Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (19348)	5/22/2006 2:39:44 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541348

Gosh, it's sad when people take cheap shots at vigilantes. I feel their pain. Tres amusante

To: Lane3 who wrote (19348)	5/22/2006 11:50:59 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541348

Couple of interesting points in this blog item--the Swift-Boating irony and Gandleman's experience from the last round of immigration reform. There doesn't seem to be much out there on the latter. I keep wondering why. It seems to me that we have an excellent object lesson there that we are ignoring. Is President George W. Bush Being "Swift-Boated" On Immigration? by Joe Gandelman The irony of ironies from Poliblogger Steven Taylor: The paranoia of elements of the anti-immigration movement has now hit a new level. Jerome Corsi, one of the co-authors of Unfit for Command (the anti-Kerry book by Swift Book Veterans for Truth) has entered the fray....I have noted some of his writing online recently, but have largely ignored them. However, his current piece at Human Events requires comment, as it underscores a deep xenophobia that seems to permeate segments of those opposed to immigration/immigration reform: A North American Union to Replace the United States of America? Taylor then offers this quote from Corsi: President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration’s true open borders policy. Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada. There's a LOT more. Read Taylor's post — fittingly titled "When Swift Boaters Come Home To Roost" — IN FULL. It underscores again the growing split within conservative ranks — over an issue that some assumed would be a wonderful Republican wedge-issue to use against Democrats. PERSONAL NOTE: I covered the Ronald Reagan administration's immigration program in the 1980s as my main job as staff reporter on the San Diego Union newspaper. Even then immigration reform was an extremely complex issue. Reagan did not face smooth-sailing on all aspects of his plan. The word "amnesty" was used and it was an unabashed amnesty. The concept was to have increased border security, offer an amnesty to people who were already here and who met certain qualifications, and impose tough employer sanctions against hiring illegal aliens. It seemed to be a solid concept and was considered a landmark development. Administration officials and its regional officials (such as the always quotable Harold Ezelle of the INS, who I interviewed often) had detailed, periodic press conferences, explaining the amnesty, efforts to beef up border security, etc. There was a massive, thorough info operation. Government officials were always available to talk to reporters. Employer sanctions? There were a few high profile raids but in the end it turned out they were never really enforced. Why? The operative belief is that it was due to pressure from corporate interests on the GOP — a need for the labor pool. Border security? It would be seemingly beefed up for awhile (statistics were regularly issued showing illustrative numbers) but in the end it seemingly evaporated as more migrants came across the border assuming there would be another amnesty. This is what the situation was like, from my vantage point on the newspaper in those days. One broad lesson in this is that immigration reform is an extremely complex issues with many implications, financial and social...not to mention political constraints and consequences. The key question thoughtful people in both parties (and in no party) might ask is if this genie was unleashed from its bottle at a time when all of the homework had been done so that it could be dealt with efficiently. Is election year the best — or worst — time to tackle an issue such as this? You could make an argument either way. But it's unlikely those who raised it now thought it would play out the way it's unfolding now. themoderatevoice.com