For those who don’t know, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a pretend outsider loved by “genuine conservatives” for being an anti-establishment outsider. Forget that he’s a lawyer, went to Harvard Law School, clerked for the Supreme Court, made partner in a huge international law firm, worked for the Bush administration, and is married to a partner at Goldman Sachs. Yeah, forget all of that because he’s an outsider... the real deal. What exactly he stands for is a mystery as he hasn’t actually stood for anything yet (or firmly against anything except Obamacare), but we’re sure it ain’t no stinkin’ RINOism.
Cruz plans to run for President to the right of whoever else is running. His first step in that regard was to let himself be anointed the anti-Rubio. But that is now unraveling if Mickey Kauss is any indication. According to Kauss, Cruz will be to blame when “amnesty” passes, and he’s provided a handy “two-count indictment” of Cruz to explain why.
Kauss starts by telling us that Cruz not only “failed to rise to the occasion” of stopping the Rubio bill, but he actually “increased its chance of becoming law.” Sacre bleu! See, while “charismatic Latino apostate, Sen. Marco Rubio” quickly became the leader of the “pro-amnesty faction in the Senate,” the anti-amnesty faction “needed a leader too, especially a Latino leader.” But Cruz didn’t step up. According to Kauss, all Cruz did was “the minimum necessary to maintain his credibility.” He “promoted an online petition, gave a nice floor presentation and a couple of cogent outdoor addresses to African American marchers and Tea-Partiers. . . but the job of actually leading the opposition fell to Sen. Jeff Sessions.”
Yep. Cruz is a traitor because he didn’t try hard enough. In other words, the difference between being a “genuine conservative” and being an apostate is not the policies you support, it’s that you live up the level of effort Kauss expects. And what did Kauss expect? According to Kauss, Sessions did an excellent job but simply couldn’t “bring the heft to the fight that Cruz could.” So Cruz’s duty was to replace him. And what gives Cruz this heft? He’s Latino. Essentially, Kauss is arguing that because Cruz is a Latino, he owed it to the anti-amnesty cause to take over the leadership and stop this thing, or else he must be denounced as the traitor who caused the evil amnesty bill to pass. Yikes. As an aside, I dare anyone to explain Kauss’s position to a group of minorities and see how comfortable you feel about that... “See, you’re Latino, you owe it to us to fight other Latinos if you want to be one of us.” Gangs call this “blood in.”
Having found Cruz guilty of lack of effort, Kauss then assigns an evil motive to Cruz. He implies that the reason Cruz refused his Latino-duty was that such a stance would “risk costing him some MSM and donor support.” In other words, he sold us out for personal gain... the same gain other RINOs sell out for. Tisk, tisk, Latino Sen. Cruz.
It gets worse... down the conspiracy rabbit hole we go.
Count Two: Once the evil bill passed the Senate, the only hope of blocking the bill (because the “amnesty-friendly GOP House leadership” wants to “sneak amnesty through”) was to delay the bill until August when “Republican grass roots could attend town halls” and blast Republicans. But evil Latino Sen. Cruz deceived us!
“Into this void stepped Cruz, who made a bold attempt to rouse a ‘grassroots army’ for the cause of... defunding Obamacare. So instead of haranguing their members about unchecked immigration, hard core red-staters would harangue them about the Democrats’ health care plan.”Yep, it was all a RINO plot. Cruz distracted everyone so he didn’t have to talk about immigration. According to Kauss, the Democrats were “secretly delighted” by this because “with the Tea partiers distracted, fence-sitting Reps might have enough breathing room in the fall to sneak some kind of mass legalization through.” Of course, Kauss notes as an aside, it won’t actually appear to be legalization at the time, but the sneaky Republicans will pass something the Democrats can then turn into a path to citizenship when no one is looking, i.e. anything that gets passed is a trick.
