And I wonder...

How many Pilgrims had their immigration cards and status legalized by the Native Americans...technically, we're really ALL "illegal" aliens if we go by the logic the GOP is going by...we flooded in a 17th century equivalent fashion to the way Latinos cross the border, those that do so "illegally"...OK when we do it and bring smallpox, not OK when they do it and work jobs that no one else wants (see: hours of back-breaking field labor in the great fields of Central California Steinbeck was so fond of writing about) to try and pay their way towards a greater life for themselves...

(I know that's a somewhat flimsy analogy in places, I'm not going all "white-guilt" on everyone here, but I do think a bit of that holds true...I mean, I know illegal immigrants, and the ones I know, well, I obviously can't speak for the whole community, but they're hard-working, very nice people, and to be honest, they probably have the best work ethic of any group I know...

A friend of mine works up to a dozen or more hours at a McDonalds, cares for her little brother, AND takes a full course of classes at the community college I go to!

It's not like they're just squatting here and being leeches...but these GOP candidates treat them like parasites to be removed, and THAT is just unacceptable, they deserve FAR better than that!)

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/controversial-memo-immigration-detention-quotas-raises-doubts-about-ice-leadership

Two words: private prisons. Kinda makes you rethink how okay you might be with the idea of an industry that thrives on people being incarcerated.

C'mon, everybody knows privatization solves every problem.

http://teapartyforobama.com/

I think Republicans will be staying home in droves this time around.

*SIGH*

Please, please come soon, 2016...

I don't disagree with all of your conclusions, obiwan, but come on. There's nothing in there that could be characterized in the least as an argument. "We came here in droves against the will of lots of Native Americans and I have a hispanic friend who works lots of hours at McDonalds, so Mitt Romney's ideas are stupid"?

If you want to make fun of Republicans for being unintellectual -- and the evidence from many threads is, you do -- please don't post "arguments" like these.

I wasn't making fun of Republicans for not being intellectual...

Where in "I think the GOP is pretty dafmn stupid for alienating the Hispanic vote like this" did you read that?

("Unintellectual" is not a real word, by the way, so yeah...if you can say "please don't post "arguments" like this--on a flimsy justification, *I* can say "you probably shouldn't bring up the quality or "unintellectual" level of arguments when your own phrasing isn't exactly Nobel-worthy, either...)

Also, if you're keeping score:

-I never mentioned Romney
-I mentioned the GOP as a WHOLE here, didn't really single out anyone, except
-I DID single out McCain and his "Wall" idea...but how'd you get Romney from that?

The GOP has let me know who its base is, and it's the people that I used to call the strawmen. Our bretheren have started believing their own propaganda.

Hispanic is not a real word. Unintellectual is.

@obi, I specifically referenced _other_ threads, in which you are always mocking Republicans for being unintellectual.
"Un," meanwhile, is a prefix. It can be added to a whole host of adjectives, including, interestingly enough, intellectual. I can tell you probably didn't google it before you posted this, for if you had, you most likely would have found this:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unintellectual

Yeah, that's right.... you just attacked me for using a "non-word" that's actually in the dictionary.

(Incidentally, the quotation marks above are scare quotes, not actual quotes. I realize you did not say "non-word," and probably would reject it in horror as a non-word).

Anyway, back to my initial point. Much of the left and de facto left (such as yourself) takes great pleasure in attacking the right, not for being just wrong, but for being stupid and unanalytical (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unanalytical). You have frequently done this: see for example any of your many threads about Rick Perry, just to name a subset. I was merely pointing out that this attitude becomes even more unjustifiable (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unjustifiable) if one is, oneself, going to engage in supporting positions with travesties of arguments.

On a final note, I would point out that it is yet another fallacy, though perhaps an understandable one if one feels attacked, to respond to a criticism of substantive arguments with nit-picking complaints about English usage. I mean, of course, that it's a fallacy even if the complaints are correct.

Ah, sorry. The article you posted singled out Romney. I imagined that your remarks thereafter were intended to be taken in that context. Sorry if my inference was wrong.

It wasn't a travesty of argument. Obi's argument merely pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of demonizing "illegal" immigration which is being done by the entire GOP field in a country founded by European illegal immigration. He then used anecdotal evidence to suggest that undocumented workers are not parasites but hard workers who contribute to American society.

You constructed a straw man in order to attack Obi on the issue of logical fallacies. Hilarious.

Why don't you bother to address the actual issue of the GOP's attitude towards Spanish-speaking voters?

