| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Arturo Rodriguez | ||||
| ||||
Friday, July 9, 2010
Today's Video: "Si Se Puedewich"
Below is a video from last night's "The Colbert Report" where quasi-conservative Stephen Colbert interviewed United Farm Workers chief Arturo Rodriguez. Whether one agrees with Rodriguez or not, numerous valid points were raised regarding immigration such as the possible economic impact of Arizona's SB1070:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
from de Clermont - I disagree absolutely with the concept of there being any negative economic effects due to the Arizona law that aids US Federal Anti-Illegal Immigration efforts. The economic attraction of working in the USA compared to what exists in Mexico and Central America are too strong. And there is still strong demand from the US market for low wage labour. Mr. Rodriguez and those militant groups that claim to represent us US hispanos are wrong; they are hysterical and do not see the realities of the situation. There is NO threat. The Arizona law means that actually - horrors - immigration law in that state may actually be fully applied, just like it is in other countries. The US is one of the most lenient countries in the world when it comes to illegal immigrants. For example, in Mexico NOBODY without showing proof of legal resident status may open a bank account in Mexico. I travel there often for business and again recently I tried to open a bank account and I could not since I have not proof of legal residency. The bottom line is that Rodriguez and opponents of the Arizona law are unrealistic - they neither see the lax system that already exists in the USA and they also grossly exaggerate, misrepresent and fabricate the supposed negative effects of the Arizona law. Let's have a little reasonableness in this discussion, por favor.
I also wonder why contributors post anonymously? The banking topic is not a government regulation but one of the private sector. It has nothing to do with Mexico's immigration laws. Where did the whole militant caricature come from? The UFW is another union. They are no more radical than the US Chamber of Commerce. What a brown brother can't organize as legally allowed to under the 1935 Wagner Act. "Legal is legal!"
In Mexico where I have traveled often I have never been asked for proof of identification to the extent that SB 1070 will demand and yes it is different from federal regulations; it is not the same.
An editorial in yesterday's LA Times demonstrated one difference"
"Being an illegal immigrant is not a federal crime: "Congress has affirmatively decided that unlawful presence — standing alone — should not subject an alien to criminal penalties and incarceration." Deportation by the U.S. government, yes; arrest by civil authorities, no."
The UFW does not claim to represent US hispanos, it represents farm workers. We are not all campesinos anonymous.
But anonymous also avoids the bigger issue discussed last night on the Colbert Report. The UFW has a job for anonymous since his ilk is worried that its constituents are stealing American agricultural jobs.
from de Clermont - responding to El Aguila - 1) I am not posted anonymously, I identify my last name, de Clermont. Posting "anonymously" is quicker. b) Legal residency is required in Mexico to open a bank account - it is Mexican law. c) No one contests that that immigrants are needed in the US sector for low paying jobs, however, there are too many illegal immigrants in the USA. A federal system should be established and paid for by employers whereby immigrant labourers can register for work and employers can easily identify them. This provides order to the system AND more importantly protects the rights of the temporary labourers and any withheld monies for Social Security etc. c) the whole movement against the Arizona law is militant by its very nature. The Arizona law does nothing illegal, does not usurp federal law and does not hinder immigration employment any more than the current federal law does. The fact that the UFW and similar organisations are saying that the law is racist is wrong and they are lying - that is militant. They are immorally (by lying) trying to whip up anti-Arizona-law-sentiment not based on any legitimate basis, but on an emotional basis. d) You state "An editorial in yesterday's LA Times demonstrated one difference"
"Being an illegal immigrant is not a federal crime: "Congress has affirmatively decided that unlawful presence — standing alone — should not subject an alien to criminal penalties and incarceration." Deportation by the U.S. government, yes; arrest by civil authorities, no."
That is ridiculous, because if an illegal is caught by the Migra they are thrown in jail to be processed and deported to their home country. Just becuase it was in the LA Times don' make it so. E) If the UFW represents campesinos then why do they come out so vehemently to protect the rights of hispanos, y NO MAMES, 99% or even 100% of the campesinos son hispanos. And it is not only the UFW that comes out with those misrepresentations, there are others to that claim to represent Hispanos, Latinos, etc. and they are not necessarily farmer's or campesionos' rights groups. I go back to what I said, the hysteria and lies being thrown about by the UFW and like groups are ridiculous. This simple law will not change anything as to finding employment in the low paying sectors. And at the end of your post you miss what I was saying - there will always be those jobs and there will always be people who will hire the illegals for it and that is normal and welcome in a healthy economy. think and read before you write. Saludos
I love it. I offer just one collaborating example to support my argument and Anonymous discounts it by stating that we should not believe everything in the Los Angeles Times. But we must take his/her word for it. That is a wonderful way to win an argument. Well-done Anonymous! You are absolutely correct about the misrepresentations. Since the Right is constantly calling Obama and most civil rights organizations racist, there is plenty of that to go around. But, since you mentioned misrepresentation, let me provide one more example; that of Governor Brewer and the other Arizona conservatives who are constantly claiming that the Arizona/Sonora border is the most dangerous place on Earth, despite all reports to the contrary. SB 1070 support is based primarily on these fairy tales despite FBI reports that the border has never been safer. Guey, take your own advise. ¡Y no mames!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html
Thanks for your comments, and let me quickly remind you of our guidelines:
http://ourlatinamerica.blogspot.com/2008/10/our-comments-policy.html
Amy comments not adhering to our comments policy will be deleted so please keep it clean and civil. (No low blows!)
from de Clermont - to El Angel - está bien, you do not get it, even when you do not grasp the logic. That is what democracy is all about - free speech for everyone. Saludos.
from de Clermont - to El Aquila - a) guey is misspelled, it is guë, or is guey a pochismo, b) regarding the Arizona law and it's supposed illegality or incorrectness, please see this link. The US government is already using non-federal agencies to support their illegal immigration efforts - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/border_police_bait_switch_9avLj7QlaBxEbIWapnRF1H , c) I find it terribly ironic that you accuse me of ignoring comments you made (when I did not) and you completely ignore my comments.
Post a Comment