Napolitano on Iraq

Chris Bowers could convince me that Janet Napolitano is unacceptably hawkish on Iraq to be a VP nominee I could support, but I don't think linking to a fourteen month-old statement that "In my view, we got into this war without thinking through everything we should have, we should not get out of this war without thinking everything through" really fits the bill.

Yes, that's a lame wanky sentiment that I didn't agree with fourteen months ago, but it was fourteen months ago. I wouldn't want a vice president who would oppose withdrawal or who had some kind of record of chest-thumping rhetoric he or she couldn't walk away from, but that's not what this is. Chris also deems her insufficiently progressive on immigration, but she was a supporter of the comprehensive reform bill so I don't really see what the beef is here.

Comments

she was a supporter of the comprehensive reform bill so I don't really see what the beef is here.

Perhaps the beef is that it was a fairly shitty bill, from the perspective of one who is progressive on immigration.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 23, 2008 5:48 PM

I really like Napolitano. In all the "who should be Barack's VP?" polls and arguments I pick her (doesn't help I'm a westerner myself).

But the fact she is unmarried and doesn't have kids would seem to make her an impossible pick with the media's (and much of the public's to be fair) relentless and narrow minded focus on 'family values'. Its totally and completely bullshit, and unfair, but I think in the end it will prevent her from being seriously considered.

I also think Crist will ultimately not be chosen by McCain, for the same reason.

Posted by matthewcc | May 23, 2008 5:56 PM

Actually, that statement is not too different from something that Obama has said often, i.e., that we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.

Re Napolitano's marital status: I think it is more acceptable for women than for men to be single in politics, as in other professions. That's because, historically, women have rarely had the option of being both married and successful in high profile occupations and, even less, the option of being married to a Laura Bush-like spouse, i.e., someone who is educated and competent, but doesn't have a career.

When Condoleeza Rice was discussed as a vice presidential candidate, I don't recall hearing her unmarried status being discussed as a disqualifier.

Posted by THS | May 23, 2008 6:17 PM

I actually think that Napolitano would be a better pick than Sellibus but I agree w/the family issue. On that score, I really like Jim Webb. I like that he's become a fairly progressive guy on economics, is against the war, and has a multi-cultural family and speaks Vietnamese.

That would be great way to connect to Asian and Hispanic communities IMO out west. And he could help deliver VA.

But if we're going to pull a Virginian I think that Mark Warner should go on everyone's list. I know he's running for the senate but if he's running as VP and he and Obama are the ticket he can get a good guy to run in his place and through campaigning they'd likely be able to pull off the upset against Gilmore who'se a douche of the highest order and hated by many Republicans in the area I know.

Posted by Rhoda | May 23, 2008 6:19 PM

Y'know, I'm beginning to think it's still possible for the Dems to lose this election. Because nothing says "out to lunch" like pairing a black man and a woman on the Prez-VP ticket.

If Edwards would run, he'd be the ideal candidate for VP. If there's a woman with some national recognition and strong credentials, that's fine. But I think it's pretty obvious that the Obama presidential bid would be a lot stronger with a male VP pick from the south- or thereabouts. But choosing a woman as homage to the legions of p-o'd Hillary supporters probably ain't a good idea.

Posted by serial catowner | May 23, 2008 6:21 PM

Maybe my memory is going but I had a tremendous sense of deja vu reading this entire post and I feel that you wrote almost the exact same words within the past few months.

Posted by bluh | May 23, 2008 6:24 PM

It's odd that Jim Webb, who has been married three times, would be seen as somehow better on "family issues" than Napolitano.

Webb has many strengths, but he has some major weaknesses too. He struggled somewhat as a Senate candidate to put behind him the things he'd said about the fitness of women to serve in the military. Perhaps those issues wouldn't be important in the general election, but he doesn't seem like an ideal choice to draw Clinton's voters to the ticket.

Also, while a very smart guy, he is, at best, an indifferent campaigner. I'll acknowledge, though, that he is getting better at TV.

Posted by THS | May 23, 2008 6:27 PM

we should not get out of this war without thinking everything through

This is a "lame wanky sentiment"? So we shouldn't think everything through? Weak broth, here.