This attack is truly rich in irony. Right now, the nut-job wing is talking about primarying RINO Paul Ryan because he suggested defunding won’t work. In fact, anyone who isn’t fully on board with defunding gets tagged with the RINO label. Yet, Kauss tells us that defunding was actually a fiendish plan to distract people from immigration. Moreover, Kauss actually attacks Cruz’s defunding plan as having “no hope” and having “a much greater chance of reviving Democratic fortunes.” Huh. So the brilliant plan that only RINOs oppose is in fact an idiotic, unworkable and self-destructive plan created by a secret RINO to distract genuine conservatives from fighting immigration. Do you get the sense the nut-job wing has gone full retard: you’re all RINOs if you do and you’re RINOs if you don’t and you’re RINOs if you aren’t passionate enough about both stances! Great oogley moogley!!
Kauss finishes his indictment with an unnumbered bonus third count by condemning Cruz because he “helped rehabilitate” the apostate Rubio by letting him participate in the defunding effort. Silly Cruz, apostates should be forever shunned, praise Allah.
Wow.
Anyways, the big news this summer is the utter lack of news from the town halls. Despite promises by Tea Party groups that they would storm these forums and scare the Republicans straight, that doesn’t appear to be happening. There have been several theories advanced for this. Kauss obviously thinks maniacal evil RINO Cruz distracted Tea Party people, who are apparently incapable of holding two thoughts at once. Others are arguing that talk radio has itself misdirected the Tea Party people by talking about impeachment, the revival of the birther issue, the Common Core paranoia, the continued obsession with Muslims and Benghazi, and canonizing the Missouri rodeo clown. Others blame GOP money being on the pro-amnesty side... because money stops Tea Party people from attending Town Halls... trust me, it does... somehow. Those pesky Republicans also aren’t bringing it up unless someone from the crowd does, which of course doesn’t explain why no one is bringing it up. And those sneaky Republicans aren’t all holding town halls, which doesn’t explain the lack of screamers at the ones that are held or why an anti-amnesty rally in DC last week attracted only 60 people.
The truth is more likely what keeps showing up in the polls, which is that around 65% of Republicans support a path to citizenship, and most of the rest support something being done about the problem. So the Kauss/talk radio line of “deport them all or burn it all to the ground” isn’t really catching on.
Whatever the answer though, Kauss’s article should stand as a warning to any Republican who thinks he can lead the nut-job wing. They are bat sh*t crazy and they will turn on you the moment paradise doesn’t come. In fact, the incredibly high number of “genuine conservative” messiahs who have been denounced as RINOs is staggering. It’s a bit like the old Soviet Union. The moment you didn’t deliver, you were declared an enemy of the people and sent packing to Siberia. Welcome to Siberia, Sen. Cruz.
61 comments:
I guess I have never considered Mickey Kauss worthy of being paid too much attention. I would run across his articles via link at Slate. I'm trying to not pay too much attention right now. Mainly looking for an individual who can be an effective opponent to Hillary, and support some economic sanity. It is tough duty. Right now, Rubio seems to be closest to that, but too much to play out yet.
Jed, Kauss has been leading the attack against immigration reform at Daily Caller. His articles have been linked to a couple times by Drudge and a lot at HotAir. This is pretty typical of what you will find at HotAir, DC or Breitbart at the moment. I thought it was kind of funny actually that now they're turning on Cruz, who has tried to ride the wave of idiocy to the top.
When Fanatics cannot achieve their objectives, they will eat each other.
Kit, Very true. And that's what's been happening here. They pick a leader (Bush, Romney, Christie, Toomey, Jindal, Ryan, Rubio, Cruz... and more) and the moment these people don't bring immediate paradise, they get denounced as heretics. The only way to stay loved without delivering the impossible is to keep denouncing others.
I'll be curious to see how quickly this catches on and who will replace Cruz. The pickings are getting kind of slim. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ricky Santorum try to take over for Cruz.
Andrew,
Actually, I'd say it has more in common with Robespierre's France than Soviet Russia.
Kit, Probably a better analogy. The biggest problem right now is that the "genuine conservative" movement (which is not to be confused with actual conservatism) has no idea what they want. They want a different world and that's impossible to deliver. And as soon as they decide you can't deliver, they hate you.
So, who then is our Marat? ;)
The analogy only goes so far. This revolution is dying a different death. This one is dying from increasingly irrelevance.
