The other thing it does, from a purely political perspective, is tell Hispanics that Democrats are on their side, and that Republicans are against them. There’s no downside for the federal government challenging this law.

I’m sure the lawyers out there could explain why the Justice Department thought this was the best angle, instead of doing something like arguing that the law is fundamentally discriminatory.

IANAL, but considering how much posturing there’s been by various states about how the 10th Amendment says they don’t have to do anything the federal government says and how they can secede any time they please, I suspect the feds want to nip that argument in the bud.  It’s a discriminatory law in practice, but its rationale is that Arizona should be allowed to set its own immigration policies and not have to follow those set by the federal government.  I think that’s potentially a much bigger constitutional problem than the discrimination because if the law is struck down on the grounds that it’s discriminatory and then another state comes up with their own immigration law that isn’t de facto discriminatory but is also based on the claim that the federal government does not have the right to create immigration policy, then you have to fight the whole damn court battle all over again.

To me, the fact that states are trying to claim the enumerated powers of the federal government for themselves is a much bigger problem that needs to be dealt with now rather than getting this specific one struck down quickly and allowing the secession games by the wingnut states to continue.

Actually, I >>do<< believe that Rahm Emmanuel is perfectly capable of that level of Machiavellian plotting.  If you can do well while seeming to do good, excellent.

I think the Obama campaign is all about timing, timing, timing.

Also, you probably should have followed the links, because the government is also arguing that it’s discriminatory:

But the filing also asserts that the Arizona law would harm people’s civil rights, leading to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens’ civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.

It’s a both/and lawsuit, not an either/or.

The truly cynical might think they might go initially with a weaker challenge…

I don’t know what the cynical will say, but the practical will realize that what the Supremacy Clause argument lacks in moral heft and popular appeal it makes up for in likelyhood of actually winning.

Why doesn’t any one ever criticize that little clause about being able to sue the police if you don’t think they’re enforcing the law properly? The two cops I’ve spoken to seem really nervous about that part.

Seeing as how we don’t have a federal hate crime bill or any accepted legal definition for this sort of institutional discrimination, leading with that charge would just come off as Democrats being “Politically Correct” whereas this hits straight at the heart of the problem, immigration laws. Spun correctly, the Dems look like they’re doing something about immigration and fighting blatant discrimination. It also puts the GOP coming out against them as being objectively pro racist and hindering immigration reform, something of a sticking point among the Law n’ Order crowd.

I would think the main reason they chose this approach is that Federal plenary power over immigration is pretty constitutionally bulletproof. Even among the right-wing side of the bench, they generally agree that this is one of those areas where the Feds have broad, almost unlimited discretion, because it’s considered a part of foreign policy. While the current court doesn’t really care too much about police abuse of individuals or racial discrimination, they do care about the pissing match between federal and state power.

I’m sure the lawyers out there could explain why the Justice Department thought this was the best angle, instead of doing something like arguing that the law is fundamentally discriminatory.

I think you answered your own question…

Maybe the disingenuous attempts to forbid racial profiling in the text of the law while encouraging it in practice make that a harder case to build than you’d think?  That’d be my guess.

You know that in spirit, this law is discriminatory.  I know that, and everyone who is on the right side of the issue knows that to be the case.

BUT… having not personally read the exact verbiage of the law, I cannot say that the law is explicitly discriminatory based on the language used.  And if I had to guess, it would probably be difficult to prove the law is overtly racist in nature simply based on the wording the lawyers who wrote it put together.

That’s why going after it as fundamentally discriminatory probably isn’t the best strategy.  Because it’s possible that the specific language of the law alone isn’t discriminatory… even though we all know that the way in which it will be implemented most likely will be based on racial discrimination.

The Court would demand that the DoJ prove that the law is racist based solely on the language of the law, and that is something that probably cannot be proven.

The reason for focusing on the preemption argument might be standing—the doctrine that in order to bring a lawsuit in federal court, you must be attempting to get redress for an injury that you yourself have suffered (or to prevent an injury that you yourself are likely to suffer), rather than to address someone else’s injury.  The argument that the federal government is injured by a state “driv[ing] a wedge between police and immigrant communities” might be too abstract to attract a five justice majority on a Supreme Court that has used the doctrine of standing to greatly restrict access to the courts.  I’m only speculating on what the motive might be, not commenting on the merits of the possible arguments.

