Extremism In The Maintenance Of Power Is No Vice…

Extremism? You're kidding right. I guess you'll say anything to make a point.

In California, current law states you can be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have $1 and ID. Yet, no ID is required to vote. I thought this was a progressive state?

The fact that ID is not required to vote, is Extremism.

I think the web site is only useful for pushing propaganda. Clearly, it's not for rational discourse.

Dr. Cavala:

When I met John Tanner last week in Berkeley and had a chance to talk to him one on one, I did not know of the comments he had made the day before about african-americans, aging, and possession of ID's in Georgia.

But the man I met is a career DOJ professional who has a passion for voting rights, starting in 1965 for the rights of Blacks in Mississippi and Alabama to register to vote and today enforcing the right of Latino and Asian voters to vote in their native languages. The comments later reported from the day before don't match up with the guy I saw.

You and I will always disagree on the issue of Voter ID's. I think our motive to require them is just as pure as your motive against them. I believe John Tanner gave the issue a fair hearing. I also know you don't like the outcome.

Doug Youkam, the prime GOP architect of the infamous 2001 redistricting plan, always was a bit gullible - as his comment indiciates.

But if it quacks like a duck...

Youkam's comment should terrify any American citizen.

I believe John Tanner gave the issue a fair hearing. I also know you don't like the outcome.

Tanner was judge, jury and executioner and a large part of the evisceration of the Voting Rights section under the Bush administration. Administration means exactly that--to administer the laws. Every decision the VRA section of DOJ made during the last six and a half years has been in violatio n of established law and precedent--Cavala speaks rightly when he compares it to a poll tax, for that is exactly what it is (this was struck down in the 60's). Yoakum and other Republicans need to understand that the administration does not make the laws, Congress does. Conservatives should join Democrats on this one--a conservative is supposed to uphold the established order, not tear it apart by theories of a "unitary executive" (we had this--that is why civil service was implemented to eliminate the type of hackterism and cronyism we are seeing from the Bush administration). Unfortuantely, conservatives like the "outcome" (disenfranchisment of minorities) so they go along.
You'll pay for your expediency in 2008--the 1980 for the Republican party.

publius,

I enjoy our dialog. I'm back with you at the other location...

Anyway, I would like to note cavala's lack of "tolerance" (again) with a cut down to Mr. Youkam due to his blog entry. I hope in the interest of fairness it will be OK when Mr. Cavala gets it back in return on any issue! Turnabout is fair play is it not? (More later).

publius, I'm not sure if "terrified" may be an over-reach as it appears emotional over substanative. "You'll pay..." kinda goes down that path too.

However, on the respect of the laws aspect that your address on this issue, can you be consistant in that same respect for the laws in regards to illegal border crossing and illegal immigration? Consistancy in the laws and their being upheld is one of the pillars society rests on. This is why the "immigration" issue in all it's variations is so contested by the "right" in most cases I guess: Where is the consistancy in the application of existing laws? Shouldn't Democrats stand with Republicans as you opine, "...to uphold the established order..."? Democrats, especially at th estate level here in CA and in NY as of late keep trying to get laws established that dilute other, existing laws, mostly federal laws.

Where again is the consistacy of what the concept of laws is all about?

Thanks for your time.

Gould:

I'm all in favor of enforcing the law regarding the _employment_ of undocumented workers--those individuals should be arrested and thrown in the slammer. Now, if memory serves me correctly, Pete Wilson had to pay social security tax in 1995 or 1996 for an undocumented worker he employed as a housekeeper when mayor of San Diego. I'd like to see Pete in jail.

The problem with enforcing any law on illegal, undocumented or whatever immigration is that such a large percent of the American public is guilty that we would have to build our own GULAG to hold all the lawbreakers. In this it is similar to prohibition, which was repealed. With 10 percent of the population of Mexico in the US it is clear that an approach which doesn't rely on the usual criminal process will have to be found. After all, we can lock up the few thousand murderers every year but we can't lock up tens of millions of people (and no, they won't all fit at Gitmo either).

publius,

You don't need to "GULAG" and "Gitmo" with me to establish your left credentials, I get it already.