My hope is that the Liz Cheney fiasco will be such a public disaster (even some "genuine conservatives" are against it) that it will end or deal a major blow to the idea of purist primary challenges.
I have new found respect for Cruz. Thank you.
Kit, You're looking for a sensible ending. The history of politics and human nature suggest that a sensible ending isn't possible. The GC ranks are not thinking, they are emoting. And part of that is an immunity to logic and an immunity to facts.
Liz Cheney will be destroyed and they will simply write her off, as they have the dozens of other GCs who got blown out in elections, because she doesn't fit the narrative.
The GC revolution will end when the GC's realize that the world doesn't deserve them and they storm off. In the meantime, I am seeing a lot of evidence of actual conservatives separating themselves from these GCs and the Republicans are breaking free of them as well.
Koshcat, LOL! I honestly have no idea what to make of Cruz at this point because I have no idea what he actually believes. He's never said. For example, even on immigration, he kept saying, "I'm not opposed to reform, I just don't like this reform." So what does he actually stand for? I have no idea.
I do know that he's smart. And I know he's inclined toward conservatism. But beyond that, I'm still stumped. So I remain neutral on him.
"In the meantime, I am seeing a lot of evidence of actual conservatives separating themselves from these GCs and the Republicans are breaking free of them as well."
Andrew, Where do you see conservatives separating themselves?
Koshcat, I am tempted to tell Cruz "Welcome to our world!"
Kit, I'm seeing it everywhere.
1. Most of the beltway pundits (like Krauthammer) are disavowing the crazies. All of the presidential candidates are (except Santorum and possibly Cruz).
2. Even at places like Daily Caller, there are competing voices appearing who go directly against the wave. They get slammed for it, but they keep doing it.
3. Most importantly, the polls are consistently showing that the crazies are just a tiny portion of the electorate and the party. And the Republicans are starting to wake up to that. The Senate gets it for sure. The House is a little more timid, but they are showing signs of coming around as well. Once they realize that they don't need to be crazy to stay in office, you will see a dramatic change. I think that's coming in 2014.
The problem is that when you focus on politics, the places you can do that are run by people who know that crazy sells... sane doesn't. So they all play to the crazies. That makes it seem like everyone is crazy. But that's a faulty snapshot of America or conservatism.
Oh, what a mess! TIME recently devoted 4 pages to Cruz, which is probably the most ink I've seen spilled for the guy. Of course, one of those pages was devoted to one of those unflattering HDR photo portraits on the vignetted background that are so popular among newsroom graphic artists. I somewhat suspect they were planning a cover piece but discovered there wasn't that much to say about the man. LOL!
I'm a little less than impressed with Cruz at this point. I'm not bugged much by the insider credentials, or even that he allows his ersatz followers to call him an outsider in spite of them. No, I'm just put off by how run-of-the-mill he is. Don't get me wrong, the world needs run-of-the-mill politicians, but they make lousy candidates for high office.
tryanmax, I honestly don't know what to make of him. Indeed, I don't have an opinion on him yet, which is a little troubling in and of itself. What that tells me is that I simply have no way to know what he really believes.
And I think your description of him as "run of the mill" is rather accurate. He hasn't staked out a difficult position... always gone with the mob. He hasn't championed an issue. He hasn't even explained himself on anything. He is playing the role of "loud, empty suit" which so many politicians before him have played.
Until that changes, I see him as nothing more than a hundred more people who see politics as a career.
Now, with all due respect, Ted Cruz was only elected to the US Senate as of 8 months ago. Maybe it's best that he not be too policy-specific yet. And perhaps he does not want to be just another token Hispanic for the Far Right to trot out like some show pony.
Bev: The far right? Since when does the far right have any presence of power in anything?
Bev, good point. Like I said, I don't really take much issue with Cruz not staking out policy. I do suspect a lot of the attention is thrust on him. It's really the far right that needs to be reminded that he's a Senate freshman.
In response to to D. Luthor's question, we and everybody else are talking about some cookie-cutter, no-platform politician from Texas, aren't we?
