Rahm Emanuel gets one right

Filed in National by on November 25, 2012

Emanuel is one of my least favorite Democrats, but he nailed this one:

The Democratic Agenda
Rahm Emanuel: “Too much post-election analysis has focused on voter demographics and campaign mechanics, leaving Democrats in danger of drawing the wrong lessons from our electoral success.”

“Demographics alone are not destiny. There is nothing in this year’s election returns that guarantees Democrats a permanent majority in the years to come. President Obama and the Democratic Party earned the support of key groups — young people, single women, Latinos, African Americans, auto workers in the Rust Belt and millions of other middle-class Americans — because of our ideas. But we cannot expect Republicans to cede the economic argument so readily, or to fall so far short on campaign mechanics, the next time around. So, instead of resting on false assurances of underlying demographic advantages, the Democratic Party must follow through on our No. 1 priority, which the president set when he took office and reemphasized throughout this campaign: It is time to come home and rebuild America.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. geezer says:

    There’s a particularly egregious example of politically correct language run amok in that link. Here’s the lede (edited for length):

    “A bipartisan coalition of Illinois’ most powerful political leaders gathered at Chicago’s Roosevelt High School Tuesday morning to express their support for granting driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants in Illinois.”

    Leave aside the grammatical error (“a coalition gathered … to express their support”). Let’s look at the point of the sentence:
    granting documents to “undocumented immigrants.”

    “Undocumented immigrants” is the liberal framing of “illegal aliens,” which is objected to mainly because of the word “alien.” “Illegal immigrant,” as shorthand for “immigrant in the country illegally,” would be an accurate label, but no, liberals can’t stand to acknowledge that being in the country without immigration documents does indeed mean a person is doing something illegal.

    Now Illinois wants to give documents to the undocumented. Once they have those documents, the people in question still will be illegal immigrants, yet calling them “undocumented” will be inaccurate. Should we change what we call them yet again? Should we perhaps strive for neutrality without sacrificing accuracy?

    Or should we follow the example of PETA, which advocated renaming fish “sea kittens”?

  2. puck says:

    I like this:

    The measure would expand to undocumented immigrants Illinois’ existing temporary visitor driver’s license, used by legal immigrants. The licenses are “visually distinct” from ordinary licenses, with a purple background and the words “not valid for identification” on the front

    …because any employer who hired someone with one of these licenses would be hiring an illegal immigrant “knowingly” and would thus be subject to Federal penalties.

    More specifically, if IL gives the same temporary license to illegals that they give to temporary visitors, the license states that the bearer is not eligible for a Social Security number. So if the employee has one of these licenses and also provides an SSN, the SSN is fake and the employer cannot claim they didn’t know.

  3. Aoine says:

    Geezer- please stick to stuff you know- immigration is not one of these topics

    The issue with the term illegal alien is not the word alien it is the word illegal- as in a human being is not something that is illegal.

    Now. That said. The other issue is that someone can be in the country legally- but undocumented
    There are two ways to be in this country- entry with Inspection- in other words one presented their visa and was paroled (admitted) legally intothe US
    The other way is EWI- entry without inspection- you did NOT present yourself to customs and came into the country w

  4. Aoine says:

    Without permission- an illegal entry- which is really a De minimus violation at most.

    Now- a full 50% of folks in the country are visa over stays- they were legally admitted but stayed over their allotted time here
    These folks have not committed a crime- what they have done is a CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATION- not a crime- therefore they are not ILLEGAL at all

    Those are the fact- that is the law-
    Don’t like is – take it up with Congress

    But to say one is illegal does not adequately describe the truth of the matter

    Read USC title 8 – our immigration law – you might get a grasp of it there
    Until then stop trying to emulate Jon Moseley and be an expert on everything.

  5. JConnor says:

    Fixation with John Mosley:)? Please share with us all of your vast knowlege on all subjects…..Idiot!

  6. puck says:

    Violating civil law is just as illegal as violating criminal law. Nobody said they were criminal immigrants; just illegal ones. At any rate, who cares. I’m worried more about the illegal employers. Let the immigrants be.

    I’m fine with the drivers license thing, for all the safety and insurance reasons cited by its supporters. But I’m not convinced people working illegal jobs are going to be able to afford insurance even if they are allowed to buy it.

    And yes, this is on topic for the post – it is about Rahm practicing what he is preaching for Democrats. Although I am not sure why Hispanic voters find illegal labor practices so appealing, but it is undeniable.