I was specifically drawing your attention to the concept of the laws in place and those that are being brought to the table as of late: We have immigration laws that are being broken. Should state/city governments ENCOURAGE their being broken with "santuary cities", drivers licenses, college breaks, etc.? Please reread my questions above.

I;ll betcha old Pete Wilson of 10 years ago doesn't have illegal workers in 2007. If he does and the laws so states, he SHOULD be fined and/or jailed as appropriate by law.

publius, here is a simple series of questions for you:

Should our border be enforced? Including a fence? The National Guard if necessary?

my point with this question is many on left AND right do agree on the border aspect BUT do not on what to do with those already here.

I want to establish with you if you are in favor of sealing the border or not which would stop th eproblem from continuing/getting worse from that angle at least with th eadditional benefit of hampering drug and people smuggling.

What say you?

One has to be brazen to argue that Republican government officials who are failing in their duty to ehnforce the voting rights act can be compared to Democratic non-government officials who support a smart immigration policy.

Let us not forget that:

1. Border security is the responsibility of the Federal Government. You know. George W. He's been at the helm for 7 years. "Illegal" immigration is a Republican problem.

2. National Guard? The President can call them up and use them at any time (Cf who's fighting in Iraq).

3. The Democrats supported the President's immigration initiative. You know, President? As in, REPUBLICAN President. The Governor of California supports the President's initiative. You know, Governor? As in REPUBLICAN Governor?

(Just because you're a conservative doesn't mean
you can speak for the Republicans on the
immigration issue. The REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT and
REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR can speak for REPUBLICANS with
equal or greater legitimacy. Oh, and the likely
REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR 2008, Rudy Guliani also
proposes a "path to citizenship".

cavala,

If only Republicans could run and control everything, with the media for oversight of course, things would be better...

Oh wait just a darn minute; I just paraphrased what YOU said as short while back but your version had DEMOCRATS running everything as the sole political party.

You sir were the one expousing a ONE PARTY SYSTEM as above and multiple times, a system tried by both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia among others. Lots of bad things associated with a one party system...

You sir, and publius at one time anyway, have said Republicans/conservatives have "different physical brains" as proven by MRI's etc. I don't think you were joking either. (If or if not, sick regardless). Where is your "proof", or did Dr. Mengele of one of the aforementioned regimes not get you a copy?

Lets not forget that (and using your numbers above for reference):

1. Ted Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Byrd, other democratic senators, congresspersons,etc., etc. have been in the FEDERAL GOVERMENT for DECADES and have done NOTHING about illegal immigration. (Your use of quotation marks around "illegal" is contradicting itself. If they are not ILLEGAL but "illegal", then I guess there is NO problem then is there?). Clinton did NOTHING on this issue on his watch.

Typical of the weak argument proponents to place the timeline to their shallow, short-sighted advantage.

3. The president and many republicans have pandered to democrats on the ILLEGAL ALIEN/IMMIGRATION issue playing ball with "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" for the past few couple of years.

Many republicans are NOT happy with republican politician waffling while democrats, nobody expects anything out of them in the first place on this issue. (Low expectations, low disappointments, no leadership).

But in appeasing democratic politicians on this issue, republican politicians are learning that the rank and file are not happy with them...

...and now democratic rank and file are showing they are also unhappy with their political repreentatives.

Explain Governor Spitzer's plan in NY state to give illegals drivers licenses which is opposed by 72% (by a POLL of course...). Would a "few" democrats live in that state and make up a significant part of that 72%? (Would they be considered "racist" by you?)

How do you explain Hillary in the last debate being TWO-FACED within TWO MINUTES on this issue and being CAUGHT at it by her fellow democrats/party challengers? Just what is her plan to deal with this issue? NOBODY KNOWS, perhaps not even Hillary herself...

(Is she the best you've got? The last two articles on this website trying to stir up enthusiasm for Hillary, the "front runner" (so a poll says...) in CA had ZERO comments associated with them, positive OR negative. An aside: Just what happened to the running comment tally in the archives section here as of late anyway?)

Many, probably the majority of Americans, of both parties, want the border enforced, PERIOD. But politicians, specifically democrats, don't want to do this ONE thing as they want it part of the "comprehensive" package. I re-refer you to the NY state 72%...