Posted by right | May 23, 2008 6:27 PM

serial, you are looking at things from the perspective of a white man, which is not the Dems' base. A well-qualified woman for the VP slot would probably appeal to a lot of, you know, women. Especially since Hillary does not appear to be on the path to be the first woman Prez.

Posted by Chris O. | May 23, 2008 6:43 PM

There was also the line that immediately followed the one you quoted:

"‘‘I do think we shouldn't exit precipitously without giving this one more shot.''

She didn't want to withdraw troops back then--she wanted to escalate. If she has changed her position since then, fine. However, that is a pretty damning position to have held during March 2007, when Democrats were passing the first Iraq supplemental, but with a timeline.

McCain also supported the immigration bill. Still, I can't find evidence that she is to his right on that policy. Just that they appear about the same.

Posted by Chris Bowers | May 23, 2008 6:44 PM

The thing about Janet is that she pretty much only makes "lame wanky" statements. As the governor of a pretty solidly red state, she's got to walk a fine line. Although she puts up a pretty good fight on the budget (at least issuing bunches of vetoes), she's not really a model of political courage. This is one more part of Janet's resume that looks better on paper than in real life.

I'd also argue that she's a worse campaigner than Hillary.

Posted by ben | May 23, 2008 6:59 PM

We know that at least a subset of Clinton supporters are certifiable freaks.

And clearly, for them, there is no acceptable VP alternative than Hillary. For many of them, even the VP offer is not acceptable.

So the question reduces to, how big is that subset of Clinton supporters and if they decide to stay home, how badly does that hurt whatever ticket the Dems come up with?

Because if that subset is big enough, putting a woman in the VP slot isn't going to be enough if that woman isn't Hillary. And neither is putting in anybody else, male or female.

And if it IS Hillary, Obama is doomed.

I'm telling you, the Dems have already lost this election. And the Iran war hasn't even started yet.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 7:20 PM

Re "Chris also deems her insufficiently progressive on immigration"
--------------
This is a crock of shit. The fucking Arizona border south of Tucson has been an open door for years.

That's where the bulk of the illegals coming into the USA come through --because Governor Napolitano wants it that way. She has sabotaged every serious attempt to halt illegal crossings. There are even groups putting baby blue caches of water out in the desert and distributing detailed maps in Mexico.

What's hilarious is the US Military's Intelligence School is at Fort Huachuca. So while soldiers are sitting in classrooms learning how to defend the USA -- thousands of illegals are walking through their backyard into the USA.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 8:21 PM

The fucking Arizona border south of Tucson has been an open door for years.

The reason why illegals are crossing through the AZ desert is that older crossing points in CA and TX were sealed up tight. The AZ desert, however, was never secured and was largely ignored for much of the Bush presidency.

Janet maintains, correctly, that immigration is a Federal responsibility. AZ already has problems with it's budget, it doesn't need to take on the entire illegal immigration problem by itself.

There are even groups putting baby blue caches of water out in the desert and distributing detailed maps in Mexico.

These are largely church groups that are appalled that hundreds of people are dying every year in the desert. If you have a problem giving water to people dying of thirst in the desert, then you've got some serious fucking problems.

Posted by ben | May 23, 2008 8:27 PM

Re Ben's comment " If you have a problem giving water to people dying of thirst in the desert, then you've got some serious fucking problems."
------------
You have a point. Surely with a "Defense" budget approaching $1 Trillion per year, we could put up a high fence on our border to keep those people out of that dangerous desert.

And if some make it through, then we should be able to send some Apache Helicopters over to strafe the ground and put them out of their misery.

A Roman soldier on the Rhine circa 300 AD would have recognized this situation --even if wealthy, fat-ass patricians back in the capital did not.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 8:57 PM

Re Ben's comment "These are largely church groups that are appalled that hundreds of people are dying every year in the desert"
----------
Considering that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS are making the short walk from the border to the outskirts of Tucson, we shouldn't be surprised if a hundred or so don't make it.

