of immigration. Amnesty was a 4 letter word.
While Jason does not agree with me that does not alter the fact that there are many many who do. Obviously more agree with me then HIM….nah, nah, nah. Opponents of this bill fall into any one of the three groups and are both conservative and liberal, democratic and republican and even some UNIONS failed to get behind this bill.
I believe in Open borders. I believe in limiting immigration to an amount that forces this nation to address its economic problems without using other nations populations to solve our woes. I believe in amnesty and I believe that immigrants are good people looking for a life but I also believe that all Immigrants should be Americans first and then Whatever.
Until our congress can deal with these issues one at a time then I fear there will never be a solution. So again I encourage our congress to look at approaching our Immigration reform in a manner which respects both sides of the equation. One step at a time until the problem is solved or at least addressed.
Does anyone see the irony in a guy named MARTINEZ not supporting an immigration bill?
Mel Martinez is way out of line and should be summarily dismissed. Instead of trying to ram an incredibly bad and overly complicated bill down our throats, he and GWB whould have been focusing on educating the Hispanic citizens about the immigration issues. I have never been able to understand why any Hispanic or other citizen would place loyalty to race or ethnicity above loyalty to America and the national interest. I don’t understand why citizens of any stripe insist on an all or nothing bill and will take up with the democrat party to get their way. They know not what they do. They will end up re-creating the very conditions, culture, etc. they left their homelands to escape. Economic growth based solely on unfettered population growth is unustainable. The limit of finite resources divided by population as population increases without bounds is zero.
. Economic growth based solely on unfettered population growth is unustainable. The limit of finite resources divided by population as population increases without bounds is zero.
Sadly many people do not understand this. They are convinced that opening the flood gates will keep the economic expansion rolling forever with no day of reckoning.