Asian American running for senate in Delaware

[yoMAMA]

http://voteting.com/

he's a republican challenger and temple law professor specializes in immigration issues.

I'd vote for him if I live in Delaware.

[Yeahman]

He married a white woman so he clearly knows what he's doing. Oh and he has an MA in Asian Studies and his law degree from Harvard.
He's gonna lose though. He's way behind in the polls.

I'm wondering if others here would vote for him.

[yoMAMA]

He married a white woman so he clearly knows what he's doing.

so he won at life.

:wink:

[BigLew]

He married a white woman so he clearly knows what he's doing. Oh and he has an MA in Asian Studies and his law degree from Harvard.
He's gonna lose though. He's way behind in the polls.

I'm wondering if others here would vote for him.

No way he is a sellout! :P

[lethal]

http://voteting.com/

he's a republican challenger and temple law professor specializes in immigration issues.

I'd vote for him if I live in Delaware.

Would you vote for him because he's Asian or because you agree with his position on the issues?

[yoMAMA]

Would you vote for him because he's Asian or because you agree with his position on the issues?

I would say both.

I would not vote for him SOLEY because he's asian.

And I just despise the democrats, even though my views are "liberal".

[Arex]

He apparently doesn't have a position on whether or not it was right to "intervene" in Iraq, claiming that "reasonable people can disagree." I disagree. First, we were not "intervening." We didn't go into Iraq because we wanted to free the Iraqi people from their cruel dictator, as the word "intervene" suggests. We were hunting for WMDs. No reasonable person, particularly with the assistance of 20/20 hindsight, can say we should have invaded. He didn't vote to send our troops there in the first place, so there's no reason he can't acknowledge that it was a huge mistake. He's spineless if he can't even say that.

He favors extending Bush's tax cuts, despite the fact that he also thinks we should stay in Iraq. Until we come to our senses and bring our soldiers home, every taxpayer--particularly the super wealthy who stand to gain the most from a tame Iraq--should do his or her part to pay for the war effort.

He also favors a Constitutional amendment banning flag desecration. While I hopefully would never have cause to do such a thing, I'd like to reserve my right to engage in making the ultimate symbolic political statement.

That's three strikes. I wouldn't vote for him. I don't care that he's Asian or that he's won at life.

[SunWuKong]

He married a white woman so he clearly knows what he's doing. Oh and he has an MA in Asian Studies and his law degree from Harvard.
He's gonna lose though. He's way behind in the polls.

I'm wondering if others here would vote for him.

marrying a white woman may help if he's a democrat. but he's a republican. it probably hurts his chances.

[haplesshobo]

he's a republican challenger and temple law professor specializes in immigration issues.

I'd vote for him if I live in Delaware.

I wonder if you read his position on the issues and if you're supporting him soley because he's asian-american.

His stance on illegal immigration seems to be at odds with what you've expressed before:

Jan is opposed to the 2006 Senate bill which would grant amnesty and social security credit to illegal aliens. As the son of immigrants, and as former Assistant Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Jan knows that there is a right way to come to the United States. Jan believes our first duty is to support the millions of people around the world who are standing in line and waiting their turn to come to America legally. Jan believes we need to secure our southern border with a physical barrier before we can begin to address the symptoms of illegal immigration. Jan feels that unlimited illegal immigration threatens our national security as well as the quality of life and the financial security of the people of Delaware.

And, this is what Jan said about illegal immigration,“Border security must come first. We must do what we know works, physical barriers, and not only what we know doesn’t work, adding more agents and technology. Second, we must actually enforce our immigration laws, the most generous in the world, and employer sanctions. Only then should we consider what to do about the estimated 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. Putting the amnesty first, before border security and immigration law enforcement, as the Senate bill does, is a formula for failure, and a repetition of the mistaken amnesty of 1986.”

[Yeahman]

He apparently doesn't have a position on whether or not it was right to "intervene" in Iraq, claiming that "reasonable people can disagree." I disagree. First, we were not "intervening." We didn't go into Iraq because we wanted to free the Iraqi people from their cruel dictator, as the word "intervene" suggests. We were hunting for WMDs. No reasonable person, particularly with the assistance of 20/20 hindsight, can say we should have invaded. He didn't vote to send our troops there in the first place, so there's no reason he can't acknowledge that it was a huge mistake. He's spineless if he can't even say that.
Spineless or politically savy? With no previous record on the issue, there's no reason why a politican today would want to take sides on the war.

He favors extending Bush's tax cuts, despite the fact that he also thinks we should stay in Iraq. Until we come to our senses and bring our soldiers home, every taxpayer--particularly the super wealthy who stand to gain the most from a tame Iraq--should do his or her part to pay for the war effort.
I was strongly opposed to the tax cuts at the time. Wrong time, wrong target. But the improving economy has got us to the point where the deficit really isn't a big problem anymore. Hey, it cuts my argument against the tax cuts but you have to aknowledge the facts as they are presented.

