Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Tortoise and Hares

The tortoise in the race is now in the lead. After being almost immediately written off as yesterday's news and a target for redredging of twenty year old marriage difficulties, he has slowly and steadily climbed to the top with a message of thought-out policy statements, an aversion to knee-jerk press responses and an avoidance of trashing his opponents. That just might be what America is crying for.

If you live in Texas you can't help but be aware of the illegal immigration problem. We've got the longest shared border with Mexico of the four border states. We've got a growing Latino population, both legal and illegal. We've got towns, schools, businesses, ranches and farms that are directly impacted by the border and not always adversely. We encounter assimilating Latinos every day. They are hard-working folks, embracing the American dream and making significant contributions to the economy.

Watching Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts scion of wealth, privilege and politics or Michelle Bachman, the shrill voice of ultra-right policy from Minnesota express a position on illegal immigration you are almost compelled to ask if they have ever met a Mexican immigrant. Can they order a beer and a burrito in rudimentary Spanish? Who turns down the sheets in their hotel room, tends their lawn, or cooks in the kitchen of the coffee shop where they campaign? Do they know what they pay for vegetables or who builds most of the new houses in America?

Gingrich Speaks Common Sense

I think it is remarkably refreshing to hear a candidate say something that reflects a realistic understanding of a complex issue. I enjoy someone who says to the electorate, I won't pander to your simple desire but will tell you what you really need to do and if you choose to deny me support, then I will accept the outcome.

Rick Perry was exactly correct that the border must be secured. No question about that. But he also is realistic in acknowledging that an educated immigrant is more beneficial to society than one denied opportunity.

Bachman, spouts of "rule of law" and implies punishment, removal, isolation in society along with a desire for an easy way out. That sort of position will not deal effectively with the problem and while it may attract hard-core true-believers, it won't win in a general election where many states with significant Latino voting populations will flee to the left. That jeopardizes victory in states which would otherwise be firmly in the red column on election night.

If Gingrich keeps making sense, eventually intelligent people will notice. The worst outcome, which wouldn't be that bad, is that the other candidates learn from him.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Having read most of your previous blogs,and after watching the debate last evening, I was positive you would write about this subject today. I was correct about that and the position you espouse. Moreover, I agree with you completely. Wolfpack Jack

Dweezil Dwarftosser said...

Please define "immigrant", as used in this thread.

As the son of two legal immigrants (who grew up to marry the legal Dutch immigrant girl who lived across the street), I know what it means.

I'm just wondering if you'll admit that there's a big difference between immigrants (who followed the rules in coming here, seeking to eventually become an American citizen) - and illegal fence-jumping economic invaders, who commit another felony if they vote in our elections.

Progressive-RINO Rick Perry doesn't seem to think that there is a difference.

Barry Goldwater turned me to Conservatism in 1964, when I was 16. When I was old enough to vote (21), I joined New York's Conservative Party. Reagan completed my political education.

BTW - Newt's 'amnesty' proposal is too harsh in some ways (25 years) - but way too liberal in others. (e.g. - no requirement to prove payment of federal taxes on all income across the years; no evidence of a totally-clean criminal record; etc.)

bongobear said...

I'm a first generation American. My folks came here from Germany to escape Hitler and the Nazis so I, too, know what an immigrant is. I must admit that I'm conflicted by the problem. I don't like people breaking our laws and getting away with it but every hispanic with whom I come in contact strikes me as a hard working person who just wants to make a living. Surely there's some humane way to deal with the issue.

Ed Rasimus said...

Tip O'Neill, former Speaker of the House once said, "politics is the art of the possible." That would be a good place to start the debate on illegal immigration possible.

We've got between 12 and 20 million illegals in the country. We don't know who they are, where they are or where they are from. Even if we knew we cannot afford physically or economically to deport them. We've got a Constitution that confers citizenship on those born here. And surprisingly they actually contribute more to the tax base than they draw out at all levels of government except local. At the federal and state levels they pay in more than they ever collect.

First, secure the border. Second provide a non-punitive means to identify them and incorporate them into society. Third, provide them the opportunities (not guarantees!) for success that are offered to all other productive Americans.

With the border secure the "magnet" aspect becomes moot.

an Donalbane said...

"If Gingrich keeps making sense, eventually intelligent people will notice.

I hope so, but the shortcoming of that estimation is that if he sways only intelligent voters - we're still in deep stuff.

Nonetheless, I'm encouraged by seeing his resurgence in the race. Newt's the only candidate who is prepared and ready to govern from the big stage - today.

Anonymous said...

ROTFLAMAO. if you think Newt Gingrich is your Obama Killer your out of your mind. Although I'm sure he'll be a tea party favorite.