D. Luther - Please...let me be blunt. The Far Right as I see it are the anti-immigrant, homophobic, women-loathing, VERY vocal minority who end up making the rest of us look like idiots. Trust me. Spend time on any liberal or even the Breitbart Bigs blogs and you will know what I mean.
It is really hard to sell any Republican candidates when one candidate becomes national fodder/laughingstock for the Left when that candidate (say, from Missouri) actually says that women can't get pregnant during "legitimate" rape...really, now does one spin such stupidity to make it sound better?
Bev, How dare you! Just kidding. :)
True, Cruz has only been a Senator for 8 months. But he's been in politics a lot longer than that. And if he doesn't have a set of beliefs he can share, then I'm a little worried. You could elect most of us and we would have a platform from day one. Cruz has been careful to keep his views blurred so he doesn't firmly stand for or against anything (except Obamacare), he just gives the impression that he has. I always find that troubling.
And when you compare him to Paul Rand, you really see the difference. rand's only been there a little bit, but he's staked out some major ground on both controversial and noncontroversial issues. Cruz hasn't.
As I said, I don't dislike him, I just don't know what to make of him yet. And I can't support him running for President, ala Obama, without a record.
On your point about him being used as an Hispanic, good point. That's exactly what Kauss thought his duty was.
Luthor, I wouldn't call them the far right, because I don't know what they are at this point. They certainly aren't conservatives, though they claim to be the only ones deserving of the title. In terms of what they hold, since 2010, they've run the House, even if they don't control the leadership. Beyond that though, they hold nothing and they never will because they are as representative of the American public as Art Bell.
tryanmax, Keep in mind that Cruz has embraced the attention and is flirting with running for President. If he didn't want it, he could easily have avoided it as so many others have.
What he's doing is the new "in thing." He runs on impressions rather than positions and he's trying to flirt without commitment so that no one can come back later and say, "See what he did!" when he runs for president. It's what Obama did. It's what a lot of people are doing now because they've realized it's safer.
Andrew,
I don't think the Daily Caller's article is evidence of some sort of backlash against Cruz. Its just one guy spouting off.
Bev, Yep. They are the problem. Let me add: their platform is "burn it to the ground." They have no positive platform whatsoever... in fact, they argue that having one makes on a RINO. They argue that we can win moderates by getting angrier and more extreme. Every time someone insults Obama, they appoint that person the next messiah and want them to run for President. They throw their messiahs away as RINO traitors the moment the world doesn't change. They explain away their failures through denial and conspiracy... "we've never run a real conservative!" Right, and socialism has never been tried. They have no clue what they want except "a return" to a document they don't understand and intentionally misinterpret, and the public taken out of the democratic process.
The only reason I hesitate to call them "the far right" is because I don't think they belong on the ideological spectrum. They are insane populists who currently claim to be "genuine conservatives" but really have no actual conservative beliefs and will call themselves something else once the Republicans move on.
Anthony, Each of the backlashes against the genuine conservative du jour began with one writer or talker or another suddenly discovering their secret RINOism.
Kauss's attack may or may not take, but I would be surprised if Mark Levin won't push this. And if he does, the rest will follow because in today's GC world, you better not get caught not pushing a theory that becomes widely accepted.
At the very least, this will be evidence used after his first obvious failure... "You know, he did undermine us on immigration too!"
Anthony, Let me also add that the backlash against Rubio isn't real either. If you go to any of the blog you will hear that Rubio is "a traitor" or "an apostate" and "he's ruined his chance of winning the nomination" etc. etc. Yet, recent polls show him as the second most popular Republican within the party, scoring high 60% support. That's really the point, is that what is being presented as the conservatives information sphere is completely out of step with the party base.
Keep in mind that Cruz has embraced the attention...If he didn't want it, he could easily have avoided it...
That's true and I don't mean to discount that. In fact, I was just pointing that out to some folks that shouldn't need it pointed out. Needless to say, they were less than receptive of the Obama comparison, which I also made.