Those are the ones too stupid to realize that you cross the desert without problem in 9 months of the year --just not mid-summer. So I don't think we're losing any rocket scientists or advanced programmers here.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 9:03 PM

The choice for for the VP slot should be based on electoral factors, not some issue based litmus test.

Posted by Rich | May 23, 2008 9:03 PM

People who don't live in border states need to shut the fuck up about border policy. For real. You're about as helpful as an bike mechanic at a rocket launch.

And AZ's broke, DW, and only getting broker as the housing market collapses. There are ACTUAL problems the state has to deal with, not just surplus-labor management.

Posted by scythia | May 23, 2008 9:05 PM

Considering that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS are making the short walk from the border to the outskirts of Tucson.

Awesome. I just was wondering whether I had gone too far in that last comment.

Don Williams, your credibility on this, and other southwestern issues, is OVER. Please post something about Iran or whatever.

Posted by scythia | May 23, 2008 9:09 PM

Re scythia's comment "Don Williams, your credibility on this, and other southwestern issues, is OVER"
----------
Oh, go screw yourself. I've hiked in western Texas. I can read a topo map and temperature charts.

The Hispanic Lobby's attempt to depict the walk from the border to the roads outside Tucson as the Exodus of the Twelve Tribes across the Sinai is a crock of shit.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 9:24 PM

I've hiked in western Texas.

LOL. I hope you enjoyed your visit. My point stands.

(BTW, Don, a "lobby" is a group that is PAID to advocate. The word you are looking for is "sympathizers.")

Posted by scythia | May 23, 2008 9:32 PM

Considering that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS are making the short walk from the border to the outskirts of Tucson.

Yeah, I take short walks of 60 miles in 110 degree weather all the time. All the freakin' time.

The hundreds of immigrants that die in the AZ deserts every year don't die because the journey is too short or too easy or because their gps units broke down or because they ran out of lattes.

Posted by ben | May 23, 2008 9:40 PM

The hundreds of immigrants that die in the AZ deserts every year don't die because the journey is too short or too easy or because their gps units broke down or because they ran out of lattes.

C'mon, Ben...if they had packed their topo maps and temperature charts before they left their condo, they wouldn't need GPS units. Lazy fuckin' Mexicans...

Posted by scythia | May 23, 2008 9:44 PM

C'mon, Ben...if they had packed their topo maps and temperature charts before they left their condo, they wouldn't need GPS units. Lazy fuckin' Mexicans...

Well, I didn't want to say it.

Posted by ben | May 23, 2008 9:50 PM

Re scythia's comment "The word you are looking for is "sympathizers."
------------
Not "fifth column"?

or "subversives"?

How about "those who lied through their teeth when they took the oath of US citizenship?"

Meanwhile, this article had a hilarious statement: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21fence.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=sasabe&st=nyt&oref=slogin

"Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club are challenging Mr. Chertoff’s waiver power through an amended federal lawsuit arising from his decision in October to overrule environmental review for a stretch of fence on the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in southeastern Arizona. The lawsuit is pending in federal court."

Isn't that the HEIGHT of DECEIT that we see in some Democratic political groups?

We have had an increase in population of 100 MILLION fucking people since Ed Kennedy changed the immigration laws in 1965. Most of that has been from immigration. We have 1 million immigrants per year NOT counting the illegals.

Doesn't the TWO-FACED, LYING SHITHEADS AT THE SIERRA CLUB realize the deadly impact that population boom has had on US wildlife habitat?

Yet the deceitful shitheads choose to use the money we give them to sabotage any attempt to halt illegal immigration -- in spite of the enormous environmental degradation we have seen in the past 30 years from unrestrained immigration.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 9:56 PM

There was nothing progressive about that CIR bill. It was terrible. Very pro-business, very anti-family.

Posted by Jay | May 23, 2008 10:13 PM

"fifth column"

"subversives"

"those who lied through their teeth when they took the oath of ... citizenship?"

Methinks someone is yearning for a Godwin's Law reference.

Yet the deceitful shitheads choose to use the money we give them to sabotage any attempt to halt illegal immigration -- in spite of the enormous environmental degradation we have seen in the past 30 years from unrestrained immigration.

