The Clowns were in Congress Today.

[Deck Knight]

And on an entirely unrelated note, Stephen Colbert testified on the immigration panel in character.

I don't blame Colbert for this. He was invited by the chairwoman of that committee to make remarks. Colbert gets to raise his profile for free at the expense of the people who supposedly represent their constituents.

The real question is, who is this joke on? Colbert's shtick is largely to be a mock-conservative strawman, but I think his satiric mode is illustrative. Even he thinks this is a joke. How can he think otherwise? That being said, Colbert himself is hilarious, and if the Democratic chairwoman's plan was to make him a laughing stock strawman for the conservative position, he definitely turned the tables. If there's one thing I admire about Colbert it's that he uses his persona to pierce everyone. You think you're safe because he's supposed to be a mock up, and then he throws you a hard fastball and obliterates your credibility.

Actually the most disturbing moment of the clip is probably at the end where someone is laughing about both sides working together on the issue after hearing Colbert's testimony. That is supposed to be funny? I mean hell, I'm the most cynical person when it comes to the government there is, and even I don't think that's supposed to be a laugh line in a committee hearing setting.

Probably the most pertinent commentary is that this would be a Firebot thread had Colbert not appeared at an actual congressional hearing. Our government hard at work. *sigh*

 

[Venusaur]

Wait, I saw the Colbert thing on TV earlier today.
Are people buttmad about him making jokes?

 

[Deck Knight]

Wait, I saw the Colbert thing on TV earlier today.
Are people buttmad about him making jokes?

It's more that this was a completely forseeable outcome for anyone who has ever watched Colbert. People aren't mad at Colbert I don't think, if they are angry it's that someone in congress was stupid enough to invite a satirist to appear in character at a congressional hearing. (How do you get buttmad at something? Does that give you a rash?)

That is like putting a fox in the henhouse and closing the gate with the hens still inside. It's the ultimate target rich environment. Colbert effectively gets to mock elected officials from your district because one of them (the chairwoman ffs!) isn't clued in to Colbert's modus operandi (the way he operates.)

Very few people would have watched this hearing had Colbert not appeared there. Now it's going to go viral and everyone who can't vote (a large portion of Colbert's audience) is going to get a huge laugh out of it, while everyone who can vote is also going to get a huge laugh... right into the ballot box in November. Somebody just won the electoral Darwin Award.

 

[Venusaur]

lol'd.

I turned on my television and surfed through the channels. I was amazed to find Colbert on TV in a serious position. (I'm not too much into politics, so hear me out on this.)
I didn't know what was going on, and I admit, I did laugh at the part where he went down the lines of the hispanic sub-race pool.

 

[Morm]

My great grand father did not travel across 4000 miles of the Atlantic ocean to see this country overrun my immigrants.

Surely even you, DK, can see that this is a potent point (even in jest). REALLY dude, as if this guy would do anything but keep his character. He makes some good points and is drawing attention to it one way or the other. I call that a win/win.

Even government officials get to screw around at work; just like the people they represent.

 

[Echo.]

This is hilarious. Though, I don't see anything wrong with bringing some humor to Congress, and I wouldn't necessarily call the chairwoman stupid for inviting him. If anything, I think it was the humorous poke that Congress needs, as Colbert satirized their division and inefficiency.

 

[Deck Knight]

Surely even you, DK, can see that this is a potent point (even in jest)

Yeah, except he didn't cross over our borders illegally then demand we learn his language to accomodate him. He didn't cut in line in front of the millions of people who are doing things the right way. And for our part, we didn't lobby for him to get taxpayer-funded benefits and advantages we deny to those same immigrants who are trying to do it the right way.

There is no shelter to be had in the "nation of immigrants" line. Those immigrants of yesteryear wanted to leave their old country and customs, assimilate, and become Americans. This new wave of illegal immigrants want us to kowtow to their comforts, their culture, and their languages. If they tried to do this in Quebec it would never be allowed to happen, and we all know Mexico's immigration policy is as draconian as they come.