---
On the relationship b/w Obamacare and amnesty, w/o mentioning Cruz, Rush just strung both subjects together and I still can't make heads or tails of it. Somehow it works out that b/c some Republicans support immigration reform, none of them oppose Obamacare. Maybe the trick is to make everything about both. That's what both Cruz and Ryan failed to do.
I looked at the comments and a fair number of the "hang the traitor Rubio" crowd seem leery of this.
But we'll see how far this goes.
tryanmax, I've run into the same thing actually, from a similar crowd (offline). When I said that Cruz has no record yet that I can judge him by, just like Obama, they tried to rip my face off. Cruz is the new Rubio is the new Ryan is the new Christie is the new Romney... infallible.
That's interesting about Rush. So he's possibly taking the other side of the same conspiratorial coin? We'll have to see where that leads. I wonder what made him bring this up? Perhaps the Kauss article, perhaps someone else has made he connection and they are reacting to it?
Kit, Mobs start small and course changes are resisted at first. It's never a smooth transition until you reach critical mass, then everyone "zombies over."
Whether or not this will stick with Cruz, I have no way to tell. It's hard to predict mob behavior. But it does seem to be the same first shot like those fired at people like Toomey and Ryan and Jindal and Rubio. And in any event, I offer this only to show the problem with the mob at the moment... they are fickle and crazy and they will find betrayal where none exists. In fact, I think it's obvious that Cruz did not do what Kauss accuses him of, yet Kauss is so far gone that he clearly passionately believes his insanity. That's the problem: logic is in short supply with the group Kauss runs with at the moment. That's what should give people pause.
Andrew, that is kind of why I like Cruz. He is controlling his message by not having a public message until HE decides when to make his message public. maybe that's just my rational.
Better to keep your mouth shut and to be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt...
Bev, True. I do wish he would create a platform or at least embrace a couple ideas though. Until he does, I'll withhold judgment in either direction. I can say that he seems smart and likable though. And I'd like to support him.
Andrew, I should have provided a little more context for Rush's remarks. They started as a reaction to Obama's latest preemptive denial of responsibility for anything/blaming the Republicans for whatever might go wrong next. Sometimes this is referred to as his weekly YouTube address. From there he went on to blame the Republicans for everything the president is accusing them of, but for different reasons.
tryanmax, I haven't paid much attention to Rush lately, but every time I tune into talk radio, that's what I hear: "Obama just did this evil thing... and I'm so angry at the Republicans because of it."
Andrew:...around 65% of Republicans support a path to citizenship.
Link?
K,
Here: LINK
K, I can't find the most recent poll. It showed that Republicans opposed "amnesty" but when it was "path the citizenship after 13 years, payment of fines, and in conjunction with stronger border support," the results rose to 68% support.
Here's an older poll that shows Republican support for the Senate bill at 60% LINK. Question 24.
There have been similar results by Rasmussen, NBC, the Wall Street Journal, and National Journal.
K, Yes, that's another one -- 65% for Republicans and about 80% for moderates.
Also, it should be noted that the other 35/40% are not all opposed, some are "don't know." I think the opposition is around 27% of Republicans.
I don't consider myself a moderate Republican, there are some issues I just don't think we need to draw blood from our own people over. To be honest, I'm confuesd at this point on who I might consider...Christie is too left wing for me on guns, maybe on the budget he might be better and hope a Republican congress keeps him out of the 2nd Amendment. Cruz and others I'm still looking at. I like Rand Paul on some things... I cannot see giving illegals a short path to citizenship. It makes no sense...The far Right is way to powerful, but I also feel that the John McCains and Chris Chrities would run over everyone. maybe the far Right is acting as a sea anchor and keeping the whole ship from going full bore for the reefs.
Critch, I think you are where most people are.
1. The problem with the self-described moderates is that they are just liberals in elephant skin. People like Christie just want to do what the Democrats want.
2. The problem with the crazy wing is that they are all about destruction at the moment. They want to tear everything down and they not only don't offer a real agenda, they attack those who do. So they make it impossible for us to even push a conservative agenda because they want nothing to happen. Moreover, they make it impossible for us to win the moderates we need to win elections.