On a more serious note, Don, I think you should have been around when you could have done some good by helping to stave off the hoards of Irish and Swedes who swamped our shore. Heck, you might have been able to prevent the menace of Italian immigration too.

Posted by ben | May 23, 2008 10:19 PM

On a related xenophobic note, I just learned yesterday that my hometown, a nice liberal Northwestern college town, was the site of a pretty viscous pogrom directed against Indian Sikhs and Chinese workers by whites about a hundred years ago. The sentiment that raised the ire of the white folks against the "hindoos" and "celestials" was that they "takin' our jerbs!".

Pretty sad stuff.

Posted by ben | May 23, 2008 10:30 PM

Don: "We have had an increase in population of 100 MILLION fucking people since Ed Kennedy changed the immigration laws in 1965. Most of that has been from immigration. We have 1 million immigrants per year NOT counting the illegals."

The math doesn't compute here. One million immigrants a year over forty years is forty million - that ain't "most" of a hundred million. If we even had one million a year since 1965, which is questionable:

Wikipedia: "The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in the 1980’s the net advance of illegal aliens was at the 130,000 per year increasing to 450,000 per year from 1990-94, and further increasing to 750,000 per year from 1995-1999 and staying at 700-850,000+ per year since about 2000."

Another Web source shows the following totals for all countries for various time periods"
1961-1970 332,168
1971-1980 449,331
1981-1990 733,806
1991-1998 950,634

Is there something wrong with 1/3rd of one percent of the population per year being legal immigrants?

And maybe another one third of one percent being illegal immigrants?

We're getting excited over two-thirds of one percent of the population per year?

The number of illegal immigrants in the US is estimated to be between 10 and 20 million. That is less than ten percent of the population at best - over the last four decades of time.

Sorry, I can't get excited over these low numbers.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 10:40 PM

Re Richard's comment "The math doesn't compute here. One million immigrants a year over forty years is forty million - that ain't "most" of a hundred million "
---------
They have children Richard. Well above average birthrate, actually.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 10:49 PM

"Don Williams, your credibility on this, and other southwestern issues, is OVER..."

Don Williams had credibility of any kind, ever? That's news to me. The man is obviously certifiable. Really, he rants like a paranoid schizophrenic, though with less charisma than the average street lunatic.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 23, 2008 11:05 PM

Re "The hundreds of immigrants that die in the AZ deserts every year don't die because the journey is too short or too easy"
-----------------
1) From Jan to Jun 2007, 155 dead illegals were found in the Tucson border area.

2) By contrast, US agents arrested 303,825 migrants in the Tucson area in the same time period.
Ref: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-31-border_N.htm?csp=34

Its unknown how many illegals escaped detection. Obviously a lot if the estimates of 20 million illegals in the USA are true (based on crosschecks of census data)

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:08 PM

Re ben's comment "Yeah, I take short walks of 60 miles in 110 degree weather all the time "
-----------------
1) It is roughly 38 miles from Sasabe to a coyote's van on I86 -- assuming one is not picked up sooner. That's a 2 to 3 days walk. Across mostly flat land.

2) The Temperature is not 110 degrees -- it's usually below 80 degrees F in the daytime from October to May. See
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USAZ0205?par=usatoday&site=www.usatoday.com&promo=0&cm_cat=www.usatoday.com&cm_pla=WxPage&cm_ite=CityPage

At night, it's rarely above 60. Currently it's
56 deg F and forecast to reach a high of 75 deg F
tomorrow.

3) You need a gallon of water per day. A gallon weighs 8.3 pounds.

4) Plus the topo map shows lots of cattle water tanks on ranches in the area. The first guy across shouldn't depend on those --but scouts should have located and mapped several water sources in the area.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:26 PM

Anyone remember how Janet Napolitano "interpreted" Prop 200 --approved by Arizona voters -- so as to render it meaningless?
(Prop 200 restricted public benefits to illegals.)

It's no wander Arizona is broke. With Janet standing at the border holding the door wide open.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 11:45 PM

Don,

If you can travel 40 miles in a day, using your topo maps and your carefully measured water, good for you. This week it got up near 110 degrees and there are, for damn sure, men, women, and children still crossing. Some number of them are also dying along the way.