Colbert is a satirist and I get that. But more poigniant that his invocation of "swim 4000 miles" is that we exploit these migrant workers. We exploit them not because Americans won't do the jobs, but because we have a government unwilling to enforce the laws currently on the books. Day Laborer would be a good paying job if every person who hired illegals got thrown in jail like they are supposed to, forcing the rest of them to pay a wage attractive to low-skilled Americans above the board.

All of the under the table business is currently illegal, but there is no enforcement. Every person who has exploited a migrant worker is already doing something illegal, but no one in government will go after them because they want to be the party that grants amnesty to a permanent underclass of low-skilled, low information voters whose culturally reinforced language barrier will prevent them from achieving any higher station.

Colbert is entirely right that the exploitation is wrong, but the exploitation will continue because the very body he made a mockery of wants it to stay that way, and so does the entirity of the executive branch, including many office contenders of both parties. Colbert was the smartest person in that room, and even in his biting satire the most honest as well.

Colbert may have actually done a huge public service, but if it takes a satirist coming to the halls of congress, what does that say about the elected leaders? Colbert gets it, you get it, I get it, why don't those guys?

This is hilarious. Though, I don't see anything wrong with bringing some humor to Congress, and I wouldn't necessarily call the chairwoman stupid for inviting him. If anything, I think it was the humorous poke that Congress needs, as Colbert satirized their division and inefficiency.

Sadly Echo. I think the Congress is too stupid, selfish, or both to get that Colbert is mocking them. They know perfectly well they are failing to live up to their duties and they do not care. All they think of today is that a celebrity showed up and made sport of them for a couple of minutes.

 

[Morm]

Yeah, except he didn't cross over our borders illegally then demand we learn his language to accomodate him

In canada we still pay boatloads of reparation money to aboriginals because we, by our own standards, crossed illegally (okay, there IS minor technicality of HOW it was illegal...)

You can't justify something through antiquity or because it's from your own perspective, it's hypocritical.

Are you sure you're not just grumpy because he parody's your party's view through hyperbole?

If they tried to do this in Quebec it would never be allowed to happen, and we all know Mexico's immigration policy is as draconian as they come.

It DID happen. They have every right to speak their language in a country that allows free speech, DK. I will concede something to you though: read my note to the culturally impaired. I am fully in agreement that if you go somewhere, you should at least be functional. I'm not saying full assimilation, I'm saying functionality. We get that shit ALL the time in Canada, the elderly Chinese are especially notorious for being outright horrible in our area.

 

[billymills]

He makes good points because I agree with him.

This is true and somewhat disappointing at the same time. I don't know what purpose congress could have for inviting him apart from attracting attention to the issue. This is essentially the same as someone from Fox News testifying which brings up a scary possibility.

On the other hand, I think even you have to admit it takes balls to go up in front of congress and satirise them. I'm not sure what the consequences of this could be otherwise, if it wasn't completely expected of him.

Colbert gets a win/win, congress gets minor publicity at the cost of some dignity.

 

[Firestorm]

I don't understand what there is to "blame". He got his point across quite clearly. He presented his experience, identified the issues, and put forth a possible solution. All the while he made biting comments about the incompetence of everyone in power just as he always does.

I guess the real question is, what's your point with this thread? That nobody should have been stupid enough to invite Colbert to speak at anything after his infamous roast of George W Bush?

 

[Vineon]

This new wave of illegal immigrants want us to kowtow to their comforts, their culture, and their languages. If they tried to do this in Quebec it would never be allowed to happen, and we all know Mexico's immigration policy is as draconian as they come.

That is an interesting comparison but not one that holds water for long.

Québec is in a much more precarious situation, being a french nation isolated next to 330 million Americans/Canadians. What threatens it has more to do with this heavy cultural hegemony than the home-culture immigrants come here with. It is a race to see if we can assimilate them before they do to english, which couldn't be done without language legislation.

America doesn't need such measures but they certainly shouldn't feel the need to accomodate every demand either.

 

[FlareBlitz]

Fuck yeah, a Deck Knight post! This is like when a 110lb girl does 5 shots of hard liquor, you know it's going to be funny even if it's not necessarily going to be pleasant.

