January 22, 2006


Candidate’s remark rattles Democrats (JIM TANKERSLEY, 1/22/06, Toledo Blade)

U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett told a Toledo crowd this week that he’d deport all illegal immigrants if the national budget permitted, stirring another controversy over his candor — this time among Democrats.

Several local Democrats said they disagreed sharply with Mr. Hackett’s statements, made Wednesday night to a group at the University of Toledo. Nearly all of them also praised the attorney and Iraq war veteran for what they called an honest — and often feisty — style they said could win over Republicans and independent voters.

The far Right and the Left are nearly indistinguishable on matters like this, isolationism and trade protectionism.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 22, 2006 9:25 AM

He might be able to get me to vote for dewine.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 22, 2006 11:09 AM

Slowly but surely, the Democrats are moving closer and closer to the day when they give Pat Buchanan a key prime-time speaking spot right after Bill Clinton at their national convention.

Posted by: John at January 22, 2006 11:38 AM

They are also alike in their lack of toleration of criminality.

Posted by: GER at January 22, 2006 1:09 PM

The far Right and the Left are nearly indistinguishable on matters like this, isolationism and trade protectionism.

And thus on the war.

Posted by: David Cohen at January 22, 2006 1:23 PM

Who's the fellow traveller?:

the CPUSA uses these positions as an impregnable platform to advocate:

A] Open unlimited immigration into the USA

Therefore be it resolved, that the Communist Party USA calls for:

The rapid legalization, without discrimination or onerous conditions, of all undocumented workers and their relatives living in the United States.

The creation of mechanisms whereby immigrant workers in the future can come to the United States legally and safely with full rights.

The prohibition of state, local and county police from acting as immigration agents.

The U.S./Mexico border to be demilitarized and humanized.

An end to discrimination against immigrants with or without papers in the issuance of drivers licenses, and no restriction on the right of immigrants to use consular
ID cards or other country-of-origin IDs to open bank and credit accounts or to deal with government agencies.

All workers and their family members, with or without documents, to have full access to all public services paid for by their taxes and labor, including Social Security and Medicare and affordable higher education.



Posted by: Carter at January 22, 2006 2:28 PM

Actually poll after poll shows that around 75% of Americans - Dems, Repubs, Indies - oppose illegal immigration.

Only a small number of elites support illegal immigration for their own various reasons: they're corrupt, they directly profit off illegal activity, because those coming are of the same race, because they want to build a proletariat, etc. etc.

Posted by: reform at January 22, 2006 3:32 PM

And election after election and congress after congress demonstrates we want open borders.

Posted by: oj at January 22, 2006 4:22 PM


I support immigration of people who want to work and become Americans and I assure you that I am not an elite, nor am I corrupt, nor will I profit directly or indirectly from their illegal activity, nor am I of the same race (except human race) as the illegal's, immigrants from my ancestor's country of origin (Albania) are too few to be statistically significant and I detest everything the word proletariat conjures up.

I do have a proviso though. Immigrants must be screened. No terrorists or other undesirables and they all must agree to be finger printed and give officials samples of their DNA, even babies. Those who object, can go back home.

Once they pass the screening there would be a three year probationary period after which they can apply for citizenship. Any slipups during this period would result in immediate deportation and a lifelong ban on entering the U.S.

With a coherent system in place, employers would have to document everyone working for them or face stiff penalties. Those without documentation would be deported.

Yes it would be cumbersome and expensive to setup, but not half as cumbersome and expensive as what we're doing now and we'd have a positive end result. We'd also stop people from literally dying to get here.

Posted by: erp at January 22, 2006 4:24 PM


Exactly. I occasionally illustrate the point in conversation when I tell people that I theoretically support efforts to keep out undocumented immigrants but that if I met one myself, I certainly wouldn't turn him in. Indeed, I couldn't live with myself if I did.

I realize that on some level that's contradictory, so I try not to think about it too much.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at January 22, 2006 9:53 PM

And election after election and congress after congress demonstrates we want open borders.

See Gilchrist, AZ Prop 200, CA Prop 187, etc. And, if Kerry had opposed illegal immigration he'd be president today.

With a coherent system in place, employers would have to document everyone working for them or face stiff penalties.

We already have a coherent system, and illegal alien employers already face fines.

