Friday, July 11, 2014

On Willis Hart Lying About Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee Asserting that the U.S. Border With Mexico is Secure

...more than 30% of undocumented migrant laborers in the U.S. are victims of labor trafficking - or recruiting a person for labor through force, fraud, or coercion for involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or even slavery - and 55% are victims of other labor abuses ~ Quote via the Public Health Watch blog from a recent study published in the May issue of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science by researchers Sheldon X. Zhang, Michael W. Spiller, Brian Karl Finch and Yang Qin. (Study Finds Shocking Rates Of Trafficking, Abuse Of Undocumented Immigrant Workers).

The following post; a commentary which is complete and utter bullplop, from the blog of the liar known as Willis Hart...

Willis Hart: "On Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Asserting that the U.S. Border With Mexico is Secure"... I'll take, "Just One More Pitch-Perfect Example of Why We Need to Vote Every Single One of these Cork-Soakers Out of Office", for a thousand, Alex. (Posted to the blog "Contra O'Reilly" on 7/10/2014 at 4:56pm).

Problem is, Congresswoman Jackson Lee (Rep from Texas' 18th) did NOT straight up say the US/Mexico border is "secure"... and the following transcript proves it! (Transcript of a 7/10/2014 discussion between Sheila Jackson Lee and MSNBC Live anchor Craig Melvin).

Via the Breitbart website...

Jackson Lee: [T]hen on the other end, Craig, we have got to be able to deal with their care and then deal with our border. I disagree that our border is in devastating condition. Our border patrol agents are doing their job.

Melvin: Do you think the border is secure?

*snip*

Jackson Lee: I think our border with now 21,000 border patrol agents is under control. We need to give them more resources, more equipment and they can stand to have more support as it relates to the increasing of those numbers that may come through the supplemental. There's a large amount of money for increasing numbers of border patrol and ICE officers. But I would not cry fire to suggest that our border patrol agents are not on the job. They are on the job. I have spoken to them. I have been on the border, I have been on the Rio Grande. I have been on the border at night. ("Sheila Jackson-Lee: I disagree that our border is in devastating condition", 7/10/2014).

"Under control" and "not in devastating condition" is the same as saying it is "secure"??? Also note that SJL says our border agents need MORE resources, MORE equipment and MORE support. This amounts to SJL saying the border is secure? Her saying MORE resources are needed?? I think not, Willis, you liar! In any case, I agree with The Economist, which says "The US-Mexico border [is] secure enough".

The Economist: Spending billions more on fences and drones will do more harm than good. ...border enforcement costs $18 billion a year, more than all other federal criminal-law-enforcement agencies combined. ... Most of America's 2,000-mile southern border is tighter than it has ever been. Greater use of surveillance technology may reduce crossings further. Yet the growth in numbers from Central America shows how strong the "push" factors behind migration remain. America's politicians may or may not find a way to declare the border "secure". But if Mexico's economy stutters, or violent crime soars again, the magnets of high wages, jobs and security across the border will prove too powerful for many to resist. (Excerpt from a 6/22/2013 article).

The article also notes that Republican Senator John Cornyn refuses to talk immigration reform until "the southern border is 90% secure", yet some estimates say it is already 87% secure. This "secure the border" meme is, in other words, a political ploy.

One that Willis has clearly fallen for. And I thought he knew better. I mean, the dude has argued for more immigration (to provide cheap labor for the plutocrats' factories, in order that they don't have to go overseas when they are desirous of exploiting workers).

The truth is, we spend way too much on border security. A much better use of these monies would be enforcement of laws that say you must be an American citizen (or have a work visa) to secure employment in the United States.

That is the reason people cross our Southern border... for jobs. No jobs; no reason to come. But wealth-worshipers like the Hartster know that is the LAST thing the plutocrats want (to cut off their supply of cheap labor).

That is why Republicans misdirect with baloney about "securing the border". And playing to the xenophobia of their base helps them accomplish their goal of keeping illegal workers illegal.

With a path to citizenship the illegal workers could come out of the shadows; the shadows where they have no choice but to tolerate being pushed around by employers who tell them they must accept low wages and unsafe working conditions or be reported to ICE.

The "secure the borders" crowd is a part of the deception designed to keep wages low for low-skilled legal workers, as well as aid those who traffic and abuse undocumented immigrant workers! And Willis Hart, with his dishonest commentary about Sheila Jackson-Lee aligns himself with these people! For that I say, shame on you, Willis!

SWTD #265, wDel #68. See also OST #26.

13 comments:

  1. Political Correctness at its finest DS. Call a spade a spade, undocumented means ILLEGAL. Because progressives don'r like the accurate tern doesn't change the reality they are illegal aliens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes RN. Undocumented immigrants immigrated illegally. Although they did so because US employers are willing to give them jobs. Even though only US citizens are legally supposed to be able to be employed in the US. Anyway, I never made the argument that we should use the term "undocumented" and not "illegal". I use both in my commentary.