They have children. .

They may not be white and their parents may not speak English well, but these kids are Americans, goddamnit. Unless you can claim that your ancestors were never immigrants, I suggest you kindly fuck off.

Posted by Ben | May 23, 2008 11:53 PM

Janet Napolitano is not in charge of immigration policy, the Federal government is. If you are interested in border security, you should be talking to the folks that represent you in Washington, not playing coyote logistics on the interwebs.

Posted by Ben | May 24, 2008 12:01 AM

"They have children Richard. Well above average birthrate, actually."

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, net international migration acounts for between 40 and 45 percent of annual growth in recent years. Researchers calculating the contribution of immigrants and their children to U.S. population growth over the past 30 years or so concluded that these 1st and 2nd generation residents accounted for about 55 percent of growth."

So perhaps your claim that "most" of the growth is technically correct. Nonetheless, the end result so far is less than ten percent of the population.

OTOH, according to some fertility experts, the US fertility rate is higher than in many other industrialized countries such as Europe. Non-Hispanic whites average around 2 children, Hispanics 2.9 children. So I don't see Hispanics outrunning whites so fast that it becomes a "threat." Also, as the immigrant population achieves better economic security, their reproduction rate should fall at least somewhat.

According to some stats, the presumption is that the current "immigration wave" will add another 75 million or so people to the US over the next fifty years, maybe more. However, this assumes the migration rate will stay the same. I would assume it would as long as South America continues to be poor and most immigration to the US comes from Mexico and South America.

So clearly, the proper approach to reducing immigration, if it is considered that big a problem, is to build up Mexico's economy so that fewer people need to come to the US to make a buck.

I still don't see it as an issue to get excited about. Predicting trends over the next fifty years, when technology is going to undergo a massive restructuring of human society, is quite risky.

And if the US has 75 million immigrants in fifty years with an overall population of 500 million, that's still only 15% of the population. Even a hundred million would be only 20%. Hell, go for the gold and try for 50%.

Those numbers still don't excite me.

And how old are you going to be in 2050?

Not to mention that by the end of this century, we Transhumans will probably reduce your numbers by, oh, ninety-eight percent...since only two percent of you chimps have any value, anyway.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 1:32 AM

We Transhumans will probably reduce your numbers by, oh, ninety-eight percent...since only two percent of you chimps have any value, anyway.

Funny story. In the summer of 2004, I participated in a science junket about science policy with electrical engineers, bioengineers,physists, biologists, biochemists and chemists that took us to DC. One of the featured speakers was Francis Fukuyama who talked about transhumanism.

None of us knew who he was (the dirty neocon motherfucker) and none of us could understand what the hell he was talking about.

Posted by ben | May 24, 2008 5:10 AM

If Obama picks someone like Napolitano or Sibelius that will be confirmation to me that he is going down in flames in November. He needs foreign policy gravitas, and that should be the VP selection criterion.

Posted by bob h | May 24, 2008 6:34 AM

Y'know, I'm beginning to think it's still possible for the Dems to lose this election. Because nothing says "out to lunch" like pairing a black man and a woman on the Prez-VP ticket.

I can't see why.

I remember thinking that same thing myself once upon a time. In Virginia in 1985, to be specific, when the Dem ticket headed by Jerry Baliles for governor also had Doug Wilder (African-American) for Lt Governor, and Mary Sue Terry (woman) for AG.

All three won. In Virginia. In 1985.

This is the U.S. as a whole. In 2008.

I trust my point is clear.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 24, 2008 7:23 AM

Re Richard's comment "So I don't see Hispanics outrunning whites so fast that it becomes a "threat."
------------
1) I don't see Hispanics per se as a threat -- I see unrestrained, unsustainable population growth as a threat. Regardless of the ethnic mix.

2)The only quarrel I have is with that Hispanic faction that accepts US citizenship but retains their loyalty to their friends down south. Who advocate for unrestrained immigration and are utterly indifferent to the damage it does to this land and the people of the USA. Who want to turn the USA into a version of poverty-ridden Central America/Mexico.

3) But even they are not the real problem. The real problem is with a part of the Democratic leadership which routinely betrays the people of this country while claiming to champion the common man.