I doubt AMNESTY will be any part of any republican "path to citizenship" unless some form of assimilation process, that the illegal border crossers skipped, is part of the path, and preferably with them at th eend of the immigration line as that would be only fair to those doing it RIGHT.

Of course AMNESTY would be part of a democratic plan. You want those poor folks unversed in American assimilation to be GRATEFUL TO YOU so they will VOTE FOR YOU out of gratitude for the gift that may be expected to keep on giving, and at all the taxpayers expense.

2. Not using the Guard on the border? We ARE and the president DID DO THAT. Perhaps you were not paying attention? The numbers should be higher too, but are not due to the same pandering attempt already covered.

Besides, Senator Boxer thinks the Guard is primarily for firefighting or other disasters and not what its training and equipment is OPTIMIZED FOR, defending the nation, including it's borders.

Just because you're a liberal doesn't mean you can speak for the Democrats on the immigration issue. (Reference of late again those 72% of New Yorkers...). Also, The DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL FRONTRUNNER CANDIDATE/NOMINEE FOR 2008 doesn't even know what she wants to do on the illegal immigrant issue as a whole, let alone about the spinter aspect drivers licenses in the state she was elected to represent.

With democrats like her in the congress, how can republicans get anything done for the people of this country?

Hey, maybe your one party rule ideology has something to it after all!

Gould poses the questions:

Should our border be enforced? Including a fence? The National Guard if necessary?

William Allen White, the progressive editor of the Emporia Gazette, once wrote "Drunken Kansans stagger to the polls and vote dry." What he meant was that Kansas was a "dry" state, and a majority of the adult population (and quite a few of the non-adult population) were drunk a considerable portion of the time.

This is of course hypocrisy, and this is the position of politicians of both parties. The brutal reality is that 10% of the Mexican population is in the United States and are engaged in productive labor at rates native-born Americans won't work for. Who employs labor in this country? By and large, Republicans.

Now, we can treat this labor source as slaves, or as pariahs, or guest workers, or however you want to say it, but the reality is they are here because Republicans are employing them. If a fence is put up or the National Guard is put on the border (which W could have done at any time, as Cavala points out), it _may_ reduce the supply of this pool of workers to some extent, but not as much as you would think. Even with very draconian measures, the Chinese government has not been able to appreciably dent the number of North Koreans living (very illegally) in Manchuria.

Our society is not equipped to deal with large number of people violating the law (look at speeders). The situation needs to be changed so most people (Republican employers and undocumented workers) are not violating the law.
A fence won't do that so I am opposed to a fence, not only on humanitarian grounds but also pragmatic. We need greater integration (economically, but also politically) with the Mexican government to address these issues. The European Union works with countries at vastly different levels of economic and political development--of course, if we emulate that, then our citizens might start clamoring for universal health care.

publius,

Just in case you have the wrong assumption, myself and MANY who want border security AND legal (assimilating) immigration have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a guest worker program OR expanded use of work visas. Often all you have to do is just ask for the latter. Where are the long lines?

Many Americans are just real tired of basic government funtions: border security, regulation of crime, smuggling, disease, tarrifs, etc., being blown off by the very same government whose charter is to perform these functions.

Also, many from south of the border do NOT want to become Americans and assimilate. On my many trips south, just about every flight I was on took a person HOME to be buried. In death, they wanted to be near their families and HOME, south of the border. The US was not their home, just a place to work. That is very OK.

Lets just get the government to perform their function and regulate/monitor as appropriate. Sure, it will cost money, but we are paying tax dollars to "support unregulated persons" in all its various forms (benefits, medical care, prisons, food stamps, etc.) so what is the difference? Besides, governments don't make money, they tax citizens and then they spend it!

We don't need "draconian" measures, including Gulags. Lets manage the situation vice what we are currently doing which is not managing anything...

If "only" republicans are employing illegals (do you listen to yourself sometimes?) why do democrats want to encourage them to come here with drivers licenses, etc.?

Look at speeders? Are you serious in using that for a comparison???

Your not wanting a fence is in disagreement with many democrats who want the government to get a handle on their basic functions. In your position here as a democrat, you are a very small minority within the party.