I am also going to add in, on the why-this-case angle, that it’s important to try to make such laws de facto impossible for states to enact.  If the lawyers argued just that it was discriminatory, then states would just start re-writing them and trying to use language that would make them as race-neutral as possible.  States would begin talking about checking everyone’s papers or enacting codes for cops about who they can stop and whatever else.  They would try to weasel out of the “it’s discriminatory” claim by playing with the wording of the statutes.  And considering that SCOTUS is really into the race-blind thing with 5 justices (like if we just close our eyes racism won’t be a problem anymore), I think this is the best way to go.

So, the Obama administration decided not to lose the Latino base of Democratic voters, after all.

Good for them.

If only they cared as much about losing the GLBT base (and their family and friends,) or the 70% or so of American voters who don’t want Social Security sliced and diced to support endless, pointless wars, or the environmental base voters horrified by this administration’s support of deep water drilling (only a month before the apocalypse in the Gulf)...

Oh I could go on and on, but I’ll be voting for Democrats in the midterm, and can only hope the Obama administration somehow turns around all the other disincentives they’ve supplied to tamp down the enthusiasm of Democratic voters, sometime before November.

the 70% or so of American voters who don’t want Social Security sliced and diced

THAT’S not happening. Just form a good politics point of view, it won’t happen.

Three words: Florida’s Electoral Votes.

Gay people are at a political disadvantages because unlike, say, seniors, or Cuban-Americans, or white corn farmers, they don’t happen to congregate in electorally important places. If they all lived in Ohio, Florida, or Iowa, we’d have Democratic Presidents pushing for a constitutional amendment to legalize gay marriage by now!

The reasons for the delegation of powers argument is basically straight-forward:

1. No question of standing.

2. It’s basically an airtight argument. Not even the conservatives on the Roberts Court can claim the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over immigration without provoking a crisis of credibility.

3. Finality. As someone else noted, the problem with getting the law tossed out on the basis of being discriminatory is that you’d just wind up doing this over and over with different laws with different wordings (and sooner or later one of them is bound to get the approval of Kennedy and Scalia). By establishing that the federal government has authority over immigration and that the states can not supersede federal dictates on the matter you nip that in the bud early.

THAT’S not happening. Just form a good politics point of view, it won’t happen.

It’s rather astonishing how terrible of politics hippie-punching is in general.  But people have their needs.

The other good reasons for arguing based on preemption and supremacy are:

1. It may deter other states from passing Arizona-like laws. They’ve been introduced in something like 22 other states, and if there’s a quick and decisive ruling against state action on this topic, that may discourage a whole lot of others.

2. There’s a similar local-ordinance (not state law) case sitting in the Third Circuit right now. Whichever way it is decided, it’s highly likely that the loser will appeal to the Supreme Court. Maybe the DOJ wants to have a precedent to smack down that sort of case too.

Disclamer: IANAL and I don’t know anything about legal strategy.

It’s rather astonishing how terrible of politics hippie-punching is in general.

Cutting SS isn’t hippie-punching, it’s grandma-punching. And generally, unless you’re a sociopath, people don’t like grandma-punchers.

IANAL as always, but my guess would be that the government is being pragmatic in their approach.

When it comes to things border and immigration policy, they have to win this and win it solidly and decisively.

It would be nice to think they’re fighting this on the moral/ethical grounds of the AZ law being discriminatory, but that’s just not true. Along with the discriminatory reasons to fight this go a series of much deeper challenges to the power of the Federal Government.

There are few other fundamental powers aside from Customs, Immigration, Border Control, etc. that are more important to defining a Nation-State and our Constitution makes it pretty clear that those issues belong to the Feds. 

DOJ doesn’t want to spend the next decade or two putting up with legislative feints and dodges or playing whack-a-mole with rewordings and reinterpretations of the same boilerplate law from a dozen different states.

They need to fight this in a way that will make it a slam dunk for them even on the Right side of SCOTUS and that puts the other States on notice that these kinds of shenanigans aren’t going to be allowed.

A lot of winning in general comes from knowing what kind of fight you’re in to begin with and being able to separate WHY you’re getting into the fight from HOW you’re going to fight.