Which sends 4000 citizens to their deaths merely for the financial support of a few billionaire supporters of the Israel Lobby. This AFTER their whoring for Sharon had brought on the deaths of 3000 Americans on Sept 11.

A faction within the Democratic leadership which panders to the Hispanic Lobby and the corporations -- by allowing in a flood of foreign workers to take jobs. Even when that results in a high percentage of our native citizens turning to crime -- and spending most of their lives in prison at enormous cost to the taxpayer.

4) News reports indicate that 45 PERCENT of the HISPANIC population of Arizona voted for Prop 200. Because Arizona's broke. Yet Janet Napolitano still undermined it with legal sophistry.

Because Janet's ambitions have a National scale. So she has no reason to give a shit about what happens to Arizona. She has to get onboard with the National Democrats -- who see Hispanics as the swing voters of California, Florida and Texas and who will desperately kiss the ass of La Raza if it will help get those votes. REGARDLESS of the cost to this country.

Posted by Don Williams | May 24, 2008 9:29 AM

Hillary Clinton isn't fit to carry Janet's briefcase. She has actual executive experience, has been elected three times (twice as governor) in a Republican state, the last victory being a crushing one over a lame challenger. It was a lame challenger because no bigger Republican wanted to go down to defeat against her.

She's a shrewd politician, quite unlike Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Josh | May 24, 2008 9:31 AM

Re: A Roman soldier on the Rhine circa 300 AD would have recognized this situation --even if wealthy, fat-ass patricians back in the capital did not.

When Mexico puts together an army and announces its intention to invade the US, then that comparison may make sense. Back in the ancient world individual peasants crossed border all the time (for the most part they had no idea a border was even there), pasturing their herds south in the winter, north in the summer. That was never a problem. The problem started when armies began showing up on the borders.

Re: It's no wander Arizona is broke. With Janet standing at the border holding the door wide open.

Defense of borders, and immigration issues, are ap urely federal responsibility. You can and should blame George W Bush for the current situation. No state has either the right or the means to secure foreign borders.

Posted by JonF | May 24, 2008 10:08 AM

Who can help laughing at the Sierra Club -- which puts out all those recruitment flyers claiming it protects the environment --but sees no need to worry about a population increase of 100 million people.

Environmentalists with two brain cells know that's a crock of shit. See ,e.g,, "Supersize America" at http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2004/03/01/mckibben-immigration/
and http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001859863_sierra18m.html

But the Sierra Club is ,in my opinion, similar to several other factions affiliated with our Democratic Party.

People so eager for political influence that they become deceitful whores -- and betray their most fundamental values. As well as the people of this country.

The Sierra Club does not protect the environment -- its well-insulated Board merely exists to siphon off energy and kneecap the growth of a true environmental protection group. Just as the New York Times exists to prevent the growth of a real newspaper.

In both cases, their well-heeled hypocrisy is disgusting.

Posted by Don Williams | May 24, 2008 10:32 AM

Re JonF's comment "Back in the ancient world individual peasants crossed border all the time (for the most part they had no idea a border was even there), pasturing their herds south in the winter, north in the summer."
-------------
In so far as the Roman Empire is concerned, this is a crock.

From the beginning --in Caesar Augustus's time -- The Romans used the Rhine River and Danube River as the main barriers to Germanic invasions -- with fortifications on the Roman banks.

They built a long line of fortifications -- the Limes Germanicus -- between the headwaters of the Danube and the Rhine. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus

Or go to Scotland and look at Hadrian's wall.

And the Romans would have cracked up at any suggestion there could be such a thing as a "Germanic Army".

Posted by Don Williams | May 24, 2008 10:43 AM

"So clearly, the proper approach to reducing immigration, if it is considered that big a problem, is to build up Mexico's economy so that fewer people need to come to the US to make a buck."

This is such basic common sense, it astounds me that this aspect is never discussed in the "Anti-Illegal Immigration" debate. In fact, people who don't acknowledge this when discussing the issue marks themselves as a simpleton.