[Yeahman]

ontheissues.org

[yoMAMA]

I wonder if you read his position on the issues and if you're supporting him soley because he's asian-american.

His stance on illegal immigration seems to be at odds with what you've expressed before:

Jan is opposed to the 2006 Senate bill which would grant amnesty and social security credit to illegal aliens. As the son of immigrants, and as former Assistant Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Jan knows that there is a right way to come to the United States. Jan believes our first duty is to support the millions of people around the world who are standing in line and waiting their turn to come to America legally. Jan believes we need to secure our southern border with a physical barrier before we can begin to address the symptoms of illegal immigration. Jan feels that unlimited illegal immigration threatens our national security as well as the quality of life and the financial security of the people of Delaware.

And, this is what Jan said about illegal immigration,“Border security must come first. We must do what we know works, physical barriers, and not only what we know doesn’t work, adding more agents and technology. Second, we must actually enforce our immigration laws, the most generous in the world, and employer sanctions. Only then should we consider what to do about the estimated 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. Putting the amnesty first, before border security and immigration law enforcement, as the Senate bill does, is a formula for failure, and a repetition of the mistaken amnesty of 1986.”

it's most likely that he's using the immigration issue to fire up the republican base.

I doubt his real views are that xenophobic-especially for a Chinese person.

[yoMAMA]

marrying a white woman may help if he's a democrat. but he's a republican. it probably hurts his chances.


the democratic base-blue collar workers, union hacks..etc can be very hostile towards Asians. Witness the vincent chin killings by laid off auto workers.

And when we look back to history, it was FDR who locked up the Japanese Americans, and a republican president who signed the apologies and reparations to those families.

[haplesshobo]

the democratic base-blue collar workers, union hacks..etc can be very hostile towards Asians. Witness the vincent chin killings by laid off auto workers.

In response to Chrylser possibly shutting down a plant, Ting blamed it in part on illegal immigration by saying it “plugs into illegal immigration...
Chrysler, in the global economy, is in competition with illegal aliens.”

it's most likely that he's using the immigration issue to fire up the republican base.

I doubt his real views are that xenophobic-especially for a Chinese person.

Dude, just admit you didn't even really read up on the guy but got all excited cause he's asian.

First of all, one can be Chinese and support stronger enforcement of immigration laws. His parents came here legally, and so he has no problem with legal immigration but does take issue with illegal immigration. To suggest that he's just using the immigration issue to fire up the base is to ignore pretty much everything he's said about illegal immigration, long before he started this campaign.

Here's an example of his views on a fence:

Border fence too essential to ignore

Tonight, more than four years after 9/11, thousands of foreigners will covertly enter the United States. This will happen again tomorrow night, and the night after, and every night of the year, until we take the simple step of erecting an effective border fence.

U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions increased significantly in 2004 and 2005, though only a small fraction of foreigners attempting illegal entry are ever caught. Most enter without detection, at least 1 million every year. Apprehensions along the southern border make up about 97 percent of the total.

The world now knows what our Mexican neighbors have known for a long time: Our borders are wide open, and anyone who wants to enter can, with little fear of getting caught. The governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared border emergencies. The sea of illegal aliens provides a potential cover for terrorists and criminals - and a reliable means of entry.

President Bush, Sen. John McCain, and other politicians have proposed guest-worker programs that would legalize illegal aliens already here while effectively leaving the border open to additional entrants, who are already being attracted by the promise of "amnesty." The sponsors deny their proposals amount to amnesty since they don't provide immediate U.S. citizenship. But that's not the test!

An amnesty is any proposal that gives illegal entrants an advantage over law-abiders who wait in their home countries for permission to enter the United States. Millions of qualified legal immigrants have waited and do wait. But to satisfy the cheap labor lobby in Washington, President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and other politicians want America to talk tough on immigration, but actually reward lawbreakers with legal status and make fools of those who wait their turn.

President Bush and other "reformers" claim their proposals will tighten the border by hiring more Border Patrol agents, expanding detention space, and deploying more detection technology on the border. But this is just more of what we've tried for years.

We know what works: a border fence. When illegals encounter an effective border fence, they are driven to unfenced sectors. Granted, sometimes this leads them into less hospitable territory, risking and sometimes losing their lives. The solution is to build a fence that can't be walked around, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.) has proposed such a fence.

Critics complain about the cost. But they ignore the costs of not building a fence, of having to hire ever more Border Patrol agents, deploy ever more technology, spend ever more on prosecution, incarceration, and medical care for illegal aliens, as well as public education for the children. As long as the border is open, the crisis will continue, and businesses that try to hire only legal workers will continue to be noncompetitive with those that hire illegals at lower wages. Four years after 9/11, it is ridiculous to worry about our subways and trains and ports and factories yet leave our borders wide open.

If we need more unskilled labor in the United States, then we should lift the legal limit on unskilled immigrant labor, now set at 10,000 visas a year. And we should limit applications from foreigners outside the country.