Another "coherent" system wouldn't fix the underlying problem: political corruption. In fact, it will just give a victory to the corruptors.

Posted by: IR at January 22, 2006 11:16 PM


When Democrats switch to opposing immigration it will be because their base -- blacks, labor, and seculars --- demand it and they'll forfeit Latinos, the quickest rising cohort to the GOP. It'll be the final nail in their coffin.

Posted by: oj at January 22, 2006 11:25 PM

The only thing that is going to really turn people on illegals is if they start voting (in large numbers). But the Dems can't go down that road, because they would lose CA and NM and CO and a lot of other pockets in the South.

Hackett is a very loose cannon that the hard left seems to like, but for the same reasons that Kerry was nominated in 2004 - he was a vet. Nothing else matters. And it ain't enough to overcome sheer foolishness, now is it? I'm sure the people of OH, after enduring Bob Taft for the past several years, think they are undertaxed. And yet, that was Hackett's prescription when he ran for Congress recently - everyone is undertaxed.

Posted by: ratbert at January 22, 2006 11:43 PM

IR, The current system, is corrupt and anything but coherent. Perhaps I should have said the new system would be "black and white" with no gray areas. Right now, there are so many ways to enter the U.S. legally on temporary visas of all kinds. Once here, they can disappear and re-emerge with new identities to do us harm.

I think nobody should be allowed within our borders who isn't willing to be fingerprinted and supple their DNA to be kept on file. Don't agree to those provisions, stay home.

Desirable, i.e., non-terrorists, non-drug dealers, immigrants would be documented. No documentation would mean expulsion from the U.S. Employers would have a simple clear cut rule to follow and employing undocumented workers would result in heavy penalties.

Stories about illegals tug at our heart strings because it goes against our humanity to deny entry to those "yearning to breathe free." It's painful that our government sends back to Latin America, Cuba or Haiti the very people we want and need as fellow Americans.

Posted by: erp at January 23, 2006 8:41 AM


Of course the CPUSA supports open immigration--historically nearly all of its members have been drawn from continental European immigrant families. That was the immigration we should have stopped--white Europeans after my family got here.

Luckily Latino immigrants are conservative Christians, which is why Democrats will turn nativist.

Posted by: oj at January 23, 2006 9:49 AM

Democrats have no reason to turn nativist, they don't compete with immigrants to the extent Republican voters do, and the rather small portion of these supposed "Christian conservatives" (who for some reason behave like neither) who do vote don't vote for Republicans.

Besides their views on immigration, you seem to share the CPUSA's notion of historical inevitability (by the way, is "continental Europeans" an intentional euphemism on your part?). When is your rosy future going to arrive? What year will California go Republican in a Presidential election again, for example?

Posted by: Carter at January 23, 2006 8:29 PM

Blacks compete with Latinos for control of cities and Unions for jobs. Meanwhile, seculars are starting to realize it's a tidal waqve of Christians. For those threee groups nativism is a natural position.

McCain will carry CA rather easily.

Posted by: oj at January 23, 2006 8:59 PM

The seculars don't care if their maids and busboys are religous.

Posted by: Carter at January 23, 2006 10:11 PM

Yes, they do: seculars won't work as hard. What they really care about though is losing political power to Christians.

Posted by: oj at January 23, 2006 10:34 PM

Which is it: do leftists fear immigrants because they are Christians or do leftists want Christian immigrants because they work harder?

Mass immigration from enhances the political power of the secular left. A district with a large immigrant population will have a smaller number of people eligible to vote (the effect is enhanced by the fact that even Hispanics elgible to vote do so at a low rate) than a district made up entirely of citizens.

Note I'm describing what immigrations effect has been on California. You're describing what you claim will happen, someday, based on what can only be described as rather odd reasoning. I prefer to err on the side of caution. If at some point the Hispanic vote becomes significant and Republicans start winning more than half of it, I can always change my mind. For some reason I suspect that when that doesn't happen, you won't change yours. Like the CPUSA, who share your views on immigration, you'll just push the date of your inevitable transformation further out into the future.

Posted by: Carter at January 24, 2006 12:40 AM


Leftists are no different thyan far Rightists--they hate the immigrant personally but like his cheap labor when they have they're checkbooks out.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2006 8:04 AM