Larry Kissell -- Please explain yourself

I don't often agree with Matt Stoller in matters of primary politics. But I have to admit he has uncovered some fairly questionable comments on immigration made by our own favorite House candidate - Larry Kissell. See below the fold.

----------------------
This is very sad.

In an email sent out to some Kissell supporters on October 07, 2006 by his campaign manager Leanne Powell with the subject heading "Please be on the look out for Hayes Commercial" was this paragraph clarifying Kissell's position on immigration (emphasis mine throughout):

"As for immigration Larry's position is more conservative the [sic] Congressman Hayes. Mr. Hayes supports the President's amnesty plan and protection of businesses that employ illegals. Larry says our immigration policy should be based in sound public policy not hate, that said, he believes that we have to secure our borders, deport illegals, prosecute those that bring them over the border and hold employers responsible that employ them. Larry believes that illegal aliens are just that-- illegal and to offer amnesty is to penalize the law abiding people waiting patiently and following the rules to be able to persue [sic] the American Dream."

And then there's this, from Kissell's website.

"Kissell's immigration plan will use the vast technology resources of the newly formed Homeland Security Department to identify and track down illegal immigrants...."

I like Larry Kissell a lot, and I gave him money last cycle. Calling for the deporting and/or demonizing of immigrants though is problematic. It's morally atrocious and it's politically unsound for progressives and Democrats. Perhaps it'll work to get Kissell elected, and I hope he beats Robin Hayes, but our candidates shouldn't have this as a mandate.

---------------

I agree with Matt. There are ways to address the immigration issue without playing to the lowest common denominator. Claiming to be to Hayes' right on this issue is nothing to be proud about.

I would think a Civics teacher would understand this.

Comments

Pretty sad indeed

Go after employers, fine. But claiming we will be able to deport 12 million people, using the "powers of the Dept of Homeland Security" is a prescription for a police state.

Tell me, Mr. Kissell, would those powers include mass surveillance? Would we waterboard construction workers until they identify other illegals?

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

Very troubling

I can not in good conscience support any candidate who thinks deportation is a viable option to our immigration situation. It is wrong and logistically unworkable. Anyone who claims to support the idea is simply pandering to the nativists and racists or just doesn't know anything about law enforcement or governing.

And good lord, can't they find a volunteer with an English degree to proofread campaign statements?

I'm conflicted on this issue myself,

but I gotta tell you, this kind of comment:

Would we waterboard construction workers until they identify other illegals?

is the kind of hyperbolic innuendo that makes me want to say bad things...

well .. you may trust this administration

t know where to draw the line between adequate immigration enforcement and abuse of power.

Larry evidently does.

I do not.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

Here's the thing—

in addition to the employment opportunities undocumented workers (I kinda like that) know can be found here, there is also the knowledge that once they make the crossing (successfully), they're not likely to be hounded by the authorities. It's the combination of both of those realities that spurs millions to cross our border illegally. Something needs to change.

I'm not against a program of "amnesty", or whatever you want to call it. I know that most of these folks are hard-working and dedicated to family, and many "legal" Americans could benefit from their example. But before that can (should) be attempted we must secure our borders better. The last amnesty program we tried spurred a huge increase in illegal entries into this country, which is one reason why that word has become so nasty to some.

I don't believe we should attempt to (or even can) deport all 12 million undocumented workers, and families with children should be immediately enrolled in the naturalization process and kept together. But single adults, especially those who break other laws, should be deported back to their home of origin.

It can be a very confusing issue...

...not from the standpoint of humane treatment of people with an illegal immigration status, but from the standpoint of policy.

In an attempt to get a better handle on this issue, I've come across the Council on Hemispheric Affairs that explains the direct, but complicated relationship between Immigration and Free Trade.

One thing that stands out to me is this: Supporting more open immigration while Opposing free trade are incompatible policy positions (as is the inverse of opposing open immigration while supporting free trade.) It is worth reading the above link to understand why this is true.

Larry's policy positions on Free Trade and Illegal Immigration are compatible. Understanding the economic impact the disastrous Free Trade agreements and influx of illegal immigrants have had on the 8th district should be all the explanation needed to understand Larry's position on these issues.