      The REAL issue my commentary discussed was the lying of Willis about what Sheila Jackson Lee said. Read the transcript and you'll see that Willis lied. Or he made a mistake and took what some Rightwing site said as being accurate. Although my transcript is from a Rightwing site... So I conclude he lied... although maybe I'm wrong. Either way his blog post does not present truthful information.

      Ask him. I'd be very interested to see if he stands by his lie or admits he was wrong.

      BTW, since you made a big deal about "political correctness" (at IT'S FINEST! even though there is no political correctness in my commentary), does that mean you're on the side of those who vilify poor people who only want to work as a means of giving illegal employers a free pass?

      You are aware that hiring a worker without the proper documentation (documentation they don't have or have forged copies of because they crossed the border illegally) is a crime, right?

      I bring it up because that was the secondary focus of my commentary, that this whole "secure the border" idiocy is misdirection from the Right intended to distract the bigots from the real issue, which is employers who break the law.

      Delete
    2. Right, I9 form. As a manager I was responsible to insure we did NOT employ ILLEGALS.

      The PC you endorse is the tern undocumented migrant workers. What ever the enticement these individuals are ILLEGAL. PERIOD.

      Now, If you wish to talk about irresponsible employers (businesses) who hire illegals that's fine. You'll get no disagreement from me as businesses who so should be PROSECUTTED in federal courts.

      As for Jackson-Lee? So what, inconsequential. BTW, I did read the transcript. So? Worrying about Will and what he said and see said is a waste of time IMO.

      Solving the problem is what should be important, not politics. Partisan nitpicking isn't going to accomplish Jack sh*t.

      Delete
  2. Having said the above, I agree we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform providing a pathway for illegals who have been here working and contributing a 3-5 year pathway to U.S. citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. But what about "securing the border" FIRST, as Republicans (dishonestly) demand? I say "dishonest" because the border is already quite secure. Sheila Jackson Lee told the truth about that. More or less. I actually disagree with her in regards to spending more... which is what she REALLY says (despite the lying of Willis). I don't think we need to spend more at the border. Programs that need funding are those that stop employers from breaking the law.

      A 3-5 year pathway to citizenship is a lot less time than what is actually being suggested, btw. When I said I agreed I meant with the pathway to citizenship. No reason for me to agree or disagree with 3-5 years as the timeframe, as it is NEVER going to happen. How did you come up with 3-5 years?

      BTW, I do agree that people aren't illegal (which is how you used the term). Their crossing of our Southern border was what was illegal (an illegal action) Calling them "illegals" sort of implies that their very existence is illegal. We don't call other lawbreakers "illegals", do we? Comes across as possibly bigoted, RN. Why else would someone call one group of lawbreakers "illegals" but not another? For some (not RN, I'm sure!) I think "illegal" is a substitute/dog whistle replacement word for "wetback".

      Delete
    2. Excuse me, SJL actually did not tell the truth about the border being "secure", as she never used that word. Willis lied about that. What I meant to say is that she told the truth in regards to what she actually did say... that the border is "under control". Although I think she is wrong about spending more. We already spend too much.

      Delete
    3. 3-5 years seems reasonable. But it is just a number and certainly whatever the correct number might be is fine with me. Anything is better than what we have now.

      Delete
  3. And having said this, we need to stop the present continuing flow of illegals across our borders. Congress, needs to act NOW and work with the administration to make thus happen. Then pass the CIR the nation needs and should demand.

    Compromise is in order. Republicans in the House need to get off their fat arses and the President needs to visit the southern border and send a strong message. As well as taking action. Gov. Perry is making sense.

    BTW, I applaud democrats who are urging Obama to take that trip to the border.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Having said the above, I agree we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform providing a pathway for illegals who have been here working and contributing a 3-5 year pathway to U.S. citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The "secure the border first" argument is a canard. The border will NEVER be secure enough for these folks. It's a method dishonest Republicans are using to derail CIR and blame Democrats. The Democrats "wouldn't secure the border" and therefore the Republicans can't compromise on CIR. You don't buy into that baloney, do you, RN? It sounds like you do. People won't come if employers won't hire them once they get here.

    What we really need to do is *secure our jobs* and PEOPLE won't illegally cross the border. The border is already secure (secure enough).

    ReplyDelete
  6. A canard in your opinion. Let the concern about canardism stand in the way of resolving the problem? Is that what you're advocating? Sounds to me like it is.

    Were I the President I would use this as a negotiating tool. Give a little to get movement on CIR and then shove it down republicans throats if they don't budge.

    Right now Obama is not looking good on this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Elephant in the room.

    The very first thing to do is to eliminate straw purchases of guns and attempt to stem the flow of guns and ammo into Mexico, (and after that, into the rest of Central America.)

    How can we crow about having a secure border if we can't even enforce our own laws and protect Central America from the flow of illegal guns? Why is the arms industry allowed to keep manufacturing these guns that always end up south of the border? What about all of the bullets? Why is the entire responsibility on Mexico? Why can't we have U.S. Customs checking vehicles going in to Mexico? Who the hell is in charge?

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.