Yeah, except he didn't cross over our borders illegally then demand we learn his language to accomodate him. He didn't cut in line in front of the millions of people who are doing things the right way. And for our part, we didn't lobby for him to get taxpayer-funded benefits and advantages we deny to those same immigrants who are trying to do it the right way.

I particularly love the logic here.

q. Why should we not reform our immigration system to make legal immigration easier for financially disadvantaged Mexicans?
a. Because the Mexicans are coming here illegally, that's why!

If the number of xenophobic dicks back then had as much power as they do now, you can damn well bet that we would have never had any real immigrant inflow into this country, and our newly-industrialized economy would have had a much more difficult time flourishing.

Second, no Mexican is "demanding" that we learn his or her language. That's just thinly veiled bigotry. If you're concerned about a cultural takeover...assimilating new immigrants into our culture instead of hunting them and forcing them into their own difficult-to-penetrate cliques would work a lot better.

There is no shelter to be had in the "nation of immigrants" line. Those immigrants of yesteryear wanted to leave their old country and customs, assimilate, and become Americans. This new wave of illegal immigrants want us to kowtow to their comforts, their culture, and their languages. If they tried to do this in Quebec it would never be allowed to happen, and we all know Mexico's immigration policy is as draconian as they come.

Society now is actually far less stratified around language and culture than it was during the Ellis Island days; back then you had unofficial little nation-cities of germans, irish, japanese, etc and the only reason they "assimilated" was because they had kids who then grew up in the same social circles as other immigrant kids, allowing them to bond and transmute cultural information. This is known as the "tossed salad" theory of assimilation, and it is demonstrably more valid than the "melting pot" theory.

What this means is that the number of distinct languages and cultures back then far outweighs what we have to deal with from mexicans today. It was only after the second or third generation that "assimilation" actually began...and it never begins here because illegal immigrants are culturally second class citizens due to the right wing fuckwits who refuse to acknowledge that arbitrary and outdated immigration laws do not reduce the value a person contributes to a society.

Colbert is a satirist and I get that. But more poigniant that his invocation of "swim 4000 miles" is that we exploit these migrant workers. We exploit them not because Americans won't do the jobs, but because we have a government unwilling to enforce the laws currently on the books. Day Laborer would be a good paying job if every person who hired illegals got thrown in jail like they are supposed to, forcing the rest of them to pay a wage attractive to low-skilled Americans above the board.

Completely ignoring that throwing several million immigrants into jail would fuck our penitentiary system upside down and sideways, let me ask you this...if every immigrant that is here illegally were instead here legally due to a streamlined immigration system, what you would advocate then? Keep in mind that the price level would be exactly the same (assuming there was no minimum wage...which conservatives want, right) I mean, we can't just throw them in jail because they're brown...
Oh. Was that Plan B?

All of the under the table business is currently illegal, but there is no enforcement. Every person who has exploited a migrant worker is already doing something illegal, but no one in government will go after them because they want to be the party that grants amnesty to a permanent underclass of low-skilled, low information voters whose culturally reinforced language barrier will prevent them from achieving any higher station.

It wouldn't be 'under the table' business if they were citizens. If your concern is protecting low-wage workers, your immediate interest would be in calling for a full amnesty of all illegal immigrants and a nearly free border between Mexico and America (barring obvious things like drugs/weapon trafficking). That way, we can apply the minimum wage to them, and actual minimum wage workers no longer have to compete on an artificial price floor.

ps Don't let me vitriol offend you, this is actually me being pleasant. You can blame the smoochum avatar for that, I can't be mean to that thing

 

[MrIndigo]

Completely ignoring that throwing several million immigrants into jail would fuck our penitentiary system upside down and sideways, let me ask you this...if every immigrant that is here illegally were instead here legally due to a streamlined immigration system, what you would advocate then? Keep in mind that the price level would be exactly the same (assuming there was no minimum wage...which conservatives want, right) I mean, we can't just throw them in jail because they're brown...
Oh. Was that Plan B?

