Traitorous Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman have penned a piece in support of the current illegal immigration bill. I know, I know, they’re Bushies and not to be trusted, but I’m putting it out there for you to read, if you haven’t already.
I feel a rant coming on…and probably many de-linkings from the right. This may be a multi-parter.
Does anyone remember a while back, when “The Minute Men” were going to shame the nation and President Bush into building a wall and settling the problem of illegal Mexican immigrants pouring through our borders?
President Bush caught a lot of hell from the far-right for using the word “vigilantes” (and that was a perfectly precise use of the word, by the way – these people kept “vigil”):
“I am against vigilantes in the United States of America; I am for enforcing law in rational ways,” Bush said during a press briefing with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
I thought the movement was a good-intention that would not be able to make a difference, mostly because the folks at the head of it seemed a little too slick, a little too comfortable with the posture of a flim-flam fella. I also thought (and this won’t surprise you) that the President was correct – that any president would be correct – to discourage this “taking the law into our own hands” mentality.
Okay, please – stop now – don’t start sputtering at me that “President Bush hasn’t done enough to enforce the law since he made that statement“; granted.
But when President Bush had a congress and senate on his side and started talking about fixing the immigration problem, what did you do? You started screaming “no amnesty! Ship them all back! They’re criminals! Make them come in legally! If you don’t agree you’re a traitor!”. Then you killed anything constructive that might have occurred by scaring the easily-scared house GOP and listening to rabble-rousing and demagoguery designed by some to weaken the president, by others to promote themselves and by still others to pull the party ever-rightward into the pretend paradise of party purity.
A year later, you’re still screaming the same stuff, and accusing the president of treason. The Democrats are in charge, the president is appreciably weakened, probably a few 100,000 more illegals have come into the country while you’ve demanded solutions – and rejected all of them as unworkable – while holding out for perfection, offering only spiteful snark instead of serious alternative solutions.
You were offered porridge and threw that off the table demanding ice-cream. Now you’re getting gruel. Hey, don’t blame the first cook; porridge was at least nutritious.
Have you had enough stamping the feet? Are you ready to sit down, now, and be practical and pragmatic? It might be too late, though. The Democrats have the steam to push through a plan they prefer and they got some of that steam from you, and your tantrums. Yes, the bill from last year, the one you screamed down, was better than this year’s. You might be able to ring a few phones and demand from your representatives “something better than this,” it’s worth a try, if you are serious about getting something done.
But the legislators you connect with may well say, “hey, we were in a stronger position last year, with a better bill, and you took it out of our hands.” They might even get biblical and try, “We sang you a jig and you wouldn’t dance, now we have this dirge…and maybe we all mourn.”
Well, I doubt they’d say that last part, actually. But they might say the first.
Let’s start here and work our way backwards, if we must. Gerald at Closed Cafeteria – a legal immigrant (from Austria) who is by no means a “lefty” and who knows what it is to jump through the broken hoops of the INS- has written a very thoughtful post, jumping off of George Will’s recent plea for the right to face facts. Gerald is writing from a very Catholic perspective, which I know will irk those of you who have already written to me cursing the Catholics and insisting that we’re looking for “more asses in the pew and more money in the collection plate.” Thank you for that email, by the way. It must have pleased Jesus very much when you sent it to me.
Gerald lays it out in plain-speaking:
If you will not deport 12 million people, you have to offer them a chance to redeem themselves. Otherwise, you perpetuate the very problem you criticize.
Therefore, the current proposal…supports, makes sense – secure the borders and offer a chance of legalization. One reason why so many came here illegally is that immigration is bottlenecked – the supply of visas is far lower than the demand of people wanting to come here and businesses needing workers. In order to combat illegal immigration, a three-pronged strategy is needed – and this is along the lines of President Bush, too: legalization for people, combined with a hefty fine, who came here illegally and committed no crimes (crossing the border illegally is not a crime right now). A real border – obviously it will never be perfect – has to be established, and more efficient immigration proceedings would drastically lower the number of fence hoppers. Drastically increasing and improving the immigration bureaucracy to accomodate the need and desire for labor. Obviously, if 12 million people vanished over night, the American economy would collapse. [all emphasis mine - admin]
America could certainly use more taxpayers – without immigration, there’d be problems
similar to those in Europe. Therefore, instead of being (despite it being their fault) submarines, they should be allowed to ‘surface’ and contribute (more) money.…if you are not going to deport them all, you have to offer an option to become legal. If they were good enough to clean hotel rooms, serve food, build houses, mow the lawn and babysit the children, they should be offered a chance to redeem themselves. The whole speech about ‘cutting in line’, ‘they broke the law’ and so forth may get the Republican base riled up, and it is of course true, but what’s the point of pointing out the obvious without providing a solution? Deport on a scale not seen since World War II, or offer a chance to legalize.