It is an important distinction that Larry's opposition is to Illegal Immigration. Larry has stated clearly that cases should be evaluated individually, which is dramatically different than the mass-round up and deportation that others have tried to assert as his position. Larry has also clearly stated these policies should not be based on hate but on the law...enforcement of our existing immigration laws, which includes workplace enforcement and deportation if someone who has been arrested turns out to be here illegally.

So, while some may not agree, it is policy based on the economic situation in the 8th district and matches perfectly with his position on Free Trade.

all well and good

but using the word "illegals" to refer to human beings, and the word "amnesty" to refer to earned citizenship are pages right out of the Tancredo playbook.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

People may not be illegal

but their immigration status sure can be.

first of all

Leanne Powell is a good friend of mine and I do not like seeing he attacked by anyone who claims to have the best interest in the party. I no of no one who has done more for the party than her.

Secondly this is not based on hate it is based on the law, and our economic survival. Illeagal immigrants are well criminals the mere fact they are here makes without the legal status to be here makes them just that. Also they and the employers who hire them have kept the wages of our state, lower than it needs to be, far lower. If these employers were forced to hire legal immigrants and US citizens only they would have to at higher wages and there would be lower unemployemt at a time when this state and that district already has enough employment and wage issue, also the illegal immigrants who are often uninsured increase our medial cost.

The Democrats are a party where many disagree on many issues, I think Leanne is on the mark on this one but if you don't at least respect her views and where she is coming from.

I did not attack Ms. Powell

I love how people from your point of view on this one throw in the employers as a side note among all the hateful branding of people as criminals. you know dang well if any effort was made to hold business responsible for its hiring practices, the same pro-"bidness" voices in our party that consistently oppose miminum wage increases and safety inspections would scream to high heaven.

Much safer to abuse the voiceless and call people criminals for nothing other than trying to make a better life for themselves.

If you've been here 10 years, work, pay your taxes and haven't committed any other crime other than the one you committed to be here, I can't see how you've hurt us. Welcome.

If, on the other hand, you are an employer who knowingly employs undocumented workers, you should be punished. Severely. if the jobs weren't here, these people wouldn't risk their lives to get here.

Quick test, True or False, more people have died crossing the Mexican / US border since 1992 as died crossing the Berlin Wall.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

One question

How can it be illegal - and punishable - to hire an undocument worker but not be illegal to be an undocumented worker?

I understand that people are coming here to make better lives for themselves...and there are many, many things we can do with our both our foreign and domestic policy to change the conditions that drive people to cross our border illegally.

But, it isn't logical to say the employer of undocument workers should be punished but the undocumented worker should not.

It's illegal to pay less the minimum wage

but as far as I know, it is not illegal to accept that pay.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

I would expect a more intelligent response from you than that

If you are in this country illegally - whether you are working or not - you are breaking the law. You know that. You would rather put the entire burden on employers. I believe people must take some responsibility for their actions. As much as my heart goes out to those living south of the border who do not have jobs that can support their families, I don't condone them breaking the law in order to earn an income to support their families. I don't care if it is the law in Mexico or the law in the US they are breaking. If it is illegal, don't do it.

I guess maybe since you're a lawyer you feel you have some special right that allows you to pick which laws are ok to break?



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

my initial response to your comment

Was quite rude -- in keeping with the tone of many of your own posts.

But instead, I'll just point out to you that what I do for a living is irrelevant to this discussion and your attack is a nonsequitur that does little to help your argument, whatever that might be.

If you would like to attempt to be civil, I'm happy to engage.

And if you want to stop illegal immigration with a dragnet and a wall, go ahead. We've already forfeited most of our national soul in the last seven years. What's a little more?

You stop the incentive to come here illegally by providing a reasonable legal option and cutting off the supply of under the table jobs, and you will have a much smaller illegal immigration problem.

But you will still have latinos coming to the US to work, and the fact that they would then be documented and legal would not stop the complaints from the very sources that now complain.

And it is THAT element that this statement plays to. (There is no distinction between a private email and a pu lic statement when a person seeking public office or his designee speaks on a matter of policy).

This "crisis" is a factor of right wing media and the fact that todays immigrants have brown skin and speak spanish.

The immigration ISSUE is a complicated one. The ginned-up CRISIS is not.