You're arguing the wrong point; he wasn't saying arrest the immigrants (I expect he'd want them deported back to Mexico), he was saying that you lock-up the American farmers who hire the illlegal immigrants. There's a problem with that too, though; while it wouldn't overflow the penitentiery system, it would mean that there wouldn't actually be enough farmers to hire people in the first place.

 

[Morm]

It would be nice incentive to not hire mexicans, though.

 

[FlareBlitz]

You're arguing the wrong point; he wasn't saying arrest the immigrants (I expect he'd want them deported back to Mexico), he was saying that you lock-up the American farmers who hire the illlegal immigrants. There's a problem with that too, though; while it wouldn't overflow the penitentiery system, it would mean that there wouldn't actually be enough farmers to hire people in the first place.

That's my fault. I misinterpreted that paragraph.

And in addition to that, the problem is also that, due to the lack of documentation, it's downright impossible to know who is hiring illegal immigrants in the first place, since they literally "don't exist" according to the government's way of tracking these things.

 

[Invective]

Fuck yeah, a Deck Knight post! This is like when a 110lb girl does 5 shots of hard liquor, you know it's going to be funny even if it's not necessarily going to be pleasant.

Inane drivel.

I particularly love the logic here.

q. Why should we not reform our immigration system to make legal immigration easier for financially disadvantaged Mexicans?
a. Because the Mexicans are coming here illegally, that's why!

It's more an issue of "there are legal ways to come here yet we give more rights to the ones coming illegally" kind of deal actually.

If the number of xenophobic dicks back then had as much power as they do now, you can damn well bet that we would have never had any real immigrant inflow into this country, and our newly-industrialized economy would have had a much more difficult time flourishing.

Oh yes, because it was so much easier to immigrate to the United States "back then" (whenever that was?). Oh wait, or do these not count as they were aimed mostly at Asian immigrants who it would seem have integrated splendidly despite the odds stacked tremendously against them?

Second, no Mexican is "demanding" that we learn his or her language. That's just thinly veiled bigotry. If you're concerned about a cultural takeover...assimilating new immigrants into our culture instead of hunting them and forcing them into their own difficult-to-penetrate cliques would work a lot better.

I believe Deck Knight was referring to the immigrants who refuse to learn English and then get outraged when they aren't accommodated as they see fit.

Society now is actually far less stratified around language and culture than it was during the Ellis Island days; back then you had unofficial little nation-cities of germans, irish, japanese, etc and the only reason they "assimilated" was because they had kids who then grew up in the same social circles as other immigrant kids, allowing them to bond and transmute cultural information. This is known as the "tossed salad" theory of assimilation, and it is demonstrably more valid than the "melting pot" theory.

What this means is that the number of distinct languages and cultures back then far outweighs what we have to deal with from mexicans today. It was only after the second or third generation that "assimilation" actually began...and it never begins here because illegal immigrants are culturally second class citizens due to the right wing fuckwits who refuse to acknowledge that arbitrary and outdated immigration laws do not reduce the value a person contributes to a society.

YEAH, LOOK AT THESE RIGHT-WING FUCKWITS (the hell is a fuckwit and how does one qualify as one?) KEEP THEM DOWN. And I don't see why we should promote people who illegally enter our country when there are many people legally emigrating to our country. It's kind of like a huge "FUCK YOU" to all the people who do take the legal way into our country. "Oh, you spent years on a waiting list to get in? We sneaked under a fence and now they're making laws to protect us." Also, the contributions that any illegal immigrant makes to our country could and should be done by an American.

Completely ignoring that throwing several million immigrants into jail would fuck our penitentiary system upside down and sideways, let me ask you this...if every immigrant that is here illegally were instead here legally due to a streamlined immigration system, what you would advocate then? Keep in mind that the price level would be exactly the same (assuming there was no minimum wage...which conservatives want, right) I mean, we can't just throw them in jail because they're brown...
Oh. Was that Plan B?