Bush NOT putting the Guard on the border (in the larger numbers required to SEAL IT-he did put quite a few there this summer) was again an attempt to get SOMETHING of a COMPROMISE with Democrats in Congress with this "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" which obviously has gone NOWHERE. A mistake on his part in my opinion. Leadership in enforcing the law is required, not touchy-feely try to please everyone over the course of years while the situation continues to get worse...

You know, I think you have a higher opinion of the Mexican Government (they shoot people on their southern border) that you do of our own (Democrat or Republican included). I have NO PROBLEM working with the Mexican Government on improving their economy, etc. BUT their own corruption is much worse that Hillary's Chinese diswasher campaign contributions: Tijuana is controlled by drug lords, their own oil industry does not profit the people yet the richest man on the PLANET is a Mexican.

Vicente Fox is selling his post-presidency book UP HERE to make a buck...

Your political "integration" you desire with Mexico under their circumstances is scary in the least. A "one world" approach you seem to desire will not work. Exhibit "A": The United Nations: "Oil for Food". Kofi Annans kid bilking tons of cash with his Dad's connections.

Countries will always look to themselves first: France Germany and Russia passed all those resolutions against Iraq (Bushes "legal" way to war) but wanted NOT to enforce any. Why? Saddam owed them MONEY. Plus, questionable WMD raw materials/stuff, mostly chemicals, went from those nations into Iraq.

The European Union isn't any "shining light" on folks with different economic development: Look at all the Turks, Arabs and Muslims who have NOT assimilated, living inside their own ghettos/enclaves and have burned thousands of cars in their protests wanting MORE government aid/benefits over the past couple of years.

I hope Mr. Russo will perhaps moderate something here and I mean this with all respect and seriousness: There are too many similarities with Marxist/Socialist ideology expressed often here. No, I don't want to suggest a return to Joe McCarthy, etc., but there is a name for this ideological thinking and it isn't capitalism. Fine. But what would you call it? And it is also OK to be a Socialist or Communist in the USA. You can think whatever you wish. But to use names as "liberals" or "democrats" may not be the closer name to describe folks holding certain beliefs/ideologies anymore.

I have no desire to "red bait" or any of that sound-bite sniping when I say this. But I do think the comparisons perhaps should be made between ideologies, perhaps by the ones who share them, and lets get all the cards on the table here. If you are proud of them and feel them in your heart & mind, go for it.

I look forward to further conversation.

Gould states:

Many Americans are just real tired of basic government funtions: border security, regulation of crime, smuggling, disease, tarrifs, etc., being blown off by the very same government whose charter is to perform these functions.

Republicans have been in charge of the federal government from 2003-2006 (and effectively since 2001, particularly with "unitary executive" theories). They did nothing.

Many Mexicans do not want to assimilate and prefer being Mexicans. That's fine. They come here, however, because they need work. They do become assimilated--you mention that in Europe the Muslims do not become assimilated and that is true--which is why bombers come from Europe and not here. We _can_ assimilate the foreign-born because of our culture--in the 1840's it was the Irish, in the 1900's it was the Italians, Jews and Eastern Europeans, etc.
Now it's the Mexicans. In fifty years we'll look back and see them as just another ethnic group assimilated into the American way of life.
Our future is to transform the Western Hemisphere into a counter-weight to the Chinese, which means we're going to have to integrate our economies. Is the Mexican government corrupt? You bet. Ours is too, but perhaps the biggest difference is that our judiciary is independent.
Can we help Mexico change that while they are changing us? Certainly.

As far as Marxist/Socialist thought, Hayek writes at length about the necessity of decentralized decision-making. Government is one threat to this, of course, but another threat is the concentration of economic factors in the hands of a few. We are increasingly moving to a feudal system in this country, where one's status in life is determined by one's birth (education, the great leveller, is rapidly being priced out of the middle class family's reach). A true capitalistic system would require that all start equally in life, which would require families be broken up. I'm not for that but capitalism, with it's emphasis on maximizing productive, would mandate it, as it is inefficient to differentially endow individuals. The true radicals in this debate are the hard-core capitalists--most of us would temper the extremes of the market. That does not make us socialists.

publius,

Thanks for the dialog. I think any additional comments on this line would be going around in circles; it's all here for other readers to digest and decide for themselves.

I'm off for a few days. Have a good one.

Post a comment