Enforce the laws with compassion and change the economic incentives.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

i asked a question based on an article

And honeslty, I don't care when he sent it. If that's his current perspective on the issue, I would like to hear his defense. If it isn't, I would like to hear why.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

reason it's relevant

Immigration is the electoral focus of the Republicans in 2008. It was not in 2006.

I heard, though I can't confirm, that Steny Hoyer was recently going around with Kissell calling for the deportation of illegal immigrants. That makes sense as a matter of Kissell's political strategy.

I'm sorry I've upset people here. I think it's worthwhile to understand the nature of the person you elect before the election, so you are not surprised when they act in office the way they campaigned. I like Larry, a lot, as do most of his criticis here. I just think his position here is deeply immoral. Disagreements happen, even over big stuff.

Really?

Immigration is the electoral focus of the Republicans in 2008. It was not in 2006.

Maybe it seemed that way in DC. Here in North Carolina we had Vermin bringing it up every chance he got, and voters across the political spectrum asked about in NC-08. From Charlotte to Fayetteville, it might not have been the number one issue, but it was talked about by everyone, and I know for a fact that just about every Republican running for office from county commission to US House was talking about it.

I just think his position here is deeply immoral.

What is immoral about believing that we should uphold the laws of our country?

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

You're the new Fox News anchor, right?

I mean, with stuff like this

I heard, though I can't confirm...

you could be on the air tomorrow.

I heard, and can confirm that

While Hoyer was briefly in Charlotte, he met with Kissell and then attended a fundraiser for Rep. Heath Shuler, the Democrat who represents western North Carolina.

Hoyer said Kissell could have made a similar fundraising, or political, request but he didn’t. He asked Hoyer to tour the USO facility.

Unless, of course, Larry and Steny were wandering around the USO facility checking green cards...

Anyway, while you're here, maybe you could help clear up a question I have about your post on Open Left.

When I followed this link described as "then there's this, from Larry's campaign website"...I found an article from the Salisbury Post dated March of this year.

Not only could I not locate a link to this article on Larry's website, I also couldn't locate anything about "hunting down illegals" via the Department of Homeland Security in the article.

Where on earth did that quote come from?

You upset legal immigrants

Taking the giant leap from "deport illegals" to "attacking immigrants" is a profound misunderstanding of the issue and the specifics involved.

You insult legal immigrants and you buy into the framing of the right when you conflate "illegal" with "immigrant" especially as the material you quoted did not do so. That is your own construct for which I hold you personally responsible. You are pouring fuel on a fire.

Larry's message needs to be broader than deportation. As to language he needs to speak to the people of the 8th in a way that they understand and he needs to move them and himsellf to a better understanding of the issues. That's a long term task.

But if Larry says "illegal" and you jump up and shout "immigrant" you demonstrate that you need to move to a better understanding of the issues. That, apparently, is also a long term task.

Legal immigrants and legal non-immigrant aliens generally endure this bullcrap silently because they don't want to be lumped together with "unauthorized" aliens in the public debate. Fanning the flames of xenophobia by repeating the assertion that illegal = immigrant as you did in your post is reprehensible.

Just to clarify

I wasn't talking about the term "illegal immigrant". The letter quoted by Stoller did not use the term but Stoller went on to say that Larry was attacking "immigrants".

The term "illegal immigrant" has wide usage. I think it is an oxymoron but I don't object to its use. I happen to think you can be illegal or immigrant but you can't be both at the same time. That's just me.

When someone says "deport illegals" and Stoller jumps in and claims that is "demonizing of immigrants" I think Stoller is tarring all immigrants with the "illegal" brush. I object to that.

Apples and oranges

As anyone who has ever had a job knows, you are legally obligated to prove you are eligible for employment via the I-9 form providing documentation of your permanent citizenship or legal resident alien status through such government issued documents as a driver's license, social security card, passport, green card, etc.

So, unlike the issue of minimum wage where only the employer is legally responsible for meeting the law, both employer and employee have a legal burden when it comes to citizenship.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

You are attacking her point of view as hate.

I know Leanne, hate is the last thing I would call her. She grew up in Concord, she has watched in her lifetime people she has known and loved lose their job through no fault of their own but because the companies Cannon Mills shut the doors, bad trade laws which Hayes supported and Phillip Morris is going oversees. Now they have to find work and what they are seeing what jobs are available are being swollowed up by ILLEAGAL ALLIANS who are it is both unlawful for them to be here and even hold a job here, their acutualy employment is also illeagal. We have something called legal immigration, people who followed the law to do this many of them have become citizens. If the illeagals had followed the law to be here I would have no problem with them being here, and I dare say neither would Leanne or my guess Larry Kissell.