3. Who do we support then? Well, the jury is still out. There are some good people. None of them are perfect, but they are much better than anything we've seen in decades: Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Mitch Daniels, maybe Rick Perry, and a dozen more. Cruz is among them, I just don't know enough about him yet to see where he fits. But that will become clear over time. These guys are smarter, savvier, and more conservative than anything we've seen in a long time. Unfortunately, they are currently overshadowed by the anger coming from the far right.
4. On immigration reform, I concur. They are here illegally, and we should not make the path to citizenship instant or easy... I think we've lost the battle for something less than citizenship though because conservatives held on to the "deport them" strategy too long (otherwise I would argue for legal status only). When people are asked if a 13 year path, with them being cut off from welfare, needing to hold jobs and needing to pay taxes is enough to agree to letting them become citizens, the answer seems to be overwhelmingly yes.
I don't have a problem with that. I think that's a fair solution to a problem that does need to be fixed, especially if there is tighter border security and deportation of new arrivals as well. Unfortunately, it's impossible to discuss this rationally because people Kauss keep screaming that this is amnesty (i.e. instant citizenship) and no matter what gets passed it will be a betrayal.
In terms of drawing blood from our own people, that's the real problem right now. That's all I see at most conservative sites -- attacking one Republican after another for a lack of purity. It's highly destructive and self-defeating.
BTW, Critch, let me add that I don't see myself as a "moderate" at all. I fully believe in conservatism and I am in favor of all of it. But the conservatism I believe in is broad spectrum, i.e. it looks to solve all kinds of problems, it is premised on individual and personal freedom, it is premised on helping people and improving the country, it doesn't take its cue from being anti-whatever-the-other-guy-wants, and it's not intolerant. Real conservatives realize that people are different with different opinions, and we need to tolerate those differences if we truly believe that individual freedom will make the country better.
The problem I have with the people who are calling themselves "genuine conservatives" right now is that their views are narrow and angry. Their sole purpose is "stop everything Obama wants," and they ostracize anyone who doesn't toe the line 100% and with sufficient outrage to convince them of their purity. Nor are they reasonable. If they run into a fact they don't like, they ignore it. They are neck deep in conspiracy and they have become addicted to friendly fire. That's not conservatism.
Thanks Kit, Andrew. I goggled "Americans for Conservative Action" - who apparently did the poll - and got this article in Slate.
The writer claims that "Americans for Conservative Action" is an astroturf creation of Mark Zuckerberg. A false flag operation.
Here's another link from the pretty reliable Legal Insurrection on the same subject.
K, We're talking about multiple polls by multiple organizations and they all show roughly the same thing within a few points. Kit's is CBS news. The link I gave was Quinnipac. There are also from various polling organizations. We aren't relying on one poll made by one group.
K,
CBS News cites its own poll which more or less corresponds to the numbers that it has a fair amount of support among conservatives.
Kit, The numbers have been fairly consistent across the polls for some time.
Exactly.
Interesting coincidence here... or not coincidence. Here's an article from the AP which says that the focus on Obamacare has helped the immigration reform people. Sounds like this is becoming a meme.
No mention of Cruz in this article though. Clearly, by not mentioning him, they are trying to protect their own double agent. ;P
LINK.
Maybe we need to view ourselves as broadminded Republicans with a big tent...hard core ideologues just don't do much for me..
Critch, Good way to put it!
In truth, the more I look around, the more I realize that America is not an ideological country. We are conservative by nature at a fundamental level, but we are practical when it comes execution. If something works, we run with it. If it doesn't, we drop it and try something else. Americans are great at experimenting and reinventing themselves and the country every so often, and that means they are also skeptical of rigidity. So hard-core ideology really doesn't appeal to the public, not from the left or the right... because the public wants results, not process, and ideology is typically more about process.
That, right there, is the line that could sell smaller government. "My opponents in Congress just want to get bogged down in processes. I want to deliver results for the American people. If the process is standing in the way of results, then it's the process that needs to go."