And what of the estimated 12 to 20 million illegals already here? The "reformers" say we must either deport them all or legalize them all through an amnesty. But there is a third way. First, gain control of our borders with an effective fence. Then strengthen and enforce immigration laws. That includes punishing employers who hire illegals. Once we have done those things, the illegal alien population will decline. Then and only then might we consider some sort of amnesty for illegals who remain.

This is not anti-immigrant. We rightly have the most generous immigration program in the world, accepting each year more legal permanent resident immigrants with a clear path to full citizenship than the rest of the nations of the world combined.

Nor is this blaming illegal aliens. They know their best interests. As long as the benefits of braving our laws and borders exceed the risks, they'll make the logical choice.

The ones responsible are the politicians who pose as reformers yet refuse to defend our borders and enforce the law because some constituents - and contributors - find legal labor too expensive.

A border fence is the essential first step of any serious plan to limit illegal immigration. Without it, no reform is possible.

[lethal]

I actually agree with his general views on immigration, aside from the fence part, (like I prefer that legal immigrant applicants waiting in line should get preference over anyone who entered illegally or overstayed their visas), but I still wouldn't vote for him regardless of his race. I don't agree with him on much else.

[Arex]

Spineless or politically savy? With no previous record on the issue, there's no reason why a politican today would want to take sides on the war.Politically savvy, because it generally casts the widest possible net. I wouldn't vote for him though because of it.

I was strongly opposed to the tax cuts at the time. Wrong time, wrong target. But the improving economy has got us to the point where the deficit really isn't a big problem anymore. Hey, it cuts my argument against the tax cuts but you have to aknowledge the facts as they are presented.While the deficit isn't as big a problem now that tax revenues are back up due to the improving economy, the deficit is still a problem. And, even though the economy has picked up, the war is still a drain and we need to pay for it somehow. Also, some analysts are forecasting an upcoming recession (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393160/index.htm?postversion=2006110111) following the housing bust. Is that going to give Bush and a Republican-controlled congress another excuse to cut taxes further? (Tax cuts "worked" last time, let's do it again!)

[haplesshobo]

This guy didn't really have a chance in a year when the Republicans are on their heels, but he certainly didn't help matters by focusing so much on illegal immigration, which he seems to have made one of his major issues to run on. Given his background, I can see why he did that but I just wonder how much resonance that issue would have in Deleware. It might have made more sense to run on that issue in a border state like Arizona or Texas.


And when we look back to history, it was FDR who locked up the Japanese Americans, and a republican president who signed the apologies and reparations to those families.

When he appeared before the 9/11 commission, this was his statement on that issue:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing6/witness_ting.htm

The allegation of racial and ethnic profiling in criticism of these initiatives was perhaps predictable. However such concerns are misdirected. In fact, none of the three initiatives discriminates on the basis of appearance, skin color, race, ethnicity, or religion. The individuals subject to these initiatives are certainly being profiled, but the profiling is done on non-invidious factors such as age, gender, and the objective immigration documents presented on entry to the U.S., i.e. passports from designated countries. Legal precedent supports the legality and constitutionality of these initiatives. U.S. courts have recognized plenary power over immigration in the political branches of the U.S. government, and no constitutional challenge has ever been sustained against such discrimination by country of origin in screening immigrants or visitors to the United States. Such plenary power is justified by the foreign policy implications of U.S. immigration policy for which the two political branches share responsibility.

Do these initiatives, as some suggest, put us on a slippery slope to something like the internment of Japanese aliens and Japanese-American during World War II? One of the few, if not the only, good things to come out of the current war on terror is the remembrance and reconsideration of the Japanese Internment which had been fading from our collective memories.

Nearly everyone now agrees that the Japanese Internment was wrong. But what, exactly, was objectionable about it? Two answers are offered: First, two-thirds of those interned without due process or any showing of reasonable cause were in fact U.S. citizens. If only enemy aliens had been detained during wartime, it is unlikely that such internment would even be remembered, much less remembered as objectionable.

A second reason the Japanese Internment is considered objectionable is that the Japanese aliens and Japanese-Americans were treated very differently from their German and Italian counterparts and from German- and Italian-Americans. The latter were treated as individuals on a case by case basis, while the Japanese and Japanese-Americans within the restricted western United States were treated as a single group and subjected to internment solely on the basis of race and ethnicity.

In comparison to the almost universal condemnation of the Japanese Internment, almost nobody complains about mistreatment of the other groups. Internment during World War II on a case by case basis of Germans, Italians, and their American citizen descendents is so unobjectionable that it has been largely forgotten by history. And this is so despite the efforts of many to remember, and despite that fact that from the German and Italian communities in the U.S. more than 10,000 individuals were interned from each community.

Can we conclude that history accepts wartime internment of suspected individuals as long as they are selected for internment on the basis of their individual statements and actions, and not on the basis of arbitrary racial or ethnic characteristics? Even in comparison to such internment, the initiatives of the U.S. government so far are pretty small potatoes, limited as they have been to individuals charged with specific criminal or immigration law violations or pursuant to Federal court warrants.