The GOP when push came to shove not only punted on this issue they pretty much followed the line of the Bush administration which was to keep the wages low if criminal or not and Robin Hayes followed right along. Now these folks who have followed the rules worked hard and been good US citzens have watched the GOP screw them, problem is if you had your way the Democrats would also.

I am not attacking her

she was mentioned as the spokesperson who released the statement.

now, unless she is running for Congress, I couldn't give two shakes who she is. It's Larry I am taking to task.

I know you see it as your duty to defend the pre-watergate Sam Ervin, Jr. wing of the Democratic party at every chance you can, but take a step back on this issue and consider the morality of the policy Larry is advocating here.

Deportation of illegals. All of them. Using the Department of Homelans Security's full panoply of powers to hunt down "illegals."

She and Larry may not be hateful, but our party couldn't find a better issue on which to kowtow to the hateful. My Democratic Partty is better than that.

There is a reasonable approach to this issue.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

Where does that DHS quote come from?

I went to the Stoller's post on Open Left to follow his links since you did not provide them here.

When I followed this link described as "then there's this, from Larry's campaign website" in Stoller's post...I found an article from the Salisbury Post dated March of this year.

Not only could I not locate a link to this article on Larry's website, I also couldn't locate anything about "hunting down illegals" via the Department of Homeland Security in the article.

So...where does this particular bit of information come from?

this paragraph:

"Now they have to find work and what they are seeing what jobs are available are being swollowed up by ILLEAGAL ALLIANS who are it is both unlawful for them to be here and even hold a job here, their acutualy employment is also illeagal."

Is neither factual nor reasonable.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

Not to mention incredibly poorly spelled.

Now - seriously.
Instead of sniping at each other about who we know and who we don't know - can we get an answer - and official answer - from the Kissell campaign - preferably from Larry himself on this? It's pretty important issue, and we really should know the answer.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

No one is attacking his campaign manager

Except me. But only for that terrible piece of writing.

Now, if I may, I'd like to recommend this article on why calling someone an illegal is insulting.

The back and forth between the moderate and Dr Frank really undermines Dr. Frank's point. Larry Kissell, what in the world did you mean by this? If you really intend to demonize undocumented workers and advocate a right-wing Tom Tancredo-esque immigration policy, you won't get one dime or one ounce of support from me and, I hope, a lot of other progressives.

undermines or underlines?

maybe both... ;-)

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

I do not think Kissell is trying to align himself with Tancredo

I believe he was doing several othr things, first of all he was showing Robin Hayes talks a big game but usually votes a differnet way. His vote for amnesty for illegal immigrants was after saying he would not, goes right along with his votes for fast-track and cafta, something he also said he would oppose. More over I believe unlike the granstanding Tancredo is doing, Kissell is also stating a view which his district very much believes, I would not be surprised if he had similiar beliefs. District was not a wealthy one to begin with, but the people where hard working God fearing middle America, bad trade laws have cost this district even more and now, the problem with the illeagals, or whatever you wish to call them I am sticking with illegals, the job market is even smaller and the wages even lower. Many of them are paid cash under the table, which is also illegal, both for the employee and the employer and both should be punished.

In the end it is a Congressman job and duty to look out for your district and to this district the illegal immigrant problem is a luxury they cannot afford. Yet, Robin Hayes talks the talk and votes with the country clubbers. Who call all this good business.

Finally in the end Dr Frank has implied in his writing that Leanne Powell is making comments which are hateful, if you knew her as I have you would see just how crazy associating hate with her. And yes Sam Erivn, Jr has always been a political hero of mine, he may have read that from my writing or just figured it out, and I do respect his view more than most.

Stoller's post

Was silly. Your repost is even more so.

Stoller will sit there and yell and scream about how Bush has destroyed and ignored the laws of this land, then tell us that we should do nothing about illegal immigration.

Now, I dont agree with Larry's position entirely. But that is mostly because I think it would cost more to "round up" illegals than we would gain by doing so. However, to say that a Civics teacher should be ok with not enforcing our laws is absurd.