I’m a lawyer and I think that the other people in this argument pretty much summed up the reasons why the Justice Department is going for the preemption route correctly. Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the right to create “a uniform rule of naturalization” and this has been interpreted as giving the Federal government sole power over immigration for a rather long time. The preemption argument is the strongest one that can be for standing purposes and basically just for winning the case. A lot of thought was put into what arguments would be made and the Justice Department lawyers came to the decision that this would be the most effective one.

If this lawsuit succeeds in winning the argument that Arizona’s law constitutes the state forming it’s own immigration policy, I wonder if that precedent will be useful in fighting other laws that put restrictions on immigrant’s lives within the US? After all, Arizona is not technically trying to set up it’s own INS, they’re insisting the cops check people’s immigration status when it’s not necessary. And there are plenty of other states that do, or are trying to, do the same or worse—one Republican gubernatorial candidate in Ga is pushing the idea that *emergency rooms* should ‘gather information’ on who’s an immigrant with what documentation. This could be a lot better than simply striking down this law, or very similar copycat laws, if that is the case. I’d like to hear what anyone with more legal wherewithal thinks about that.

Maybe the disingenuous attempts to forbid racial profiling in the text of the law while encouraging it in practice make that a harder case to build than you’d think?

Yeah. I mean, it’s clear that the practical impact of this law will either be painfully tyrannical, negligible, or racist as hell—probably all three. But the language goes out of its way to bend over backwards asserting a lack of racial motivation. Thus a facial challenge needs to be on federalism grounds.

Now, this is very amateur, but the SCOTUS odds ain’t great. True, Robert’s thing is selling out to corporate interests instead of federalism like Rehnquist, but he’s really not the guy for this job. So I’m glad the justice department stepped up, but pessimistic.

So, ya don’t think the Obama administration would be stupid enuf/evil enough to gut Social Security?

Ah, if only the world were so.

Three words: The Deficit Commission.

In other words: The Catfood Commission to gut Social Security.

Social Security has always been considered the Third Rail of American Politics: touch it and you die.

And yet, Obama appointed a “commission” composed only of actors long dedicated to eviserating that safety net, and Nancy Pelosi snuck something into the Friday news dump edition of legislation, a “non-binding” agreement that the House pre-approves whatever the Senate tries to enact on that commission’s insane advice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/social-security-suicide-p_b_633313.html

I’m 60, and may be two years above the cut off for Simpson’s eviserations, but even so, think this Democratic suicide pact is evil of the first order: attacking the most vulnerable in our society, first and foremost, and also committing political suicide by driving away Democratic voters.

I’ll be voting, I can’t help but wonder if Democratic politicians, including Obama, prefer to be in the minority so they have free reign to vote for their corporate masters, all the while making sad faces about how powerless they are to work for the common good.

They usta say that only Nixon could go to China, only Clinton could eradicate welfare and ship jobs overseas through NAFTA, and now only Obama will shred the Social Security safety net.

All your magical thinking won’t make it go away, either.

You might call Washington, but hey, the “fierce advocate” has shafted so much of the Dem base at this point, that I doubt the 70% of the American against what the conservatives on the “commission” have been after all these long years.

Because Gutting Social Security, Will be Saving Rich People Taxes!

“So they’re only going to cut it for people under 58. The system can sustain itself, if current projects are correct, by paying promised benefits out in full until 2036 and then could pay 76% of scheduled benefits after that.

The catfood commission is not about “saving social security,” it’s about stealing from a regressive tax so that rich people don’t have to pay more in taxes. “
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/07/liars-who-rule-us.html

Hey, I’m such an old bitch, this apparently isn’t going to effect me—but you young whipper snappers better get off the couch, or the blog, and start screaming at Washington, or your old age will be even scarier than it will be for mine, now that pensions and 401Ks have been wiped out for us baby boomers.

Amanda asked:

I’m sure the lawyers out there could explain why the Justice Department thought this was the best angle, instead of doing something like arguing that the law is fundamentally discriminatory.

I’m not an attorney, but that was the basis on which the Hazleton, Pennsylvania illegal immigration ordinance was overturned.  The Department of Justice was using the same argument which has won before in federal court.