  7. Dave says:

    TITLE 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
    CHAPTER 12 – IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
    SUBCHAPTER II – IMMIGRATION
    Part VIII – General Penalty Provisions
    Sec. 1325. Improper entry by alien

    (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_08.txt) search on the following: “Sec. 1325″ or “Improper entry by alien

    It might be useful to peruse the above section of Title 8. When the penalty is imprisonment, I kinda doubt that it would be considered De minimus. Notice that in the statute there are conditions under which a civil remedy is called for. However, that is only one subsection (b). Other subsections call for both financial penalties and incarceration.

    It is clear from reading this section that it is illegal. I suppose we could just say “citizen of another nation who entered the United States in violation of federal law” and perhaps find an appropriate abbreviation, but clearly it is a violation, which to me would fit the definition of illegal which according to Merriam Webster is: “not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;”

    The term “undocumented” does not accurately define the person, in part because some of those immigrants would be inadmissable according the Title 8. So it is not a question of lack of documentation. It is admissability. Additionally, any COANWETUSIVOFL does not just lack documentation. They lack permission/authorization. Meaning that they must fit one of the current categorizes of those authorized, exempted, waive or other official categories for permission/authorization. And having violated the Title 8, they are subject to criminal and/or civil penalities.

    One doesn’t have to like the law, but it is the law.

  8. cassandra_m says:

    Does anyone know of any data that would demonstrate that giving undocumented workers legal licences and insurance really improves vehicle safety? One of my neighbors got T-boned by a man that everyone thinks was not here legally. He just abandoned his truck and ran off. My neighbor survived that accident with just a few scratches miraculously (the Prius did not survive), but what I wonder is what good would the licence and insurance do for a group of people who are highly incentivized to avoid contact with the police. In my neighbor’s case, I guess he could try to recover from the insurance of the guy who hit him (which he could not do), but it has never been clear to me where the additional safety comes from.

  9. Joanne Christian says:

    Cass–such data probably wouldn’t be available, given the implications of parameters. But anecdotally, it would make sense because fear of passing in the inspection lane is what prompts many of us to “finally” take the time to replace the lopsided windshield wiper, or replace the bulb that lights up the license plate. Little things we think at the time, but perhaps w/ larger consequences to our safety. Bigger items–the noisy muffler, the brakes that aren’t quite 100%–“but we know how hard we have to press”.

    And I guess that’s part of the reason we have uninsured driver coverage.

  10. Aoine says:

    Dave- I already said an illegal entry is just that

    Now – take the issue of recent deferred action for EWI immigrants already here
    As you know- unless they are a criminal- as in a felony offense they are not being deported.
    Therefore their illegal entry is treated as a de minimus infraction. That is the way it has been for the last couple of years

    Sorry to disappoint – but those are the facts.

    New read further and take a look at the waivers for inadmissability- that is another huge section

    As u well know- looking at ANY law and grasping only a small section and taking it out if context without also looking at how the law is APPLIED currently leaves one not understanding the complete picture

    I very clearly stated that EWI IS a criminal violation – itue criminal penalities are just not currently enforced. Unless said immigrant is also wanted for more severe criminal infractions

    As far as admissibility- like I said- if they are paroled into the US form the outset. And simply overstay their welcome – they can actually adjust status by marriage or sometimes another type of application

    If they were not paroled legally into the US- then they cannot adjust status……..
    U less they marry a member if the military and after the end if this year- any US citizen or legal permanent resident – it’s called parole in place – meaning they don’t have to leave the US To apply to be legally admitted therefore the 3-10 year bar for inadmissability will not apply

    Immigration law is actually something I do know a lot about – and while reading title 8igjt help to understand it – one can add all thE ” matter of…” cases to look at the actual application of it.

    It’s very complex- either way- having someone take a class to learn how to drive- be able to register and insure their vehicles WILL make roads safer.
    It’s not contact with police they fear- it’s not having the license/insurance/ registration fines and the mandatory court appearance that is the issue – take THAT out of the equation and there is not a need to flee the scene u less there are other more serious infractions included like DUI / alcohol.

    Most law enforcement agencies are I favor of this licensing plan and have been for years- it allows them to know who they are dealing with and know if they are habitual offenders.

    It’s safter for the cops and safer for the public

    But then again what would I, immigration law practiriners and The police and the highway safety council possibly know about the issue.

  11. jason330 says:

    Rahm was right about not drawing the wrong lessons from the election. Dems need to be about proactive Democratic messaging, not relying on demographics.