As for Stoller's assertion that using the word "illegals" is hateful and shameful for a congressional candidate, why doesnt the boy "genius" come up with a better term. What is different between that and "illegal aliens"? Or would you prefer to call them "non-legal non-citizens"?

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

undocumented workers seems fine to me

People are not illegal. Describing them as such makes it too easy to deprive them of human rights - as we do every day in our immigration courts.

Look, I do not want to throw open the borders to everyone. But legal immigration should be made sensible and much easier / shorter. There should be a provision for a labor force that wants to work her and pay taxes here but eventually return home. There should be a provision to recognize reality - that you can't deport 12 million people without becoming a police state and harming the economy.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr

.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

In my work

I come into contact with a lot of people who cannot document the way they entered the country. I figure it's not up to me to say it was "illegal", since I am not a judge, or a member of a jury. I'm perfectly happy using the term "undocumented".

To say that this is a complicated issue is at best an oversimplification. I've had to make arrangements in the last month for children who are citizens whose parents were afraid of being deported. I also know that the industry in several of the towns in the counties I work in would shut down if all of the people in question were "rounded up" and sent home.

I would really like to hear from Larry directly on this. I assume he's got the balls to face a direct question on it.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Maybe if all the non-legal non-citizens were gay

We could call them "gays" and everybody would be happy?

********************************

I tend to agree with BlueSouth. Larry's a law-and-order guy (aren't we all) and the position that people who break laws should be held accountable is one that's hard to argue with. The comments from his campaign manager were inartfully presented, but that doesn't warrant a meltdown. It seems to me that all of the tools that were mentioned are appropriate parts of a comprehensive solution.

Okay! We just toss out the last 2 Gay Mexican lawnboys!

Maybe if all the non-legal non-citizens were gay

We could call them "gays" and everybody would be happy?*Anglico

Yeah! Sorted like the puppet president of Iran who said they didn't have any gay problems or issues with their Religious beliefs. You got to hand it to those butt F##### Persian Iranians, they sure know how to cover up a Patty Story for 2500 years.

I tried to figure this out one day

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to transport 12 million Mexicans back to Mexico? You'd have to round them up, house them in the jails for a few days while their papers were filed and cases decided, then put them on a bus, hire guards and drivers, put them up on motels along the way, feed them and provide for them in other ways. It would probably cost at least $5000 per immigrant to go through all the legal steps before we could deport them, meaning it would cost the taxpayers $60 billion to get rid of them all. Wouldn't it be cheaper just to keep them?

Plus, I heard a speaker a few months ago in Washington, D.C., and he said that illegal immigrants contribute $50 billion a year to Social Security through the deductions in their payroll. And, of course, they will never collect a penny of it. So they are basically propping up our Social Security system as well. And I'm sure they contribute billions more each year in overpaid federal and state income taxes for which they never get a refund because they don't file their tax returns since they have bogus S.S. numbers.

Taxes

Some where I saw something that said immigrants pay a higher amount of taxes by percent because they are more worried about being caught, unlike many ofour "white collar" criminals.

Having said that, the big problem is here that everyone is getting fleeced. Our laws are being broken, american workers are getting screwed, and immigrants are getting screwed. I mean, paying into Social Security and not getting anything out seems to be the opposite of what Social Security is supposed to be.

I do not believe that deporting them is the fix, but the question I have for everyone is; If a worker is willing to come here illegally, why do we expect them to follow any other law? And, if an employer is willing to pay someone 4 bucks an hour, why do we expect them to have a safe workplace, allow a union, etc?

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Maybe this issue will come to the point where

it can be fixed, not by rounding up anybody, but by drying up the problem with carefully thought out policy. If trade imbalance and loosely imposed laws created the immigration mess, perhaps it can be turned around if our leaders will look with a serious and wise eye toward a future with justice being done.

Have you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name

LofT

I'm sorry, that just makes too much sense to be realistic. /snark.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Personal Email NOT Position Paper

I got that email too in October 2006. It was clearly a plea for help to close supporters. Leanne included her personal cell number in the email. I don't know why a supporter would be leaking it to try to hurt Larry, but I thought you ought to see the full text except for her cell number:

We have gotten word that the Robin Hayes campaign is running a negative ad regarding immigration. If you see it, please record it if you can, write down what you can remember about it, and call me at xxxxxxxxxx.