There are two caveats on that though:
1. I'm not sure you can get through a primary that way because primaries are about sounding ideological.
2. You need a platform or it's really easy to mock you for having no ideas. You end up becoming H. Ross Perot... "Gonna get in there and fix it." How? "Gonna open the hood and fix it." Yeah, but how? "Gonna fix it." You don't have a clue do you?
I was thinking of it more as a "once you're in there" line. The earliest I think it could be pulled out is after the primaries.
I definitely think that an aggressive "pragmatic" campaign based on conservative ideas would resonate really well with the public.
Isn´t Kaus a Democrat? I thought he was fan of big government and opposed to unskilled immigration mainly because it depresses wages for workers. It is a valid point that doesn´t require resorting to bizarre conspiracy theories, or so I would have thought...
El Gordo: I don't think it is much of a valid point. Lowering property taxes, people choosing to ride a bike instead of own a car, and people choosing to eat ramen noodles instead of New York strip steaks all greatly lower required income and depress wages also. We simply don't need draconian laws restricting people's need to work and seek employment (for "unskilled" workers) because they are thrifty and that depresses wages.
D. Luthor, these are different things. Millions of consumer choices - which are after all the foundation of market economics - do not lower income over time.
Injecting millions of unskilled foreign workers into an economy as an act of policy does lower income for some. It is a distortion of the labor market as an act of policy. A decision of the few about the many. See the difference?
"We simply don't need draconian laws restricting people's need to work and seek employment (for "unskilled" workers) because they are thrifty and that depresses wages."
Not your wages, I presume. Do you consider any kind of immigration control draconian?
Seriously, unlike this Kauss guy I´m all for immigration reform but I´ve had it with this selfrighteous moralizing. And what´s with the scare quotes around unskilled when that is exactly what we are talking about?
The first duty of a citizen, never mind an elected representative, is to his family and his country. Playing do-gooder by uplifting strangers at great cost to some of his countrymen is not moral. It is presumptuous and egoistic.
Thrifty? Who says a construction worker or bellhop, just because he didn´t go to college, has to compete with people brought in from other countries, and to reduce HIS living standard to theirs? They and their parents and grandparents earned their western standard of living just as much as you earned yours.
Why does he deserve to have to compete with millions of new unskilled immigrants when others (say, teachers or lawyers) are relatively secure? Not that teachers and lawyers deserve it any more than our construction worker does. But he is the first to get it in the neck. Are these not our people?
Who has the right to subject them to a great social experiment? You?
And then there are those who profit from cheap labor. Fine, at least they have a motive. But why do they deserve to get a leg up?
That is what I mean by valid point.
These are not statistical abstractions. We are talking about actual people having their livelihoods endangered. What did they ever do to you?
El Gordo, He is a Democrat, but he's been flooding Daily Caller with anti-immigration articles.
Luthor and El Gordo, I think there is no doubt that immigration suppresses wages because it means more workers. More workers for the same number of jobs means lower pay. That's kind of the natural result.
But in this case, keep two things in mind. First, these people are already here. So it's not like we're opening the door and letting them in. They already live here, they already work.
Secondly, they work cheaper than minimum wage because they are "off the grid." So they are currently putting a lot of downward pressure on wages for manual labor jobs which will go away if they suddenly need to be paid a minimum wage. Moreover, their off-the-grid status keeps them poor and keeps them from moving up, which also suppressed wages by reducing their potential as consumers and keeping them as a permanent underclass.
I don't believe in open borders at all and I'd like to see immigration slowed to a degree, but I think that something needs to be done about these people who are already here and this is the best solution.
Andrew, that is right. The current situation does not help anyone and it´s no use fooling ourselves that 10 million people will sef-deport or anything like that.
Kauss is clearly on a crusade here and getting a bit hysterical :-)
El Gordo, I don't take Kauss seriously, obviously, but he fits right in with what you will find at all the big conservative blogs at the moment. Cruz's time will come the moment they find a new messiah.
On deporting, that is the problem. They won't leave and we can't send them home -- simply not possible, not logistically, not from a public relations standpoint. So we need to solve that. We could have gone for some sort of "legal but not citizen" status, except that the right has been screaming so obnoxiously that they lost the debate and citizenship is now the presumed path.
Post a Comment