Skip to main content

View Diary: Have Dems sold out too early on immigration? Not if they want something to actually pass (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That presupposes (0+ / 0-)

    that the economic impact of immigrants, legal or otherwise, are zero sum, that is, if one group wins, another group loses.  Demonstrably false.  Certain industries probably will experience dislocation, but, as I said, if the tech firms want those workers, they know where to find them and how to get them, with the consequence that the next generation software companies are in the subcontinent.  Let's hope they have more progressive immigration policies in 20 years if this bill fails.  As immigration and diversity have always been America's strength, more people would be better off with those jobs in Santa Clara than would be worse off.

    And even if it zero sum, I'd still favor the interests of 11 million people living on the margins with no legal or economic protection, over a much smaller number of reasonably educated people.  

    Not all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants broke the law, either.  

    It's not the Democrats who shit on people at voting time, either.  Just look at Ohio.  And I'm sure you can find plenty of Democrats willing to take a nativist line, if that's your thing.  Big tent.

    The irony is most of the time people who tell me to fuck off usually have a point.  It's remarkable you could take such an easy target and whiff completely.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:01:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  All 11 million are breaking the law by being here. (0+ / 0-)

      20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

      by jncca on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and a lot of them are paying taxes (0+ / 0-)

        for retirement benefits they'd never receive.

        Do you really want to defend that position w/r/t DREAMers?  It's moot anyway to a debate about what the law should be -- if anything, the path to citizenship is too hard, but permanent legal status only makes sense, and more HB1 visas are better than wholesale offshoring.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:37:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I knew this would eventually show up: (0+ / 0-)
      And even if it zero sum, I'd still favor the interests of 11 million people living on the margins with no legal or economic protection, over a much smaller number of reasonably educated people.
      So gay people should get screwed because we're a numerically small minority?  (Not to mention a "reasonably educated" one.)  

      Tell me, would you apply the same reasoning to Jews?  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:02:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was referring to the HB1 visa issue there, (0+ / 0-)

        as you can probably tell.

        If the Leahy Amdt wouldn't prompt the House to scuttle the bill, of if its removal had the effect of taking away existing rights, the argument would be very different.  The best case scenario is it gets removed in conference.  So, I don't accept the premise that gay people are being screwed, just not sufficiently unscrewed, but not every piece of legislation solves every issue. The whole point is that forcing the bill into a situation where conservative republicans feel the need to choose between the interests of gays and Latinos makes everyone worse off.  That's different from the real world effects of immigration, which are a net positive. (Gay undocumented immigrants of course have neither economic security nor adequate political rights, and the former is more quickly solveable.).

         And before accusing people of bigotry, a least respond to more than an out of context paragraph (sort of odd to cherry pick like that unless you were hoping that comment were made).  It wouldn't even make sense to apply that reasoning to gays - probably around 11 million if not more.  But since you "knew" that would be the thinking, it must be there, somewhere, anywhere, even though the sentence verifiably refers to something else.  This is more explanation than this deserves.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Thu May 23, 2013 at 04:41:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site