I would like to be surprised that FOX commentator Tony Snow has been named White House spokesperson, to replace Scott McClellan, who replaced Ari Fleischer. But I'm not. Isn't this just the long-awaited conjugal act of a wedding night that's been going on for a long time? FOX and the White House go together like cookies and milk.
I know I'm looking forward to hearing the daily spew of a guy who wouldn't know "fair and balanced" if it bit his ass.
Hey, is that Rupert Murdoch's headprint on the pillow in the Lincoln Bedroom?
Sources:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060426/POLITICS/604260322/1022/rss10
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
Si se puede
"Otra gringa para justicia"* is what my t-shirt reads. I just came back from the protest re: pending legislation on undocumented aliens.
This is what I spend a lot of my time thinking about, but if you don't, let's just establish a few basic premises so we're all on the same page:
1. The infrastructure of our society is undocumented aliens. You can't build a building or run a restaurant without them, even in small towns.
2. There is a distinction between people who want to live here and people who want to work here but not live here.
3. This really isn't about security. If it were, we'd be talking about a fence to the North, too. (Wasn't that Pat Buchanan's idea when he was running for office?)
4. It's wrong to make states like Arizona and Texas have to do all the funding of keeping Mexicans out that benefits the whole country. Federal funding has to be the mode.
5. Having someone, anyone, undercut your pay is one consequence of a marketplace economy.
6. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you have immigrant status, you're legal.
7. No one would care about this if Mexico were of greater use to the US.
8. In the not-too-distant future, Hispanics will be the majority in this country.
Having clarified all that, I'm just unclear on a few things:
1. Where is the value of making undocumented aliens, and anyone who helps them, aggravated felons? That is the very wording that is used in the Immigration Nationality Act to prevent one from being able to enter this country legally ever again. So, the alien gets deported, and b/c he's labeled a felon, he can't come back. Family here? Too bad. Job here? Que lastima.
2. I realize it's heresy to tell this to a conservative but if you don't like your price being undercut, and you abhor government interference, and you don't like the way the market is treating you, you have another option: unionize. Is there a problem?
3. If you've never noticed, Cubans can stay here provided they get a foot on dry land and Haitians are going back no matter whether they're dry or wet. How come? Ever notice how the US is still processing applications from the Philippines from 1982? Why? Because it has no relative merit to us, nor does Haiti. And our policy regarding immigration is built around who is useful to the US. Is that the best way to do it?
4. How come we only claim to care about jobs when it's blue collar work? Why don't we care about the IT workers getting displaced for someone from overseas? For that matter, how come the overseas IT workers don't work for $5 an hour?
5. Why is Congress inventing distinctions like who's been here 5 years and who hasn't? What is so magical about the number 5? Why is no one dealing with real distinctions, like whether you really want to live here or whether you only want to work here?
6. How come since the implementation of IRCA in 1986, we've understood that businesses are in the business of doing whatever it is they do but somehow we don't know that now? Before, it was OK not to police employees. Just seeing documentation was enough; no verification necessary. Is there someone out there who thinks that working America has somehow gained a few hours each week in the last 20 years, such that there's plenty of time and manpower away from the actual business focal point to screw around with verification? Moreover, has anyone considered for five seconds the ramifications of that? If you can now be sued for photocopying the docs of some but not all of your employees under Title VII (you can), can you imagine the ensuing frenzy when b/c you can't verify someone, either b/c the docs are crap or b/c you can't get the right source on the phone or because you flat out suck at that task, he gets fired? Would there be any incentive not to sue, since one would at least stand a decent chance at a windfall in court, as compared with no income, since he was just canned?
Answers, who's got my answers?
*another North American woman for justice
This is what I spend a lot of my time thinking about, but if you don't, let's just establish a few basic premises so we're all on the same page:
1. The infrastructure of our society is undocumented aliens. You can't build a building or run a restaurant without them, even in small towns.
2. There is a distinction between people who want to live here and people who want to work here but not live here.
3. This really isn't about security. If it were, we'd be talking about a fence to the North, too. (Wasn't that Pat Buchanan's idea when he was running for office?)
4. It's wrong to make states like Arizona and Texas have to do all the funding of keeping Mexicans out that benefits the whole country. Federal funding has to be the mode.
5. Having someone, anyone, undercut your pay is one consequence of a marketplace economy.
6. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you have immigrant status, you're legal.
7. No one would care about this if Mexico were of greater use to the US.
8. In the not-too-distant future, Hispanics will be the majority in this country.
Having clarified all that, I'm just unclear on a few things:
1. Where is the value of making undocumented aliens, and anyone who helps them, aggravated felons? That is the very wording that is used in the Immigration Nationality Act to prevent one from being able to enter this country legally ever again. So, the alien gets deported, and b/c he's labeled a felon, he can't come back. Family here? Too bad. Job here? Que lastima.
2. I realize it's heresy to tell this to a conservative but if you don't like your price being undercut, and you abhor government interference, and you don't like the way the market is treating you, you have another option: unionize. Is there a problem?
3. If you've never noticed, Cubans can stay here provided they get a foot on dry land and Haitians are going back no matter whether they're dry or wet. How come? Ever notice how the US is still processing applications from the Philippines from 1982? Why? Because it has no relative merit to us, nor does Haiti. And our policy regarding immigration is built around who is useful to the US. Is that the best way to do it?
4. How come we only claim to care about jobs when it's blue collar work? Why don't we care about the IT workers getting displaced for someone from overseas? For that matter, how come the overseas IT workers don't work for $5 an hour?
5. Why is Congress inventing distinctions like who's been here 5 years and who hasn't? What is so magical about the number 5? Why is no one dealing with real distinctions, like whether you really want to live here or whether you only want to work here?
6. How come since the implementation of IRCA in 1986, we've understood that businesses are in the business of doing whatever it is they do but somehow we don't know that now? Before, it was OK not to police employees. Just seeing documentation was enough; no verification necessary. Is there someone out there who thinks that working America has somehow gained a few hours each week in the last 20 years, such that there's plenty of time and manpower away from the actual business focal point to screw around with verification? Moreover, has anyone considered for five seconds the ramifications of that? If you can now be sued for photocopying the docs of some but not all of your employees under Title VII (you can), can you imagine the ensuing frenzy when b/c you can't verify someone, either b/c the docs are crap or b/c you can't get the right source on the phone or because you flat out suck at that task, he gets fired? Would there be any incentive not to sue, since one would at least stand a decent chance at a windfall in court, as compared with no income, since he was just canned?
Answers, who's got my answers?
*another North American woman for justice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)