poor, poor xenophobes

Chris, if the CIS or others oppose all immigration then your point would be well taken. But it seems there is a real distinction between that and opposition to either unregulated immigration or a desire to control the number of immigrants.

To suggest that anyone who supports a specific legal process for immigration or who has a public policy concern about the impact of a certain level of immigration is to practice a particularly ugly form of McCarthyism. Just because the SPLC needs to create new enemies to justify its existence does not make their argument valid.

CIS may or may not deserve to be called a “hate group”, but I also think it’s a little disingenuous of you to make it sound like CIS is an organization quibbling over details of a “specific legal process”. Amnesty is a specific legal process, and CIS has an agenda that doesn’t include amnesty.

It’s people like you that piss people like me right the fuck off. I’m anti-illegal-immigration but pro-legal-immigration, and it’s lame-brain assholes like you that can’t comprehend the difference between the two that cause the whole immigration argument to be all heat and no light. And I’m not the only one– my position is pretty commonly held in my part of the political world. Take your fucking demagogery and shove it up your ass, because you are part of the problem; it’s your bullshit that is getting in the way of coming up with a reasonable guest worker program that would let us actually control our borders while still being able to get people in to work jobs that are beneficial to them while still keeping produce in our grocery stores. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

You’ve made it, Chris! You have a stalker! You’re the John Lennon of photography!

Chris, I really don’t care about CIS. I read your comments as a broader indictment of pretty much all opponents of whatever you think is legitimate immigration policy.

It also occurs to me that ‘xenophone’ is an inaccurate term for opponents of liberalized immigration. Xenophobia is literally the fear of foreigners. Since many of the opponents of liberalized immigration are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, that seems a curious position.

I say, expand legal immigration a hundred times, a thousand times, a hundred thousand times the current size. I think it’s great.

But, while that’s going on, securing the border’s a great thing to do too. European countries have very controlled borders with very limited immigration, and no one calls them xenophobes. Why would the same misnomer apply to someone just because someone wants both controlled borders and a HUGE expansion of legal immigration? Why indeed.

The sad thing is, calling someone a racist because you don’t agree with his opinion doesn’t really get you anywhere and it waters down the term.

There is quite a lot of activity on this post. You can be damn sure that there’s a CIS-FAIR affiliated contingent trolling every relevant blog post.

In my opinion, biased think tanks are really nothing new. There are a plethora of organizations like CIS that release academic reports that harbor ideological or political agendas. I think we can all agree on that, right?

The issue is: CIS’s agenda is one of restricting of immigration (both LEGAL and UNDOCUMENTED). Just check out some of its executive director’s books. That’s fine in principle, if that’s a conclusion you come to after a thorough and honest study of the facts. Unfortunately, when CIS is skewing data and analysis to come to its predestined conclusion that undocumented immigrants need to be deported in mass, and future immigration needs to be restricted - the whole scenario becomes a lot more problematic.

This is where CIS’s affiliations become more pronounced. I understand why some might call it guilt by association. However, this isn’t the case where one troubled person’s vague connection is used to smear a credible organization. This is a case of an ideological network of organizations, sharing the same founders and funders, with a shared vision: a return to an American demographic landscape dominated by white European Christians.

There is a lot more to this story, but anyone studying the history of white supremacist in this country will likely come to the same conclusion: the anti-immigrant movement is very much the same as the white-nativist movement in this country.

I understand I’m not going to convince everyone who reads this, and I apologize if I was confusing, but I really don’t think its fair to ignore CIS’s ideology and history.

So anyone who doesn’t agree or doesn’t match the categories is now automatically part of anti legal immigration crew? Or do you propose that the people who don’t match are just outright lying about their positions no the immigration debate, that it is essentially impossible to hold the position that LEGAL immigration is good and should be expanded a huge percentage and yet somehow also hold that ILLEGAL immigration is bad?

Is that the proposition here? Is that what I may be lying about?