@putin,

Have you been somewhere, incidentally? I haven't seen you about lately. Of course, I've been fairly quiet myself. Anyway....

"Why don't you bother to address the actual issue of the GOP's attitude towards Spanish-speaking voters?"

Certainly a reasonable request. I think much of the GOP's attitude toward this issue during this campaign has been sickening and completely irrational. While I support fairly vigorous measures to prevent future illegal immigration, talking of deporting all -- or even most -- of the illegal immigrants who are already here, or of treating them as permanent pariahs, is unacceptable for a host of reasons.

Even ignoring the humanitarian arguments -- and there is no reason to ignore them in a country that likes to think of itself as kind -- for limited-government conservatives (such as the GOP often claims to be) to suggest the kind of vast state action that deporting millions of illegal immigrants would entail is ludicrous. I see little option, possibly with the exception of late arrivals, other than to create some kind of option for obtaining legal status; and if such needs to be our ultimate goal, and these people will be staying here (as assuredly they must), then it is also absurd to be offended at the idea that they should receive services such as access to our colleges.

In brief, fix the problem from here on out, but don't turn into Nazis to try to undo the past. That the latter point is lost on so many members of the GOP is truly discouraging.

So, as you see, and as I already said, my post to obi was never about disagreeing with the substantial _conclusions_ he was reaching. Hence, it was hardly a straw-man argument for anything. I was merely pointing out that it is somewhat rich for somebody who spends half his time (an approximation only, never fear) mocking the unintellectuality of the opposing party to spend the other half writing substantive rants that contain little in the way of reasoning. That was all.

Damn you, Google...how could you tell me unintellectual wasn't a word! >:(

I will add, however, that I do realize this is the internet, where we should all be allowed to rant, and I'd miss obi's rants if he didn't make them, so -- sorry for being irritable, obi. Late-night math can do that to you. I will cop to being irritated by the above-mentioned juxtaposition between your frequent criticisms of Republican intelligence and your own commonly unanalytical rants, but there was at least one good point lurking in your initial post, so this wasn't an altogether fair criticism. Undoubtedly it does matter that many of the illegal immigrants in this country work hard.

"I specifically referenced _other_ threads, in which you are always mocking Republicans for being unintellectual."

I would concede I can see how you could get that from previous remarks I've made...

But that's not really my stance at all.

The GOP is INHERENTLY any more intellectual or unintellectual (hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em) than the Democrats.

For instance, I don't think Reagan was any more or less intellectual than JFK.

I WOULD say, however, that the BASES of the two tend to differ, in that (speaking as one) Democrats, as a voting base, tend to trend towards more intellectualized rhetoric and ideals, with the sad extreme there being when some trend towards Ivory Tower types and ideas that aren't so much leaders and solutions as nice-sounding-but-impractical ideas and egoists...

Which we can argue makes some sense, as most of the "definite-blue" states are metropolitan in nature--New York, California, Mass.--and host big cities with all the accouterments, ie, big universities, theatres, libraries, opera houses, publishing houses, philharmonics, etc., and where those go, intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, and college-students-who-wish-they-were-intellectuals-and-have-a-keyboard-and-Internet-connection tend to follow.

;)

BY CONTRAST...

The Red States are mostly in the Heartland and South, with a lot of farmland and a more rugged and rural reality, and often a bit further behind trend-wise (marketing courses generally teach that products tend to catch on more at the Coasts of the US first--see: New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco--as they're marketed and brought out there first, and gradually move inward...the possible and obvious exceptions here being Texas, for Houston/Dallas, and Illinois, for Chicago.)

It's also worth mentioning a lot of members of the military come from these areas as well...

AND, playing no small factor, The Bible is decidedly-more-supported in...well, The Bible Belt than it would be here in Southern California...

Not that folks here don't support the Bible, but there are things you can say and criticisms you can make in public about the Bible and Christianity and religion as a whole in New York and LA that maybe wouldn't go over so well in, say, Mississippi, or Kansas.

(I know the Free thought convention was just held in Texas, but those surrounding the event--and who subsequently commented on Hitchen's tragic passing--mentioned what a bold show it was for both Hitch and the atheist community to come out THERE, in TEXAS, of all places...I doubt it'd be as much of a "bold" move to have atheists come out here in LA or in New York, for example.)

What does this mean for the GOP electorate, and what does this have to do with their intellectual/unintellectual status?