I’m starting to wonder if the hippie movement hurt the American Left more than it helped it. One of the accomplishments of the hippie movement seems to have been installing a permanent fear and loathing of all positions of authority and all persons holding said positions in large swaths of the American Left. As a result, many members of the American left do not want to pursue political office for fear that it would “corrupt” them. The European/Latin American/Asian/African Left has no similar fear and is therefore ready to seize and wield power.

...unless you’re a sociopath…

That is why republicans like the idea of cutting social security.

#25

I’m starting to wonder if the hippie movement hurt the American Left more than it helped it. One of the accomplishments of the hippie movement seems to have been installing a permanent fear and loathing of all positions of authority and all persons holding said positions in large swaths of the American Left.

The reason authoritarians hate the memory of the hippies is that the hippies succeeded in changing society to be more open. I suspect that, had the hippies not existed, the authoritarians would still hate the Left, but feel more confident in doing so.

Perhaps the more pertinent critique would be: the hippies were a movement, they altered US society, the authoritarians hate them, this is the reality we have to work with. A US society existing without a past hippie movement is an unreal thing whose true nature cannot be known.

“Why doesn’t any one ever criticize that little clause about being able to sue the police if you don’t think they’re enforcing the law properly? The two cops I’ve spoken to seem really nervous about that part.”—#7: Tersa

That is the part that is going to lead to the discrimination, Tersa.  The rest is show, an attempt to say that Arizona is doing something while the Feds stand by and do nothing.  And it’s cynical and political and the Arizona Republicans best attempt at blaming others for the state’s fiscal state thanks to their Norquistism (Make the government small enough to drown in a bathtub: those Republicans love their metaphors, don’t they?)  What’s even more cynical is the proponents’ insistence that the law is just like the Federal law.

But I haven’t seen this in the Federal Code:

“Any person who is a resident of this state has standing in any court of record to bring suit against any agent or agency of this state or its political subdivisions to remedy any violation of any provision of this section, including an action for mandamus. Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court.”

In other words, if this isn’t enforced to any resident’s liking, they get to sue. And they get to go to the front of the line at court, meaning all other civil matters get delayed. Good luck suing anyone for anything not related to illegal aliens once the courts get clogged with money-hungry racists who get to jump to the front of the line. And it’s good to spend tax money defending against them, since that’s what our law enforcement agencies need to do in the midst of this supposed “crisis”.

The law is cynical bullshit, but I might want to demand that all the ritzy daycares be raided since I bet not many of those rich kids carry proof of citizenship and thus should be detained at a jail until their parents show up.  And I get paid handsomely if the local police or sheriff departments refuse to go along with my insanity?  I bet that’s a feature and not a bug.

Among the problems with the discrimination angle is that it’s going to have to be an “as it would be applied” or a disparate impact argument, and the current court is majority insulated assholes. Remember, the law was carefully drafted to claim that it was nondiscimrinatory.  So it’s in there, but not as clear a winner as the supremacy argument

The deficit commission is going to give political cover for Obama to raise the (ridiculous) income cap on Social Security taxes, not gut it. The Republicans knew it, and that’s why they voted against a deficit commission in the legislative branch and Obama had to institute it by executive order instead.

And please don’t forget that there is a section of the corporate class that is smart enough to realize that the gutting of the middle class would be a bad thing for them, even from an entirely selfish perspective—because they realize that income inequality will just cause unrest and ultimately be bad for them.

Ex., Warren Buffet who is a liberal, or Bill Gates calling for the estate tax to be re-imposed.

Atheist at 27: I think its debatable with whether the hippies made American society more open. Hippie experimentation with drugs probably helped cause the War on Some Drugs rather than the more laizze-faire policy that existed before hand. Feminism, technology, and Hugh Hefner helped loosen up sexual standards more than the hippies did. They did make beard-wearing acceptable again and I have to thank them for that at least.

  The main problem that I have with the Hippie movement is that I think they installed some questionable lessons in the American left, mainly a loathing of traditional small-d democratic politics. Politics ain’t pretty and some times you need to use a lot of carrot and stick to get things done but the rewards for society can be great, or devastating, if politics is done right. The Hippie movement with their admitably noble, if contrary to some of my personal preferences concerning society, desire to make society more open; had little use for traditional methods in politics and installed this hatred in parts of the American Left. Its then the American Left got more than a little ineffective. Or to put it another way, I’m a big LBJ fan and think that we need more politicians like him to succeed.

