Comments on: Democratic Hysteria Strikes Immigration

By: bhurt-aw

bhurt-aw — Fri, 05 May 2006 20:56:21 +0000

The Republicans are in an interesting position, and I like the fact that the Democrats are starting to take advantage of this. On one hand, their core base is madly (and I use that word advisedly) racist and anti-immigrant. On the other hand, hispanics and immigrants are the fastest growing minority, and on their way to becoming the majority. And in some ways (lack of familiarity with a functioning democracy, strong religous tendencies) they are prime candidates for Republican recruitment. It’s just that racism problem.

So while this particular add may have problems, I applaud the try. This is the sort of thing the Democrats need to be doing- they need to be highlighting the racist rhetoric and tendencies of the Republican party, both to the blacks and the hispanics.

And this is the way the game is played these days. It’s nice to see the Democrats at least getting into the game.

By: TheHawk

TheHawk — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:02:35 +0000

I never said this was “do nothing” law. The resolution is a 256 page document. If all that did nothing, I’d be impressed. But nearly all of that has nothing to do with assisting or harboring illegal aliens. That is only one paragraph in the entire document, the paragraph exactly as I have cited it. The majority of the resolution involves an study of the borders and what efforts are needed to improve the security. This is a further example of how people focus on some point because some person hyped how the government is trying to oppress them, and ignored the actual facts of the situation.

By: bhurt-aw

bhurt-aw — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:22:20 +0000

I have a hard time beleiving this is “do nothing” law. It was already illegal to employee or harbor an illegal immigrant. And I admit- with the Bush administration I automatically start looking for the hidden evil agenda. The thing is, as Dave points out- assuming that there is a hidden evil aggenda has been right much more often than it’s been wrong.

Nor is absurdity any protection from the law run amok. As an example of this, consider the new DMCA act being considered. It’s doesn’t get this bad all at once- it gets there a step at the time. Remember that we have people who are shooting illegal immigrants as they cross the border. And before telling me that these are nutcases that no one really listens to, please remember that these are the people who have been talking about nuking Tehran for a while as a well- a bad idea whose time may be comming.

By: TheHawk

TheHawk — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:11:15 +0000

I would not call my opinions of the Cardinal or the Democrats sneering condescension. As I said, I think that they are guilty of a deliberate exaggeration, in order to further there own socio-political agendas. Although I disagree with them, I do not think the less of them for it. My sneering condescension is reserved for those who listen blindly to the statements without checking the facts for themselves. I don’t sneer at the shepards, I sneer at the sheep.

By: Candide

Candide — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:45:06 +0000

I will hold the Democrats to a level of sneering condescension because they’re apparently taking their legal counsel from the Roman Catholic Bishops. Makes one wonder if they get their moral counsel from lawyers…

By: analog

analog — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:58:41 +0000

Anyone who thinks “deliberate exaggeration” when talking about the Bush administration and jackboot laws clearly needs to read more about the PATRIOT Act.

That being said, are we going to hold Cardinal Mahoney to the same level of sneering condescension that is being expressed for Democrats here? I doubt it.

By: TheHawk

TheHawk — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:12:27 +0000

Since the relevant section of the resolution is

Whoever,
(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

I think that any interpretation that says that hospitals or churches could be prosecuted is a deliberate exaggeration. The resolution specifically says the must know the person is an illegal immigrant or act with “reckless disregard” of the fact. Also, the resolution refers to people who assist an illegal immigrant to remain in the country, not merely provide them with assistance in general. I will grant that given a very loose interpretation you could consider any assistance as assisting them to remain in the country, but their remains the knowledge issue. By your own admission, you don’t want hospitals and churches to ask and I think its unreasonable to think that they could be considered to be acting with reckless disregard for not doing so.

By: bhurt-aw

bhurt-aw — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:08:13 +0000

This is the first I’ve heard of this. Not that Republicans haven’t done this as well.

OK, read up on it a little bit more. The ad doesn’t say that the law would make giving communion illegal, it says that it would make giving communion to illegal immigrants illegal. From here I get:

Catholic Church: HR 4437 Would Criminalize Communion. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney wrote a letter to President Bush in December, saying of HR 4437, “One could interpret this bill to suggest that any spiritual and pastoral service given to any person requires proof of legal residence. Are we to stop every person coming to holy communion and first ask them to produce proof of legal residence?” Religion & Ethics Newsweekly wrote, “The Catholic Church, in particular, is determined to make a stand against the House immigration reform bill — any bill, for that matter, that would criminalize illegal immigrants and those who aid them.” (NPR, 3/5/06; Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, 3/31/06)

So it’s not just Democrats who are worried about this bill- it Catholics as well. I could easily see how sweeping anti-immigrant legislation might open the door to this. I doubt that anyone would actually prosecute this- but it doesn’t need to be anywhere near this bad in order for it to be very bad.

There is an advantage to having emergency rooms run on a “bed first, paperwork later” attitude. When I get wheeled into the ER bleeding profusely, I want everyone thinking about how to save my life. Minor issues, like who is going to pay for things and wether I have insurance or not, I want to leave for later. But this means that the tens of millions of Americans- including the millions of illegal immigrants- who don’t have health insurance do have health care. Just wait for it to get bad enough and go to the ER. Which means that instead of paying for the ounce of prevention, we end up paying for the pound of cure.

The real- the Christian- solution to this would be to simply step up and pay for universal health care. Pay for the ounce of prevention for everyone (even the illegal immigrants)- it’ll be cheaper than what we’re doing currently, which is paying for the pound of cure. But the Republican solution to this is to require hospitals to require proof of insurance/citizenship before they start giving me IVs and treating me for my sucking chest wounds. Well, maybe not for white people in hospitals frequented by rich white people- but definately non-whites in poorer neighborhoods. And if they don’t have insurance/citizenship? Let them bleed to death on the steps of the hospital.

If you don’t think the Republicans would be callous enough to just leave (poor) people to die, take a long hard look at what happened with Katrina. This sounds exactly like the sort of thing Republicans would do.

That is something to be frightened of.