Simply that while the Coasts are generally--and I mean very generally, painting just ever-so-broadly here--more progressive and focused on what's next, the Heartland and Bible Belt are more in tune with the status quo and past ideals handed down, generation to generation...it isn't that they resist change, just that they embrace tradition and perhaps a less computerized, fast-paced, mechanized, free-falling lifestyle than someone like myself would.

*I* would, as a native son of California, expect things to change and change rapidly with each new update, and, inevitably, I'm probably more attune to change in culture over status quo, even if the change is radical or--as I mentioned earlier, at the extreme--implausible or impractical.

I'm from an environment that's one of the media meccas of the world--movie stars, actors, actresses, singers, authors, thinkers, public activists...all have come out of or traveled to California...but a lot of those professions are rather superfluous in the concrete reality of civilization...

We can't live without bread...we can without The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf. (Forget Starbucks, THAT'S the place for me!) :)

So:

Democrat Base=More Dreamers and Thinkers, but not always practical in their progressiveness

GOP Base=More Practical and Down-To-Earth, but sometimes a bit too tied to the past/status quo.

A Democrat Voter might be more OK with bigger government and complex, but perhaps too wordy and even vague speeches, as that fits in with the "Dreamer" archetype--the dream that with enough thought, we can build a better society and change things...because, well, being at the Coasts, we're USED to change, we LIKE it.

(I do, anyway, generally...musically not as much, but aside from that...) ;)

By contrast, a GOP Voter might prefer a more "folksy" approach, or, to put it a bit less-biased, perhaps a more "down to earth," "to the point" rhetorical approach, because that's how THEY connect with a candidate or idea...if it sounds practical, and sounds less complicated and more to-the-point, even if the idea is potentially over-simplified in said rhetoric--it may sound better to them, as their environment embraces that sort of ideal, hence the push for less and smaller government.

Sarah Palin would never fly with Democrat voters...many eyes were rolled...

But some GOP Voters COULD connect to her very practical-seeming, everyday, anti-elitist approach (another difference, I'd say Democrat voters would go for an elitist figure a bit more...a bit paradoxical, seeing as how the Left Wing, taken too far, becomes communism and anti-elitist, whereas the Right, taken too far, becomes fascism and far more elitist.)

By contrast, Obama, I'm sure, came across and did come across as just another pointy-headed liberal with over-complicated notions and ideas that amount to nothing and are just a bunch of words, words words...

(In fact, Obama DID have ideas...just not the bravado to back it up, and, as a Democrat may be prone to do, probably set his sights to high...)

"Change" appealed to the Blue States, Democrats, the Coasts that embrace change traditionally...and turned off the more traditionalist Heartland and Bible Belt.

By contrast, Palin's folksy, accessible, almost "aw-shucks" demeanor was eye-rolling and teeth-grinding for Democrats, but as she's a big proponent of the Bible and Christianity and traditions and ideals that THEY hold dear, the Heartland and Bible Belt voters liked her (or at least liked her more.)



So that's my best take at it, and I just generalized so much, I've probably made a dozen errors, and I'll face the music/comments for that, but that's my best shot:

DEM=Coasts, Change, Dreamers, Complex Govt./Solutions/Rhetoric, can be unrealistic...

GOP=Heartland/BB, Tradition, Practical, Too-The-Point Govt./Solutions/Rhetoric, can be too in touch with the status quo

Eh. I'm not nearly as harsh or anti-illegal-immigrant as most of the right wing is today, but having heard all the bullshit my legal immigrant intimates (couple close friends, and then my girlfriend and her immediate family) had to deal with to get here legally, it is rather incensing to think how many people just skipped the line.

At the same time, I can't really fault illegal immigrants for their choice. I'd certainly at least consider the same in their shoes, even if I ultimately went with the legal route instead.

Immigration is a mess.

Also, let's cut the bullshit here, you're comparing the wrong groups, obi. I see what you're trying to say, but you're looking at the wrong paradigm and as a GOP-affiliated political scientist who works for change, dreams, understands and in some areas embraces complex government, welcomes complex solutions and rhetoric and abhors simplistic ones, and perhaps even can be unrealistic... I don't see how I fit your GOP description at all, and in fact I would say the majority of right-wing people my age I encounter at LSU fit your Democrat description, too.

The much more apt comparison is to compare simple to simple and complex to complex. You know you've got plenty of simplistic vapid airheads on the left that go throw themselves at the feet of whatever hip new movement of the moment is picked up by left-wing celebrity X, just as the right has plenty of simplistic dipshits who go "OH MAH GAWD BAHBUL" to everything. There's at least one dichotomy within each group, so why don't we match smart to smart and dumb to dumb instead of smart to dumb and pretend there's no dumb left or smart right?