    The American Left wants government to have a wider role in American life to solve the problems facing society. To achieve this we need to seek and hold positions of power at all levles of government. Positions of power are positions of authority whether they are elected or appoitned. Much of the criticism involving Obama from the Left revolves around a perceived failure of Obama to use his authority. If the American Left is afraid of authority than we will be hard-pressed to achieve our goals outside of the social-cultural sphere.

So, the Deficit Commission is more of Obama’s 11th Dimensional Chess, is it? Social Security is going to be just fine, even tho…ah why bother with the facts when you have True Believers?

I’ve also read that Obama’s made a back street deal to gut him some Social Security as a trade off for more taxes for the rich: because of course those two things are equal, causing the rich a minor twinge and pulling the rug out from under the poor and needy.

<blockqoute>Several of the most powerful members of the House — Republicans and Democrats — have recently voiced real support for the idea of raising the retirement age for people middle-aged and younger as part of a larger plan to reduce long-term deficits, inching closer to what not too long ago was the third rail of American politics [...]

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer explicitly put the idea on the table as well in a speech last month. “We should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan,” Hoyer said.

He echoed House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who put it this way: “With minor changes to the program such as raising the salary cap and raising the retirement age by one month every year, the program could become solvent for the next 75 years.” One month a year may not sound like much, but if you’re 30 years away from retirement, that adds up to almost three years.

In the House, though, Nancy Pelosi is the linchpin, and she’s not nearly as enthusiastic as her colleagues. But, notwithstanding the enthusiasm gap, she also left the possibility of raising the retirement age on the table. When asked about it by TPMDC at her press conference last week, she criticized the plan, but mainly to say she disagrees with putting Social Security on the chopping block ahead of other measures. “Why they would start talking about a place that could be harmful to our seniors — 70 is a relative age,” Pelosi said. “Around here, there’s not a lot of outdoor work or heavy lifting. But for some people it is, and 70 means something different to them. So in any event let’s talk about growth, lets talk about how we can reduce spending, lets put everything, those initiatives: promoting growth, tightening the belt, looking at entitlements. But let’s not start on the backs of our seniors.”

Pelosi, of course, orchestrated last week’s vote which committed the House (though not statutorily) to voting on any Senate-passed recommendations of the cat food commission…

Democrats willing to show their fiscal responsibility bona fides without even thinking hard about it.

It would be good to see people wake up to this reality. Perhaps nothing will come out of the commission. Perhaps Republicans will see a tax and just vote it down. Perhaps 41 Democrats will stick together. But one thing is clear – with no pushback from the grassroots, politicians will feel quite free to mess with Social Security and build a bipartisan DC consensus against the public.

</blockqoute>

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/07/more-notice-growing-bipartisan-consensus-for-social-security-benefit-cuts/

I don’t understand the deficit commission paranoia. I mean, this pretty obvious:

1. The commission obviously doesn’t have legislative authority.

2. Where in the hell are you going to find 60 Senators willing to substantially cut social security benefits?

Beyond that the commission is significantly hamstrung, but that right there is enough.

Judy, you’re the only one playing 11 dimensional chess here by suggesting Democrats are going to purposefully fuck up because they secretly like being in the minority. That’s a much bigger stretch than anything I’ve said.

If only they cared as much about losing the GLBT base (and their family and friends,)

Let me be the spiteful jerk to spit in your coffee.  The LGBT group even including supporters are electorally small.  I support it, I vote for candidates that support LGBT rights.  But electorally the group is still small and tend to reside in liberal districts so while they’re the backbone of the California democratic victories they have no place to go and can be beaten around a bit.

The main problem that I have with the Hippie movement is that I think they installed some questionable lessons in the American left, mainly a loathing of traditional small-d democratic politics. Politics ain’t pretty and some times you need to use a lot of carrot and stick to get things done but the rewards for society can be great, or devastating, if politics is done right. The Hippie movement with their admitably noble, if contrary to some of my personal preferences concerning society, desire to make society more open; had little use for traditional methods in politics and installed this hatred in parts of the American Left. Its then the American Left got more than a little ineffective. Or to put it another way, I’m a big LBJ fan and think that we need more politicians like him to succeed.