Much of Mexico is a third-world hellhole with which we share a large unguarded border. Yes, people will come here for work because Mexico is a third-world shithole with a dysfunctional economy, not because they just love taking our precious bodily fluids. If we can occupy Iraq to spread democracy (makes jerking off motion with hand), then it wouldn't be too outlandish to assist Mexico with domestic reforms to lift it from third-world status.

Not to mention the disastrous effects the War on Drugs has on Mexico's political culture. But yeah, let's keep bitching about fences and driver's licenses.

Posted by Waingro | May 24, 2008 11:16 AM

i swiped this from a previous comment:
"Wikipedia: "The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in the 1980’s the net advance of illegal aliens was at the 130,000 per year increasing to 450,000 per year from 1990-94, and further increasing to 750,000 per year from 1995-1999 and staying at 700-850,000+ per year since about 2000."

overlay the nafta years and you see a pattern, i think.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 24, 2008 1:43 PM

No: In so far as the Roman Empire is concerned, this is a crock.

No it's not. The Romans garrisoned some strong points and had a few walls on problematic borders (like Hadrian's Wall in nothern Britain) but large areas of the Roman border were wide open, notably in Africa and the Middle East where Arabs and Berbers came and went pretty much at will.

Re: And the Romans would have cracked up at any suggestion there could be such a thing as a "Germanic Army".

Um, what defeated the Romans? German beer-maids? You don't think Ataulf and Gaiseric and those guys had armies (such as they were in antiquity) at their back? And are you unaware that German warriors were so tough that the Romans inducted them into their own legions? And note that the defeat of the Huns was accomplished by a joint Roman-Visgothic host. The problems the Romans had with the Germanni weren't caused by German immigrants: they were caused by German warriors. And the whole fracas started in the late 300s when several Gothic tribes who had been allowed to settle in a largely depopulated region of Thrace were cheated and absued and starved by the local Roman magistrates. Had the Romans had any sense they would have welcomed the Germanni and assimilated them to Roman ways, stiffening the Empire against invasion and collapse. Instead they made enemies of them. Long term of course the Germans were assimilated, via the Roman Catholic Church-- what languages and what religions are found in the Empire's old western territories, south of Britain and north of the Meditteranean? The Germans left only a few words behind in Latin (e.g., "blancus", "guerra") and some recessive blond genes.

Posted by JonF | May 24, 2008 3:39 PM

Re JonF's comment " Long term of course the Germans were assimilated, via the Roman Catholic Church"
----------
"Assimilating?"

Was that what the Catholic Pope Leo I was doing when he opened the gates of Rome and let the Vandals in to rape the Roman women??

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28455%29

"The sack of 455 is generally seen by historians as being more thorough than the Visigothic sack of 410, because the Vandals plundered Rome for fourteen days whereas the Visigoths spent only three days in the city."

ha ha ha ha

Maybe you might want to pass this immigration policy to NOW for review?

Posted by Don Williams | May 24, 2008 5:29 PM

Re JonF's comment "And are you unaware that German warriors were so tough that the Romans inducted them into their own legions?"
-------------
Ah, you begin to see the light. And how did that work out?

Maybe you could ask Pope Leo I --see above link.

See also: http://www.countercurrents.org/meyer231007.htm

Posted by Don Williams | May 24, 2008 5:36 PM

Fine, Don, I see where you're coming from. But I don't see any of that as a significant problem for this country any time soon (i.e., within the next couple of decades, if not longer.)

Don: "1) I don't see Hispanics per se as a threat -- I see unrestrained, unsustainable population growth as a threat. Regardless of the ethnic mix."

I don't. Primarily because I doubt that it is either "unrestrained", or "unsustainable" - or that it will necessarily continue if it DOES start to have negative effects on the country that the population as a whole will discern.

And a lot of that "unsustainable" depends on factors such as technology, government effects on the economy, war effects on the economy, changes in social attitudes, etc.

There's no evidence that Malthus is about to take control of the United States, in other words. And even if he does, so what? When the US is a Third World country like Mexico, people will stop coming here.

That result is no different than acknowledging that the world is changing due to large factors such as population and technology and economics and war. Nothing says the US is going to come of this as the same sunny place it supposedly was in the 1950's.

