Sadly for some, the 10th CD is more than just Athens

And it’s more conservative than Athens — by a looooooong shot. However, that didn’t stop Blake Aued, the Athens Banner-Herald’s government reporter, from doing a bit of wishing on the paper’s blog, writing:

It’d be nice to see a little ideological diversity in this race, just to make it interesting, wouldn’t it? Somebody to, say, argue for a path to citizenship for immigrants, rather than argue about whether we should skin them alive or merely deport them.

Um…note to Mr. Aued, and to all the rest who express the same sentiments and propagate the same meme? There is already “a path to citizenship for immigrants” — legal ones.

Lest Mr. Aued be taken out of context, I’ll go ahead and make the stipulation that his comments on the blog were not 100% serious (in fact, they were more likely than not entirely tongue-in-cheek), and were in response to the statement made by GOP candidate Bill Greene in a press release, which read:

I want my children to grow up in a country safe from Islamic radicals who seek to destroy our nation because we permit freedom of religion and freedom of expression. I want a nation where children receive a proper education, embrace the American culture, defend the sanctity of life, and marriage means one mother and one father.

I want a nation that will defend its borders, rather than roll over to big corporations and lawbreakers who violate our laws and exploit our social services. I want a nation where its citizens can keep more of their hard earned paychecks, rather than spend it on expanding the role of government.

Good things to say to a majority-conservative district. Too bad for Mr. Greene that there are four other GOP candidates at the moment, with more undoubtedly on the way. And too bad for Athens that the next Congressman from the 10th will most likely not reflect the unified’s politics in pretty much any way.

18 comments

  1. LymanHall says:

    We’ve got our Congressman. Even though, as Max Burns likes to constantly remind us, he now “lives” in Savannah. Let Jim Whitehead play Congressman for a few years–just so long as Hudgens doesn’t get it.

  2. Adam Fogle says:

    Lyman,

    You do realize that the 12th District no longer covers the People’s Republic of Athens (as Jeff so eloquently calls it) and that the Athenian to which you are referring, John Barrow, is no longer “your Congressman.”

  3. Jmac says:

    Regarding paths to citizenship, I think a more appropriate way to take a look at it is whether or not the current system of attaining legal citizenship is suited to the realities of the situation facing the country today (which is that many people from Latin American countries are, understandably, seeking opportunity in our country). Arguably, with the large number of illegal immigrants coming across the border, one has to wonder if our immigration process meets the demand.

  4. jsm says:

    “Arguably, with the large number of illegal immigrants coming across the border, one has to wonder if our immigration process meets the demand.”

    “Correction: For lower-class Latin American citizens, there is no legal way to gain access to the United States.”

    Since when is it our responsibility as a Nation to guarantee that everyone who wants to live here can do so? We’ve got much more important things to be concerned about. I’m sorry everyone in the world can’t live in America and enjoy the freedom and prosperity we enjoy, but we can’t afford to take on the whole world as charity. If we just let everyone in, this country will crumble after it is looted of everything our fathers worked for and fought for. Some of you need to pull your heads from your respective rectums.

  5. Jmac says:

    … but we can’t afford to take on the whole world as charity.

    Except in matters of foreign policy and military intervention, right?

    Listen, I’m not saying we let everyone in, far from it. Though I will say you create quite a strawman by suggesting if we admit more folks in, then we’re somehow disrespecting what our fathers worked for … particularly when there is a big ole statue in New York’s harbour which says calls on for those on the outskirts of society to come here.

    Of course, your implication is that the folks who want to gain citizenship in our country are somehow sub-human and would ultimately lead to our destruction, which I think is a tad misleading.

    However, the point remains … the overwhelming majority of folks coming from Latin American countries are doing so to escape the extreme poverty from their homelands and find new opportunity here. All I’m calling for is a more realistic approach to our immigration policy that takes this into account … particularly one which accepts the realities of the situation rather than label them as criminals.

    Of course, a comprehensive approach to this would also include work to improve the economies and standards of living in the countries these immigrants are coming from.

  6. Skeptical says:

    … but we can’t afford to take on the whole world as charity.

    Except in matters of foreign policy and military intervention, right?

    Now now Jmac. We’re not intervening, we’re “spreading democracy.” Albeit down the barrel of a gun…

  7. Jmac says:

    I’m just poking fun (actually, I’m very much a liberal internationalist when it comes to those kinds of issues).

  8. jsm says:

    “… but we can’t afford to take on the whole world as charity.”

    “Except in matters of foreign policy and military intervention, right?”

    Wrong. Too much American money is being sent around the world to our enemies and to those who bolster their own political power with it.

    I call this “forced benevolence.” Wouldn’t you rather give to those that you want to help, rather than having the government take your money and give it away?