You just defined the whole argument of New Left vs. Old Left politics.  Progressives versus Left-libertarians is probably the most politically apt word but libertarians have been co-opted by the right in an unfair way.  Not to say that both aren’t right, but the new left is less apt to accept anything less than high-road politics.  Which culminated in the loss in 2004 by swiftboating Kerry but also saw the victory of 2008 with Obama.  It’s arguable though that Obama is far more Old Left in his approach as a realist progressive who can’t simply ram-rod policies in a very-right media atmosphere (though arguably the country is still center-left as it has been for the greater part of the 20th century). 

To talk about the actual subject though, yes the government decided to throw the more legally justifiable rule at the case first.  Somebody already pointed out, yes we all know the law is racist, even the right-wing knows it is racist, but they simply don’t care.  But that isn’t a crime in the strict sense because it doesn’t violate the 14th amendment by explicitly outlining latinos as those to be singled-out.  Now over years of practice it could be ruled unconstitutional by practice, but that would let years go by and that is simply unacceptable. 

This does sound very well timed to be honest.  Letting the Republicans fight this through mid-august into September/October and keeping the latino voters ready and willing to send the southwest into the hands of democrats.

The LGBT group even including supporters are electorally small.  I support it, I vote for candidates that support LGBT rights.  But electorally the group is still small and tend to reside in liberal districts so while they’re the backbone of the California democratic victories they have no place to go and can be beaten around a bit.

Right. Hispanics and blacks have a big influence in the Democratic Party, and electorally, because there are big numbers of them in the population, so they get a lot of attention and support. That’s one way to have a lot of influence.

Corn farmers and Cuban dissidents live in the electorally important areas of Iowa and Florida, respectively, so they also have a big influence despite their small numbers. Ridiculous policies like corn subsidies and the Cuban embargo would have been repealed long ago otherwise.

Rahm was around the last time there was a majority Dem congress, which went into the minority after the passage of NAFTA.

Who could have predicted Dems would be less enthusiastic voters after having their jobs shipped out of country?

There are plenty of Dems in Congress left from that little lesson who apparently enjoyed having their minority status as cover to vote for financial deregulation, a war for no reason, bankruptcy laws that screwed the middle class, a bail out for the criminal banks, and Wall Street, credit card usury and so on and so forth—all the while making sad faces and begging for contributions in order that they might one day be in a majority so they could finally, finally, perhaps, vote for the common good.

Never said I knew for a fact that Democrats were actively courting minority status, but damn, it makes you wonder when they’re the first Congress in, well, ever to refuse to vote for Unemployment Extensions when unemployment is over 7%, and there’s a bipartisan push to gut the Social Security safety net.

Ya know, I’m just going to say it; there’s more than a hint of racism in left-populist opposition to NAFTA. I mean, you never hear anyone bitch about CUSFTA. But add swarthy Latinos to the mix, and suddenly the damn brown people are conspring with the evil corporations to steal jobs from salt-of-the-Earth white Americans. Who we all know are the only people in the world who deserve economic betterment.

Frankly the left-populist view on NAFTA and other trade agreements isn’t that different from wingnut views of welfare.

Ya know we wouldn’t be having this discussion, if there wasn’t already a frightening Democratic voter disinterest in the midterms.

I will be voting Democratic in the midterms, if only because the Republicans are generally batshit crazy—hey, I’ve voted Democratic for 42 years for reasons like that, and also because I’m a student of American history, and have a long memory for Republican perfidy.

However, when Democratic politicians insist on playing faux Republican, the general public often decides to vote for the real thing—at least the Republicans don’t appear to lack conviction.

Yeah and NAFTA gave brown people our manufacturing, but at the fraction of the pay and with little or no safety regulations.

So yes, giving the corporations tax breaks to move US manufacturing jobs to a country where the workers could be more successfully exploited and maimed—yup, all the fault of the lefties who opposed it.

Ya know, I’m just going to say it; there’s more than a hint of racism in left-populist opposition to NAFTA.

I agree, Brian, and ditto about “outsourcing” (the real term they should be using is “offshoring”) to China and India.

