"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Friday, September 01, 2006

Tougher Audience for Immigration Rallies

Phwhaa? Immigration rallies?

The LA Times this morning:

Immigrants and their supporters will take to the streets today to start a weeklong encore of the rallies that brought millions out in the spring. But as they prepare marches in Chicago, Washington, Phoenix and Los Angeles, immigration advocates are facing a less friendly political climate in the nation's capital.
I wonder what the "immigrants" want? I would imagine they "immigrated" here and for some reason they aren't being respected or given their due rights.

It appears as though there are two sides in some debate/argument; LA Times:
In some political campaigns, immigration hard-liners are embracing the issue as a way to rally voters and target opponents who favor a broad rewrite of existing laws.

In response, advocates of a more comprehensive immigration overhaul are making the rallies more explicitly political, incorporating voter registration drives aimed at affecting tight races in November — along with reminders that the Latino community, in particular, will watch what politicians say.
Looks like one side, consisting of "hardliners" (these are usually nasty folks, I usually think like Nazi or something); sounds like they have some single-minded, simpleton approach that likely doesn't appreciate a multi-faceted subject. Hmmmm, they must not be too bright; I bet they're racists too.

Then there are the "advocates of a more 'comprehensive'...overhaul. These folks sound like they have it together. They're not playing games, they intend to resolve the issue(s).
"House Republicans are also on the offensive, tying immigration to the larger issue of national security as part of their election-year campaign strategy."
Is this really just a campaign strategy or might the issue of national security tie into national security? I'm not sure, but it seems a no-brainer to me, but that could kind of fit under "comprehensive," but I must be wrong. Perhaps I should look "comprehensive" up in the dictionary.
Main Entry: com·pre·hen·sive
Pronunciation: -'hen(t)-siv
Function: adjective
1 : covering completely or broadly : INCLUSIVE <comprehensive examinations> <comprehensive insurance>
2 : having or exhibiting wide mental grasp <comprehensive knowledge>
3 : amnesty 3a : illusory; doing more than one can in one breath 3b : incomprehensible, ill-defined.

- com·pre·hen·sive·ly adverb
- com·pre·hen·sive·ness noun
At first glance it looks as though the group in support of "immigrants" have the right idea, at least based upon the definition. But then you get to 3 through 3b and I'm not so sure, but it might just be an "election-year campaign strategy." Or perhaps a better term for it would be "incomprehensible" reform since that is what you tend to get when you lump it all together in one shot.

Well, I don't know, but being I am ignorant of the debate, and I only have this story as a guideline it sounds like these hardliners just aren't very nice and appear to be doing the wrong thing.

One more thing I notice at the end of the article:
Local advocates of comprehensive overhaul say that turning those immigrants into an electoral force is one of their biggest goals and that though the marches could prompt something of a backlash, the potential gains are worth it.

"The struggle isn't going to be won in a day," said Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a march organizer. "But because of demographic and national security reasons, some kind of status for the undocumented is inevitable."
Well two I guess. One, it may be cynical, but it sounds as though the "advocates of comprehensive..." are just doing this for votes. And two, in response to Joshua Hoyt's prediction that "some kind of status for the undocumented is inevitable;" I might be wrong, but "undocumented" does kind of sound like a status, no?

Want to read some posts from people that are not as confused as me? Try these recent posts from members of the CAII:

"Got Meth? Georgia Does!" from Take Back Georgia
"Illegals Issued Drivers Licenses" from InMuscatine
"LULAC Declares War On Farmer's Branch, Texas" from Red Hot Cuppa Politics

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks