Richardson, Mr. Subtle pants
There's been a lot of traffic, not schockingly from the right side of things, about Bill Richardson's (and Janet Napolitano's) emergency declaration(s) along the boarder last week. "Dems Defending America Better than Bush?" and stuff like that.
I'm not going to parce the politics of the decision, only assuming that the situation down there is actually pretty bad. People that assume that this has something to do with 2008 are probably familiar with the obvious.
This just goes to show why being a governor and running for President is better than, say, being a Senator or Rep and running for President. For example, Tom Tancredo has been travelling the country for months talking about immigration and all he gets out of it is being known as the new Bob Dornan and that great "Let's bomb Mecca" quote. All the while, Bill Richardson acts like a leader.
Also, Richardson is a little more subtle that most think:
Recently, though, Richardson pissed off a few Chicano/Latino activists by calling for a state of emergency because of the immigration issue in NM. Worse, he chose Lou Dobbs to announce nationally that he had called for it.
But as Lou Dobbs' lackies might spin it as Richardson agreeing with the Minutemen, Richardson based the state of emergency on the problem of immigrant smuggling (not crossings!) and on the drugs that are crossing over through Columbus, NM. Richardson also called for immigration reform that increases the opportunity for amnesty and citizenship--he slipped that one in. He was actually quite effective, if you paid attention--and I think he even fooled the Dobbs people. Since he's one of my favorite Chicano Democrats, I listen to his every word in case he does happen to piss me off!
Not that being too subtle can't get you into trouble. But what seems on the surface to be a very brash Red State move is actually a smart Dem move.
It also shows that the Democrats nationally, if this post I'm linking to is correct, are taking the lead on immigration away from Tancredo, by using their Southwest governors. Which is pretty damn smart if they are:
DNC party operatives have decided that if the GOP dominated federal government can’t solve the illegal immigaration problem, a problem that an awful lot of voters seem to care about, then its time for the Democrats to come out as the party with the plan.The DNC is absolutely correct – the GOP has sat on its wrinkled hands on illegal immigration. However, the DNC has welcomed illegals with open arms (and welfare checks). This is unprincipled politics on both sides, and both parties should hang their heads in shame.
Napolitano has clearly fired the first volley on the immigration issue, sure to be the number one issue in the 2006 gubernatorial election.
Emmett O'Connell | August 16, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
First of all, Richardson pandering to the right doesnt gain him any conservative votes, it just makes him look like he doesnt stand for anything. Its been said all along that Democrats need to stand for something, not react to republican issues. Immigration isnt a big issue in the west, but people are making it into an issue, because they dont have anything else to talk about.
In my opinion, Richardson is not a viable candidate on the Democratic ticket, not because of his ethnicity, he is not Chicano, but because of his links to the Clinton administration.
Immigration, legal and illegal, built this country. Most Latinos, Hispanics, or whatever is the PC term nowadays, came to this country illegally. Look at the immigration quotas for each latin country . I am half Native American and half Mexican, so one half of me was here before everyone else, and the other half came here illegally.
The only thing that I agree with Bush on, is immigration. He understands the economic dynamics of immigration. Texas would not be anything without it, neither would the southwest, and increasingly the west.
I think Democrats need to sit down and get their facts and definitions straight. First they need to define what is a latino/hispanic. Second they need to look at immigration and its positives, rather than pander to the right. Third, I dont see Richardson as a Hispanic, New Mexico is funny about their "hispanos", native born new mexicans of "spanish" origin, rather than mexican or latin.
Posted by: Daniel C. Cardenas Jr. | Aug 16, 2005 9:32:07 AM
Daniel has a good post. I would like to add the following observations. America needs a guest worker program of some kind. It is foolish and disrespectfull to continually address the immigration issue as a problem to be solved. It is important to give all those that contribute to a productive America legal worker status.
It will be almost impossible to stop immigrants from coming to America as long as conditions in their native country is a grinding experience with little hope a better life. Even with our faults, America has been a bright light of hope for millions of immigrants over the years.
If our Democrats want this issue, they will need to get busy in Washington. A guest worker program needs to be worked out. So far, our Democrats have done little to address this issue.
Gov. Richardson is making a statement about the obvious. Namely, mass illegal immigration is causing many Americans along the southern border to question Washington's leadership on this issue. I suggest that Gov. Richardson meet with the Democratic Party leadership and encourge them to work out a guest worker program in Washington. Because, nothing can really be done at the State level.
Over the years, immigrats have been the spark that propelled American to be more productive. I pray that we will continue to look at the positive contributions that immigrants make.
Posted by: Tim | Aug 16, 2005 11:53:13 AM
I grew up in Texas and New Mexico and I have to say that I do not know one single person who ever lost a job to an illegal worker. I do know quite a few who were freed of manual labor so they could acquire higher paying jobs on the farms, ranches, and oil fields in the area. I'll go out on a limb and say the same is true for city-folks, too.
My solution to illegal immigration is simple. Let them come, but take away the economic benefit.
Unlimited work permits for anyone who joins the union. That lets anyone come here that wants to, and pulls the union over onto the same side as the rest of the party. It also ensures that immigrant workers will not be taken advantage of with sub-standard wages and conditions.
When employers have to pay a higher wage for illegal workers, they'll stop hiring them. Meanwhile, seeing immigrants get better pay and treatment will push natural born workers to unionize. In the end, everyone benefits.
It is simple. NAFTA supposedly created a "free trade zone". However, from an economic standpoint, a free trade zone cannot exist unless labor can cross boundaries as easily as capital. You want free trade? You better have free migration of labor, too.
Yeah, there will still be substantial leakage around the edges of such a system. Honestly, someone is always going to screw the system. The answer to that is to prosecute them fully.
With this plan, you support people looking for a better life, give natural born workers an economic advantage, and support workers rights for everyone.
Want more justification? How's this:
Republicans like to crow that immigrants are not entitled to full protection of their rights under the Constitution. Okay, they have no "right to work" and can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
They also have no "right" to social security - which they already pay into without ever getting anything back. By documenting them and making them legal, they would actually pay for any social services they use through their tax dollars. Since they are temporary, they would not build up social security benefits.
After a period of time, they could apply for full citizenship if they can show a solid work history and no criminal record.
Okay, punch it full of holes.
BTW, I don't like Richardson for President, either.
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | Aug 19, 2005 1:27:28 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