"2)The only quarrel I have is with that Hispanic faction that accepts US citizenship but retains their loyalty to their friends down south. Who advocate for unrestrained immigration and are utterly indifferent to the damage it does to this land and the people of the USA. Who want to turn the USA into a version of poverty-ridden Central America/Mexico."

This is no surprise. Every immigrant group wants to make the new country look like the "old country". Ever been in ANY ethnic enclave in this country? Ever heard of Chinatown? "Little Italy"? Or "Little Saigon" as the Tenderloin here in San Francisco is now called?

Once again, your argument is based on "damage" - and presumably "significant damage" that I don't see occurring any time soon. If you have specific evidence of economic damage caused by immigration - significant economic damage, not crap like the cost of social services consumed by immigrants - present it.

"3) But even they are not the real problem. The real problem is with a part of the Democratic leadership which routinely betrays the people of this country while claiming to champion the common man."

Well, I can only agree with that one.

"Which sends 4000 citizens to their deaths merely for the financial support of a few billionaire supporters of the Israel Lobby. This AFTER their whoring for Sharon had brought on the deaths of 3000 Americans on Sept 11."

Of course. Not relevant to immigration, however.

"A faction within the Democratic leadership which panders to the Hispanic Lobby and the corporations -- by allowing in a flood of foreign workers to take jobs. Even when that results in a high percentage of our native citizens turning to crime -- and spending most of their lives in prison at enormous cost to the taxpayer."

Well, I don't really believe that a major portion of the Federal prison system - i.e., the rural rednecks, the urban punks, and the ghetto niggers - originated with Hispanic immigrants. That a large portion of Federal prison inmates are Hispanics is beyond doubt.

"Inmate Demographics

* 1,343,164 men were under the jurisdiction of state or federal prison authorities on Dec. 31, 2002, an increase of 2.4 percent from Dec. 31, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2002.

* 97,491 women were under the jurisdiction of state or federal prison authorities on Dec. 31, 2002, an increase of 4.9 percent from Dec. 31, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2002.

* Black and Hispanic inmates together make up 62 percent of the prison population

o Approximately 46 percent of all prison inmates (excluding those whose race was not reported) were black; 36 percent, white; 16 percent, Hispanic; 1 percent, American Indian or Alaska Native; and 1 percent, Asian or Pacific Islander

* 46 percent of inmates were incarcerated for a violent offence"

I don't think you can establish that the 16 percent of Hispanics somehow caused the 46 percent who were black and the 36 percent who were white to be criminals. That just doesn't follow. Those rural rednecks, urban punks, and ghetto blacks turned to crime because of the organization of this society, the crappy educational system, and the imbalance of economic power in this society - not because a bunch of Mexican came in and got some of the cheap jobs.

The blacks and poor whites have been screwed up since long before Mexican immigration was an issue.

Neither do I think you can establish that the economy in this country has been so negatively affected by immigration that it is the cause of the 46 percent of blacks and 36 percent of whites becoming criminals as opposed to ALL OTHER SOCIAL FACTORS.

In terms of jobs, well, this is a corporate run state. If corporations can benefit by flooding the country with cheap workers, they will. And you're not going to change that any time soon, because you'd need a full on revolution to do so - and that ain't happening until perhaps the US actually becomes a Third World nation. And in that case, my guess is that the Latinos and blacks will out-revolt the whites, anyway.

So complaining about all this is a waste of time. The Democrats and Republicans are merely two sides of the same statist coin. Until you can do something about the statism in this country, nothing is going to change.

This is why I don't expect one single Democrat to discuss the upcoming Iran war - because they support it just like the Republicans do. Justin Raimondo is totally correct when he refers to the Democrats and the Republicans as "The War Party."

This country is built on war and the military-industrial complex. Chalmers Johnson has persuasively argued that it was set up deliberately so after WWII. Until that situation is changed - and it isn't going to be changed without a full on revolution (or the Transhuman Ascension, heh, heh) - the corporations and the politicians are going to continue to rob the citizens blind for their own benefit.

And if that requires flooding the country with immigrants, that's what they will do.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 10:12 PM