The real story isn’t offshoring, it’s de-unionization in this country combined with automation. The American left should be supporting unionization efforts in India, and against the authoritarian government of China. This should be the goal rather than demonizing foreign workers as our enemy, we should work with them against the big corporations and their enablers to raise wages and working standards. Chinese workers are already trying—google the recent strikes against Honda in China, for example.

Workers can’t stop globalization. You may as well try to protest the sun from rising in the east! But unions and their workers can learn to play the globalization game just like the corporations do.

The fact that the emergence of China, India, and Brazil as consumer markets get ignored (to say nothing of rising living standards in India and Brazil especially) annoys me to no end. There’s really no escaping the conclusion that the left-populists are working under the assumptions that Americans are just fundamentally more deserving than people who didn’t have the good sense to be born on this arbitrary hunk of land.

Right. Hispanics and blacks have a big influence in the Democratic Party, and electorally, because there are big numbers of them in the population, so they get a lot of attention and support. That’s one way to have a lot of influence.

They reside in more politically divided districts for the most part.  If you look at the regions where they reside, they do get a larger voice. 

Ya know, I’m just going to say it; there’s more than a hint of racism in left-populist opposition to NAFTA. I mean, you never hear anyone bitch about CUSFTA. But add swarthy Latinos to the mix, and suddenly the damn brown people are conspring with the evil corporations to steal jobs from salt-of-the-Earth white Americans. Who we all know are the only people in the world who deserve economic betterment.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody who considered themselves left talk about it that way.  If anything, you’re speaking of paternalism, which is different from racism and is at worst misguided.  Fundamentally the issue is that by opening our borders we promote corporations to ship jobs away from our borders (and thus our people) to other people (who aren’t our people) while exploiting both people.  It’s a game where only the rich and powerful win.  Places like Brazil, India, and China love it on the surface though it plays havoc with their economies and ruins regular citizens.

Xeranar: I consider myself very much to be Old Left even though I’m only 29. Or rather I’m a New Deal/Great Society Democrat. I don’t necessarily believe that the ends always justify the means but I’m not adverse to dirty politics in the name liberalism.

My economic history might be a little off but wasn’t American manufacturing already suffering at the time NAFTA passed? NAFTA didn’t really help it but it wasn’t exactly flowering either.

LBGT rights are just something thats going to have to be forced, sorry I really can’t think of a better word here, on the general population whether they like it or not. Not implementing LBGT rights because LBGT aren’t political important is no better than not doing a thing about Civil Rights because African-Americans are not politically important. LBJ knowingly and willingly sacrificed the Solid South to the Republican Party in the name of Civil Rights. Its time that elected politicians express the same courage for the LBGT community.

“Places like Brazil, India, and China love it on the surface though it plays havoc with their economies and ruins regular citizens. “

That’s ridiculous, especially in the cases of Brazil and India, where living standards have risen quite a bit, and most problems are still a result of domestic politics, much more so than they are about global trade. There’s really no way to argue that trade has hurt the people of either of those countries, and it’d be hard to argue that it’s really hurt the Chinese people either. People in some truly 3rd world countries, and their resources to be sure, have definitely been exploited, but for the countries who were second tier 10-20 years ago it’s been a huge boom.

I think that free trade is one of the dividing lines between liberalism and progressvism, which are similar but in some ways different center-left ideologies. Liberals tend towards supporting free trade and seeing it as a good thing while progressives tend to accentuate the negatives of free trade and be more supportive of protectionism. This isn’t really a new development. When the Republicans had a progressive faction during the early 20th century, free trade was one of the dividers between the Progressive Republicans and the liberal parts of the Democratic Party with the Democratic Party supporting free trade along with the Conservative Demorats.

That’s fair, but it’s not really what I’m talking about. A lot of progressives are skeptical of trade agreements because they worry corporations will exploit them to skirt environmental or labor laws, and those are totally fair concerns that have to be addressed. I think they can slide into myopic focus on things like wages while ignoring standards of living, but it’s not that big of a deal. I’m talking about a smaller subset of populists who rant about NAFTA, even though it’s a relatively small agreement that had little impact on American jobs, and talk about “American jobs” in terms that suggest they believe Americans simply have more of a right to economic prosperity than non-Americans.