Why would we jail when it is far more efficient to deport?
And don't ask questions that take such extreme liberties as to be nigh impossible and will never happen. It'd be like asking "If every person who ever did illegal drugs had a prescription for whatever they took, would you still advocate jailing them?" The short answer is it will never happen and discussing it further will only lead to further speculation and may degrade into name-calling and speculations of the promiscuity of another user's mother.

It wouldn't be 'under the table' business if they were citizens. If your concern is protecting low-wage workers, your immediate interest would be in calling for a full amnesty of all illegal immigrants and a nearly free border between Mexico and America (barring obvious things like drugs/weapon trafficking). That way, we can apply the minimum wage to them, and actual minimum wage workers no longer have to compete on an artificial price floor.

Because doing that wouldn't exacerbate our already sky-high unemployment at all. A better option would be to actually enforce the law and punish companies who knowingly hire illegal immigrants at reduced pay so the jobs can go to Americans who will actually spend the money here instead of sending it back to their families.

ps Don't let me vitriol offend you, this is actually me being pleasant. You can blame the smoochum avatar for that, I can't be mean to that thing

D'awwwww isn't that cute.

 

[cim]

You ignore the point where he actually makes a compelling argument about immigration. He just uses satire to do it, because that's what he's known for. Who would pay attention if he made that incredibly valid argument out of character?

If he was arguing about gun rights or something would you have even made this thread? The satire doesn't outrage you, that he handed your ass to you in an argument while being hysterical does.

 

[CaptKirby]

I thought the craziest part was that they brought him on purposely...then no one laughed? The joke they FINALLY laughed at was like "uh...guys this is like the least funny part, you are only making asses of yourselves by laughing as if it is okay now, we can tell how fake you are". I was laughing for most of the video.

 

[Firestorm]

I heard they didn't enable the feed for audience sound until the end.

 

[umbarsc]

It's more an issue of "there are legal ways to come here yet we give more rights to the ones coming illegally" kind of deal actually.

Are you trying to say that illegal immigrants have more rights or are treated better than legal immigrants? And the reason they're immigrating illegally isn't that they're too lazy to (ugh, I have to learn their customs and fill out a form? Fuck this, I'm crawling under a fence!), it's that we have quotas, so it takes years to legally immigrate. Meanwhile, while the law abiding would-be immigrant is following the rules, his family is starving.

I believe Deck Knight was referring to the immigrants who refuse to learn English and then get outraged when they aren't accommodated as they see fit.

Yes, it's the Mexicans who have the problem with an undeserved sense of entitlement.

YEAH, LOOK AT THESE RIGHT-WING FUCKWITS (the hell is a fuckwit and how does one qualify as one?) KEEP THEM DOWN. And I don't see why we should promote people who illegally enter our country when there are many people legally emigrating to our country. It's kind of like a huge "FUCK YOU" to all the people who do take the legal way into our country. "Oh, you spent years on a waiting list to get in? We sneaked under a fence and now they're making laws to protect us." Also, the contributions that any illegal immigrant makes to our country could and should be done by an American.

I applaud your willingness to cripple American industries on principle, just to support the people who followed the rules.

Why would we jail when it is far more efficient to deport?

"We seem to have a problem. 15 million people are here who shouldn't be! What's the most efficient and effective solution?"
"Round up every last one and kick them out!"

Because doing that wouldn't exacerbate our already sky-high unemployment at all. A better option would be to actually enforce the law and punish companies who knowingly hire illegal immigrants at reduced pay so the jobs can go to Americans who will actually spend the money here instead of sending it back to their families.

I thought right wing fuckwits were in favor of free market economics? I thought that was the principle behind NAFTA, which is the bulk of the reason why we have so many people wanting to immigrate in the first place. But I guess we only support free market principles when it benefits AMERICAAAAA.

 

[Alan]

Hi,

Deck Knight, its a joke you're supposed to laugh.

Thanks,

Alan

P.S. I thought it was really funny.

 

[Death Phenomeno]

Meanwhile, on Fox News, they're not exactly happy about it.

 

[Son of Disaster]

Are you trying to say that illegal immigrants have more rights or are treated better than legal immigrants?
Yes, it's the Mexicans who have the problem with an undeserved sense of entitlement..