As to immigration reform I'd be interested in what President Rasimus would present to congress. I sure can't understand what Professor Rasimus stand is on the issue as he takes positions contrary to his beliefs for the purposes of educational discussion.

Questions for President Rasimus to ponder:

1. Do we need a Berlin Wall from Brownsville to San Diego? How much do you want to spend of our precious tax dollars? Do you realize that a substantial number (perhaps 50%) enter legally and then stay past their visa?

2. Who would be eligible to stay and under what conditions?

3. Why should out of work Americans be displaced by Mexican construction workers who send their money back to Mexico instaed of spending it in the American economy?

4. What of children brought her by their parents?

~Leadfoot, Who lives in Arizona and sees the effects every day of Illegal immigration

Ed Rasimus said...

Leadfoot, as usual you seem unable to read and comprehend actual words in front of you. Inevitably you skim through the words with the filter of your own bias in place.

The Constitution spells out the concept of "native born citizen" and reaffirms it with the 14th amendment. If you want that changed you will have to amend ala 21st Amendment.

Securing the border is NOT a Berlin wall. It is about monitoring and enforcing policy. It is about security at crossing points and along accessible illegal routes. It is about actual application of visa rules.

Out of work Americans can either now or in the future apply for the very same jobs as illegals. Stand in front of Home Depot tomorrow morning at 6:30 and go to work. What you do with your money is the same for every person in a free-market economy. Send it to Mexico, spend it on drugs or put it under your mattress. Your choice.

Who would be eligible to say? That's up to rational legislation.

And don't attempt to tell me what my beliefs are. I know exactly what my beliefs are and I have the ability to express them here.

Dweezil Dwarftosser said...

Leadfoot, I'd like to insert my two cents on your issues.

First, we don't need an 'Obama killer'. He has already died, by his own hand. (Politically.)

You said, "1. Do we need a Berlin Wall from Brownsville to San Diego? "
We don't need anything designed to keep people from escaping (like the Berlin Wall) - but we do need that border locked up tight against illegal entrants. If necessary to build that wall, we can pay for it by defunding unnecessary federal programs. (e.g. - the UN bills; much of foreign aid; returning to a small Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; much of the EPA, among others.)

Do you realize that a substantial number (perhaps 50%) enter legally and then stay past their visa?

The percentage is debatable - but initial legal entrance should be the first requirement for any amnesty.

2. Who would be eligible to stay and under what conditions?

Well, the ability to speak, read, and understand English would be another requirement (those over age 55 would get a pass on this).
Of course, they would have to show evidence of being a good citizen, too - throughout their 10-or-12 year stay here. Zero arrests/convictions for crimes (to include DUI, revoked license, no auto insuance, etc.) - and a complete record of paying federal taxes every year.

"3. Why should out of work Americans be displaced by Mexican construction workers . . ."

They shouldn't. To fix it, we go after employers (harshly) for hiring them. This, BTW, isn't a problem up north, where you can't gain entry to a construction site without the right union card - and union cards are passed, father-to-son upon death or retirement. (Sometimes, uncle-to nephew.)

"4. What of children brought her[e] by their parents?"

That's been covered for more than a century. Dependent, minor children automatically become citizens when their parents are naturalized.

Anonymous said...

1. Newt Gingrich is unelectable as President

2. I think it Newt Gingrich who fails to understand the 14th not Leadfoot

3. Securing the border is simply an excuse for republicans to continue the status quo. ie cheap labor who won't complain for fear of deportation.

4 White people who stand in front of Home Depot get ignored. Are you really that out of touch ed?

5. It appears you have posted conflicting views on the Dream act. When leadfoot defends the innocent children you say the "Law is the Law" however i seem to recall another later post where you appear sympathetic to the Dream act. Trying to actually find it proves difficult thorugh google.

6. Sound like you want cheap labor who won't complain and could care less what it does to the national economy. Something I was taught in basic as important to the defense of America.

& you don't secure a gold mine by securing the border. You secure the gold mine at the gold mine. Business and americans need to accept harder restrictions on employment.

~leadfoot

hitman said...

Why is Newt Unelectable? Does he have problems with his Birth Certificate too?

Anonymous said...

@hitman

1. Newt might have some problems with the womens vote. You might want to do a little research on his ex-wives. When you google that add the word hospital

2. In running for president you need to appeal to the undecided vote. Newt will do very well with the tea party but not so well in the middle. In US presidential politics you need the mainstream voter. A far as I can tell Mitt Romeny is the only candidate who fits that description on the republican side. Nixon describes it best when he said in the primaries your running as far to the right to get money and votes for the republican nomination and then reversing course and running to the left to win the presidency. Clinton did the same thing except to the left and then to the right. Obana is doing the same.

~leadfoot