I wasn't pretending there wasn't a dumb left or a smart right...

That was the whole point of that post. :/

Also, I WOULD ask, Eden...

I DID specify I was generalizing...obviously not everyone in California is a Democrat or fits my bill, just like not every Texan fits that stereotype, either...

But I WOULD ask:

You've said before, on religious threads, that you're something of a minority in your area, being an atheistic scientist in the Bible Belt...

Do you think that at least the MAJORITY of those in the BB are at least in the ballpark of what I was describing? Because that was my point, not that every Bostonian was an Ivory Tower Intellectual and every Mississipian a Bible Banger, but that the majority in those areas trend towards those positions, ie, Coasts=more progressive and liberal, Heartland=more traditional and conservative.

If that's the majority...that was my case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njYlAcJ6IB8

Don't be hatin the GOP, they're not much different from the Democrats

Simple view, illegals be gone. If you snuck across the border, you should be shipped back and go through immigration the *legal* way. illegal immigranst are criminals. They came here illegally and that was a criminal action. Ship their asses back and let them come through the right way.

Let states do whatever the hell they see fit to get rid of 'em. Immigration clearly isn't doing shit except complaining when some state takes the initiative to actually run them off or ship them back. And as far as "profiling" to find them. Fuck it, we profile when we look for terrorists. We profile when we look for serial killers and bank robbers. There is nothing wrong with profiling to narrow down the search int he hunt for criminals. And again, I point out that being here illegally makes you a criminal. There is no "grey area". You entered the country without paperds and are a criminal as a result.

Now, all that said, I think immigration needs to be more open so it is easier for anyone to enter the country and better themselves. The only restricitons should be a clean record from their home country with regards to laws we in the US consider felony crimes as well. Anyone who comes back clean we allow in. Just so you all see I'm not a total hardass when it comes to immigration. And as far as existing illegals, when they are picked up, I would have a system that verified their country of origiin and only hold them until they either A) we verified they could legally emmigrate here in which case we'd give them the papers and let them go right here as new *legal* aliens or B) discovered they were not eligible due to the common felonious criminal record in which case they would be shipped back to their hoime country.

Oh. I must have misread. Sorry, I should know better than to reply before 7 AM. lol.

Yeah, your observations are pretty much spot-on, then, if you're talking majority.

(Also, important clarification - political scientist = political science = social scientist. This is worthy of being differentiated from a natural scientist.)

"Simple view, illegals be gone."

Bye bye, Yankee squatters. The southwest is illegally acquired territory. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has never been honored in terms of property rights compensation.

Anyway Alabama tried ethnically cleansing its migrant workers. How's that working out for them? And they don't even have that many migrant workers. Guess what happened to their ag sector? Yeah there aren't actually lines of American citizens around to pick up the slack.

"Have you been somewhere, incidentally? I haven't seen you about lately. Of course, I've been fairly quiet myself. Anyway...."

Death in the family.

@Draug: What about the OMG ILLEGALS that have lived here for years without committing any crimes, other than being here illegally? Are you REALLY okay with allowing ICE to juke its stats by grabbing the low-hanging fruit?

And how is a cop supposed to ID an illegal immigrant on the street? How does a law enforcement officer acquire a reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally without taking their race into account?

And how is what you're proposing as a solution not amnesty?

I just said I had no problem woith profilling. Take race into account. As far as ID, everyone should have a state ID. Carry it if you are legal and when a cop asks for it, show it. If you don't you are assumed to be illegal. Sorry, but innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens of our country.

And I don't car if they haven't broken a law since being here. Take them to Hotel INS, verify that they aren't wanted for a felony in their home country or on the run after escaping or violating parole or whatever, then give them papers that make them legal. Hell, you can give them temporary papers and issue a requirement that they check in each week. If they don't then they have just committed a felony (call it INS Parole) and if they get picked up again, they get immediately deported. I'm not cold-hearted, it's just that we need to cull the herd. Send back those who don't belong here and don't qualify for a visa and get visas to those that do.

Just because some minor terms of the now 160-odd year old treaty haven't been enforced does not mean the treaty is void or America's possession of the southwest is illegal. If that were the norm under international law then any state would be able to reverse the consequences of losing a war just by being real lawyerly about it. If Poland has not fulfilled all the terms of its treaty obligations should it give its western territories back to Germany?