I'll let vanguard take the points you responded to but this one just grated on me. What possible reason should we just open up our countries borders for? Agreed it's terrible that they can't feed their families but why should that mean it's then our problem to take for them? There is a reason there's a legal way to enter the country and it's because we don't want the problems of other countries spilling into ours. Do you really think if we made all of the illegal immigrants citizens and allowed anyone to enter our country that their lives would be that much different from mexico? With no English and no skill sets we would just create a mini mexico in our southwestern states. They would still be poor and struggling to live. And the drug runners that already cause much troubles along the border would just have that much more of a foothold.

It's not a sense of entitlement but just what should be an obvious understanding of the consequences of such actions as opening the borders or legalizing such a huge quantity of illegals. It would not be fair to anyone involved and is indeed already unfair that people can enter the country illegally and suffer no consequences for it. It certainly puts a nice strain on our already retarded health care system. If i misread your post i apologize but you seem to take the stance that someone against illegal immigration is simply racist and snobby.

 

[cim]

What possible reason should we just open up our countries borders for?

Other than basic human compassion, Colbert points out several reasons:

• We need people to do the work.
• They're coming illegally anyway, so we might as well give them legal protection to prevent massive scale human rights abuses

Regardless, no one's saying "fling them open"...

There is a reason there's a legal way to enter the country

About this legal way, how long is the waiting list from Mexico? 99 years. Yup.

It's not a sense of entitlement but just what should be an obvious understanding of the consequences of such actions as opening the borders or legalizing such a huge quantity of illegals. It would not be fair to anyone involved and is indeed already unfair that people can enter the country illegally and suffer no consequences for it. It certainly puts a nice strain on our already retarded health care system. If i misread your post i apologize but you seem to take the stance that someone against illegal immigration is simply racist and snobby.

I won't break it down much point by point, but in short, you act as if these people don't exist if they're not legal. Most of what you cite as "problems" are either not problems now while they're here and wouldn't change if they were legal, or ARE problems that would be fixed by legalization.

To use one of your examples, illegals put a HUGE strain on the wrong parts of the healthcare system. ERs are obligated to take people without asking for papers, for example, so now our ERs are full of immigrants coming in because they have the flu. If they had amnesty, they could go to a doctor's office like most of us do rather than the ER.

 

[Invective]

Are you trying to say that illegal immigrants have more rights or are treated better than legal immigrants? And the reason they're immigrating illegally isn't that they're too lazy to (ugh, I have to learn their customs and fill out a form? Fuck this, I'm crawling under a fence!), it's that we have quotas, so it takes years to legally immigrate.

Does the ACLU get their panties in a wad every time a legal immigrant gets the short end of the stick?

Meanwhile, while the law abiding would-be immigrant is following the rules, his family is starving.

And this justifies it how?

Yes, it's the Mexicans who have the problem with an undeserved sense of entitlement.

If they're coming to our country, they should learn English. Not only for my sake, but for their sake as well. It makes it immensely easier to get by in daily life speaking English than any of their native tongues (I don't recall ever specifying the Mexicans as the only immigrants coming here illegally).

I applaud your willingness to cripple American industries on principle, just to support the people who followed the rules.

I applaud the faith you have in American workers. You cannot seriously believe that illegal immigrant workers are the keystone of our economy and without them we would fall back into the Stone Age. If businesses were to check the backgrounds of their employees and deny those with questionable immigration status, then the jobs would go to Americans and lower our unemployment rate (which everyone seems to care about) and said employees could then spend money in America instead of sending it to their home country. And we all know that spending money in America will do what?

"We seem to have a problem. 15 million people are here who shouldn't be! What's the most efficient and effective solution?"
"Round up every last one and kick them out!"

I see nothing wrong with that.

I thought right wing fuckwits were in favor of free market economics? I thought that was the principle behind NAFTA, which is the bulk of the reason why we have so many people wanting to immigrate in the first place. But I guess we only support free market principles when it benefits AMERICAAAAA.

Guess I'm not a right-wing fuckwit then.