Just to clarify on this ad as well as the other negative ad regarding Medicare---Larry's position is the same position of AARP--it is wasteful to give billions of dollars to pharmaceuitical companies that could be used to give seniors the prescription drugs they need. Robin Hayes stands with the big pharmaceutical companies and Larry Kissell stands with the Senior Citizens who are finding themselves in the doughnut hole having to come up with thousands of dollars out of pocket, because the Republican Congress passed a bad bill. see for yourself at http://www.aarp.org/issues/state_elections/race_display.html?race_id=280

As for immigration Larry's position is more conservative the Congressman Hayes. Mr. Hayes supports the President's amnesty plan and protection of businesses that employ illegals. Larry says our immigration policy should be based in sound public policy not hate, that said, he believes that we have to secure our borders, deport illegals, prosecute those that bring them over the border and hold employers responsible that employ them. Larry believes that illegal aliens are just that-- illegal and to offer amnesty is to penalize the law abiding people waiting patiently and following the rules to be able to persue the American Dream.

Please pass this information on to friends and family and help us set the record straight. If you can, write a letter to the editor and call out the Robin Hayes campaign for their negative campaign of distortion and out right lies.

Okay, so there it was and yes it was quick and she clearly didn't use spell check, but let's remember that Larry had 3 million dollars plus coming down on his head and no help from Washington. She may not spell well in a hurry, but she ran one hell of a campaign. Go Larry!

thanks for the context

Much appreciated.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

Why don't we not....

Larry is tending to private family matters right now.

This can wait. It has waited for over a year.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

some of the comments

on stoller's post were hilarious. Like "Larry seemed to get how to be a populist last cycle now he is giving cover to nativists." Apparently reading comprehension and a calendar arent all that important in making conclusions.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

You have to wonder....

Why somebody brings up an e-mail from over a year ago and why they didn't say anything when that mail originally was sent out.

Left on 49

It was a private email

to a closed circle of supporters. The folks spreading it are from the John Autry campaign.

There you have it in a nutshell.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I know that..

I just didn't want to say it out loud ;-)

I received that mail back then, I didn't have a problem with it.

Left on 49

Kissell camp did not attack immigrants

The Kissell camp did not call "for the deporting and/or demonizing of immigrants". Stoller does not understand immigration law. As few people do I wouldn't expect him to but if he is going to pontificate on the basis of immigration law he better get his facts straight.

Reading what was written, neither Kissell nor his campaign manager attacked immigrants. The term "illegal immigrant" is an oximoron and its continued use is insulting to legal immigrants because it conflates the words illegal and immigrant in the same way that conservatives use the term "liberal media". You cannot be "illegal" and "immigrant" at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive.

Both immigrant and non-immigrant aliens can have legal status in the US with appropriate visas. The fact that these visas are difficult to obtain is a large part of the problem. Non-immigrant visa holders who overstay or who work when their visas do not permit them become "illegal" as do persons who enter the country unlawfully. A legal immigrant can become illegal by committing a felony.

One dilemma is that these 12 million "illegal" people are people, they are an important part of the economies of both the US and the foreign countries they come from and deporting them is impractical even as it is the only legal remedy. I do think the Kissell camp should recognize this.

Use of the word "illegals" may be a little coarse for the timid but it is more charitable than "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigrants" which both can slight legal guests of the nation. The lexicon is not abundant in delicate descriptors for this situation.

The designation of "undocumented workers" may be more charitable but it is hardly fair to the many thousands of "documented workers" who wait in legal limbo and often at great expense or to the legal immigrants and non-immigrant aliens who have endured those challenges. Like many the Kissell camp articulated a problem with illegal status but it most definitely did not attack immigrants as Stoller has claimed.

he did say that we should deport the 'illegals'

It's right there, "deport illegals." in your quote.

Now, I'm not one for freaking out over what amounts to an interesting bit of opposition research, but this does piss me off.

Immigration is one of my few big issues, along with GLBT and reproductive rights. If a candidate, in a primary, does not agree with me on these three issues, they get nothing from me. If Larry Kissell is going to play into the enforcement only crowd's hands, I'm not going to support him.

And just because Matt Stoller is a pompous windbag doesn't mean that the story is any less relevant.

Pages