The rest of the country doesn’t have to be “forced” for gay rights: the repeal of DADT is approved of by about 70% of Americans.

Let me repeat: 70% of Americans approve the repeal of DADT: which is why the Obama administration had to label their and the Pentagon’s continuation of DADT as a repeal (although it isn’t).

The Pentagon has another trick up their sleeve: they’ve sent out a “survey” to the troops with loaded questions “asking” whether or not troops want the repeal of DADT.

Not only does policy in military matters NEVER work that way—from the troops up—but gay legal organizations have had to warn closeted gay military that answers to the “survey” will directly identify each military member.

That’s right, boys and girls, unlike every other survey ever taken, ever, there’s no means to stay anonymous—check off that you’re in favor of repeal of DADT, and you can effectively be outed by the survey.

As for the idea that American unions shouldn’t have kicked about NAFTA supplying corporations with tax breaks to ship U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas, but instead should have tried to unionize the overseas workers—wow! Talk about paternalism.

Never mind that the American tax payer paid to have American jobs shipped overseas where it’s easier to exploit and maim workers but, somehow, boys and girls, that was all the fault of the American unions (and lefties) who opposed both aspects.

And then, the unions, with their funds depleted by the new gap of American unionized workers should have funded trips overseas to paternally fight for unionization wherever the corporations had shipped those jobs.

So instead of blaming a complicit Democratic Congress who gave the greedy corporations taxpayer dollars to ship their jobs overseas, it’s still, somehow, the fault of the unions who fought that tooth and nail.

Remember way back when Democratic voters didn’t vote back in a Democratic Congress largely because they were pissed about paying to have their jobs sent overseas?

If only those Dem voters had known the unions who opposed that evil were somehow to blame? Then they would have happily voted the Dems back into the majority, instead of sending an object lesson.

However, since object lessons never work for Democratic politicians (who use their time in the wilderness to vote for policies that continue to spit on their constituents, and compose begging letters asking for one more chance to have a majority opportunity to spit on their constiuents) I guess we’re not supposed to take that as our own lesson that Democratic politicians don’t really mind being in the minority.

I’ve been following this debate ever since it happened, and I support the Arizona law. Have any of you actually read the damn thing? It’s just enforcing the existing law, it’s Arizona’s right to have such a law. I’m Hispanic myself and I support this law? Why? I’m an American, the states have every right to pass such a law, we’re not a Communist country yet, ladies. Yeah, call me self-loathing, but I’m not a goddamn “progressive” like you guys, I’m a proud American. For shame, is this what our Founding Fathers fought for, so our country could be invaded? Oops, I forgot, the Founding Father were all just a bunch of racist old white guys *sarc* You may never publish this, but go to Arizona and talk to some farmers who’s animals have been poisoned by the illegals or anyone there, you’ll be out of there in no time. May the gods bless our Arizonan patriots, at least some people in this country got balls.

You may never publish this

Aww… radio won’t even play yo’ jam.

Hell yeah, they “fought for it to be invaded” - by them. There were people living here already, and they didn’t even get voting rights. They did get promptly removed, though. The Founding Fathers were more than racist old white guys, but they were also racist old white guys - it’s a both/and blog. You and I were not on the original guest list for the freedom party - it’s historical fact. That’s “what the Founders originally intended” - for you to shiver outside in your club gear on the other side of the velvet rope, voiceless, powerless, subject to their will, whim, and wrath, and solely dependent on their pity, their largess, their noblesse oblige.

Also why in the hell would anyone need a new law to enforce an existing law? This gives the local police additional authority. They drew up a new law because the scope of the power they’re trying to grab is indeed new… and the passing of this law expands the scope of government and increases the imposition that it’s allowed to make on its citizens, in practice and intent… kind of like totalitarian Communism. When the government’s listening to phone calls and withholding legal counsel and notification of reason for arrest under the guise of “protecting Americans”, “small government” and “personal freedom” can go to hell? Apparently, “proud patriots” and “defenders of states’ rights” are for national ID cards now because of illegal immigration, when by principle, they should balk at such a thing. All anyone has to do is raise the spectre of scary foreigners, and ya’ll will let Stalin come right in through the front door and serve him a mug of coffee and a cruller on your finest china!