  9. Jmac says:

    Wouldn’t you rather give to those that you want to help, rather than having the government take your money and give it away?

    Well, sense I’m not a libertarian, I don’t exactly interpret publically funded programs in that light, but that’s a massive philosophical and ideological discussion for another day.

    But, am I correct in understanding that your position is that American military intervention to ‘spread democracy’ is legitimate rather than, say, measures of debt forgiveness.

    I would assume, then, that you’d support some measures to increase energy independence then?

  10. jsm says:

    “But, am I correct in understanding that your position is that American military intervention to ’spread democracy’ is legitimate rather than, say, measures of debt forgiveness.”

    I think protecting our Nation is more important than giving money away, and I would rather fight abroad than on our own soil. If a democratic government is the result of such action, then that is a good thing. I’m not a proponent of spreading democracy for the sake of spreading it.

    “I would assume, then, that you’d support some measures to increase energy independence then?”

    Absolutely. I support energy independence, and there’s plenty of opportunity for it lying under our feet. We’re too wound up in environmental sensationalism to tap our own reserves and build adequate refineries.

  11. jsm says:

    Forgot this one in my previous post…

    “Of course, your implication is that the folks who want to gain citizenship in our country are somehow sub-human and would ultimately lead to our destruction, which I think is a tad misleading.”

    I didn’t imply that anyone is sub-human. I simply see the reality of illegals coming to this country and siphoning entitlements which they don’t deserve and don’t pay to replenish. This helps drive national debt and taxes up for us, the citizens of this country. We can only give so much before we’re tapped out and the whole system comes crashing in.

  12. Jmac says:

    Why would investment in renewable fuels and ‘green’ technology be ‘environmental sensationalism?’ The way I see it, environmental issues aside, oil is a finite resource that, one day, will no longer be there.

    Why not advocate for the innovation of alternative types of energy which would be beneficial to our longterm security, beneficial to our economic growth and have the potential to put us ahead of the curve with regard to other nations in terms of technology? This would seem, to me, to be much better for our longterm planning and viability.

  13. Jmac says:

    I didn’t imply that anyone is sub-human. I simply see the reality of illegals coming to this country and siphoning entitlements which they don’t deserve and don’t pay to replenish.

    Fair enough, and my apologies for misconstruing your words.

    A clarification on ‘entitlements’ would be that the illegal immigrants currently aren’t receiving any sort of government entitlements. They are not eligible for welfare or PeachCare or the like. If they have children born in this country, those children are legal residents and are deserving of benefits.

    They are entitled to medical care, which the hospital then passes on to the consumer … but I think a more logical fix to that would be an overhaul of our current health care system. We shouldn’t be in the business of denying care to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay or their place of origin (not that I’m accusing you of putting forth that argument).

  14. jsm says:

    Jmac,

    I support investment into renewable fuels and green technology, but I don’t want to be energy-starved until those technologies are developed. We need to take care of ‘now’ while were preparing for the future. I don’t see a viable alternative fuel source hitting the mainstream for at least ten years.

    BTW, I appreciate your straightforward, issue-based debate style. I think this is the most civil and honest discussion I’ve had on a blog.

  15. Nicki says:

    Well, civility begins at home. Like, by not suggesting people have their heads up their rectums.

    But anyway, your arguments about allowing everyone here are not in line with my thoughts. We can afford a number of people here — furthermore we want them here, because obviously various employers are willing to entice them here to be exploited as a cheap labor source. But we don’t have a legal means for lower-class immigrants to emigrate, and that’s a basic, insurmountable issue when it comes to illegal immigration.

    I, personally, want all immigration to be legal. I want us to have whatever labor force we require, and I want anyone living in this country to realize the promises of equality, protection, etc., that are part of the American dream. Those would seem to go together with immigration reform which creates a means for poor, but working immigrants to enter the United States in controlled numbers, would it not?

    Also, re: not paying…illegal immigrants do payn into the system, and they are restricted from receiving many benefits that citizens receive. However, it would be better to have them on the radar and accountable as is everyone else.

  16. jsm says:

    “We can afford a number of people here — furthermore we want them here, because obviously various employers are willing to entice them here to be exploited as a cheap labor source.”

    This ‘cheap labor source’ ends up living in slums, because even that’s better than living conditions in their home country. This also creates wage pressure for the middle class, lowering their standard of living, and widens the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

    “I want us to have whatever labor force we require, and I want anyone living in this country to realize the promises of equality, protection, etc., that are part of the American dream.”

    We have the labor force we require, and some immigrants are taking jobs from Americans because they will work for less money. The current levels of immigration are adequate, and I think we should be selective in who we take in. This is OUR country, and we should do what’s best for OUR people. As I said before, we cannot take care of the whole world–we’ll go under trying to do this.

Comments are closed.