I am suprised and upset by the hostility coming from one side of the immigration debate here. Harsh personal attacks on fellow progressive democrats seem unecessary. I am not against a heated debate, but can we stay on issues?
Ted Kennedy is not a sell-out
Ted Kennedy has been called a "sell-out" to corporations, and "anti-worker" several times in comments. Ted Kennedy a sell-out? Give me a break.
Buying votes
The "buying votes" theme. This line of argument that says that Democrats who support a compassionate immigration solution (i.e. a path to citizenship for people living and working and raising families "illegally" here) simply "because they want Hispanic votes."
This is offensive for two reasons.
First, there are many reasons that Democrats and progressives support commpassionate immigration reform. Let's see... there's Justice, Compassion, Human Dignity, Diversity, Building and Maintaining Communities, Valuing Families. To say that all of us (of many ethnicities that aren't Hispanic) only want the Hispanic vote? Yeah.
Second, why shouldn't Democrats want Hispanic votes? Hispanic voters are all American citizens. To say that Democrats shouldn't be concerned about what Hispanic voters think-- do you think Democrats should be worried about the anti-war vote, or the woman's vote?
The "Corporatist"/"Globalist" tags.
Sure name-calling is a great way to avoid having to answer valid arguments being raised by someone you disagree with. But it also elimates any possibility for valuable dialog.
My opinion of how to keep Corporations from exploiting workers is to make sure that all workers have rights (and can't be exploited). This is why a path to citizenship is so important to me... citizens don't work in sweatshops.
Now you can disagree with me without name-calling or personal attacks. We can talk about whether or not there are too many workers... and whether workers should be walled off into different countries. I don't mind a civilized discussion.
But I don't think the "Corporatist" slur is warrented by people who feel the best way to stop explotative Corporations is to empower the most vulnerable workers.
You can be progressives too.
Let me make this clear: You can be against my position on immigration and still be progressive. I am only asking that you say the same thing.
I am willing to have a civilized discussion on this topic. I understand the concerns that more workers (even workers with rights) will displace the most vulnerable Americans. And I am willing to take you at your word about what your motivations.
I only ask that you do the same.
Please stop misrepresenting my position.
I am demanding a path to citizenship for people here now. I feel so strongly about this because to me it is a matter of Amercian values: Compassion and Human Understanding as well as a belief that more rights for workers is better for all workers. I am also uncomfortable with the idea that I, as a priviledged American worker, should have the right to the best job market simply because of who my parents were, while people who are equally talented and motivated should be locked out.
And, Ted Kennedy represents me. Leave him alone to, he has, for the most part, done his job quite well.
Can we work together?
We may just never agree on things like a path to citizenship. I think that a path to citizenship for immigrants helps American workers, you say it won't. We will have to leave it at that.
But, there are a lot of things we will agree on: fair wages, the rights to form unions and the need to stop sweatshops.
I fear that this immigration debate between progressives on one narrow issues is hurting our ability to work together on other issues.
If we can debate this one issue in a civilized manner... we will be able to work together much more effectively on the other issues. Of course this means maintaining a respectful dialog.
What about it.