[...]
Immigration in the past basically meant showing up at America’s shores. Nowadays it is a bureaucratic nightmare that could use streamlining, since it does not accommodate the need for labor by American business. San Diego has a pilot project, where everyone gets an interview within 90 days which could serve as a model for the entire country.
Do give Gerald a read – put your best Christian charity hat on, ask the Lord to bless you while you read – and see if he doesn’t make some sense.
Getting back to those Minutemen…they seem to be coming apart at the seams and splintering off into smaller groups carrying bitterness between them. This is not a good situation. President Bush was right about the net-negatives inherent in vigilantism, and you were wrong. Hmmmm…what else might he be right about?
“But Anchoress, he’s insulted us; he’s questioned our patriotism! He’s presumed to lecture us about the state of our souls!”
Not a bit – he’s just doing his job as president, and challenging the people to get serious. Most of us don’t even realize that we make choices about how we’re going to receive the world and what’s in it, what we see and hear. If you choose to feel insulted by a challenge, well, fine…but remember, you hated the left for doing so – you hated the left when they accused Bush of “questioning our patriotism” when (as you know) he did no such thing. In your emotionalism you’ve decided not to take the president’s remarks in context, and consider them as a piece, but to instead accept the random lines-out-of-context offered to you by the press and those whose motives are far-ranged and often personal. The headlines were tantalizing red meat: Bush Betrays Base. Bush Worries for Nation’s Soul. Bush says You Don’t Want What’s Best for the Country! Out of context red meat, easily gobbled down.
And by the way, the press has noticed what sets you off, and they’ve been playing to your heat, and you’ve been responding to their bell-ringing like Pavlovian dogs, too.
Part II here.
Also writing about immigration and the tone:
Jonah Goldberg
Dr. Melissa Clothier
Sister Toldjah
Captain’s Quarters Blog, who also has more on the weaknesses of the bill. Can it be strengthened?
Beth
Anchoress you requested more planning and less griping.
On building a fence:
1. Decide to do it. Problems: there is a huge lobbying movement aided and abetted by the media, to prevent this.
2. Fund it by cutting some pork. Problems: Congress will HATE this.
3. There are well known sections of the border that get tons of traffic, close those first. Most local landowners will cooperate; these are the people that are begging the Minutemen to build on their land. Problems: none I’m aware of.
4. Once that’s finished, the new high traffic areas can be addressed, if necessary by using eminent domain laws. Problems: this will bring lawsuits and drag it out.
5. Begin publicizing the huge mess that border crossers make and how bad it it for the environment to undermine the environmentalists’ complaints, public support, and lawsuits. As needed, duke it out in court. We are still, I hope, a sovereign nation and we are entitled to a border no matter how many people it ticks off. Problems: None I’m aware of.
On interior enforcement:
1. Increase use of that new hire check plan – I forget the name of it but it got a lot of publicity when Dunkin Donuts publicly signed up for it. Problems: some employers will resist, but they’ll get used to it. I don’t enjoy paperwork either, but every time I hire someone I have to go through it. It’d be nice to do it electronically.
2. As it turns out, the 1986 bill provides for spot checks of I-9s. ICE should check them, and enforce it. Even if the employers don’t go to jail, just fine and harass the heck out of them to make them so uncomfortable that they finally cooperate. Basically, ICE should act a lot like OSHA. (And the same companies that hire illegals often disregard OSHA requirements; these are serial law breakers.) Problems: Nothing but funding. Well, the business lobby will go nuts.
3. Cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities, until they agree to stop flouting the law. Problems: as you point out, it will affect people. I suggest giving them a free ride home, and a month’s living expenses to get started on once they arrive there. It is the function of government to administer justice, not mercy. While government can give mercy in the sense of an individual pardon, to set up two separate systems like we have now, where the law is ignored for a specific segment of people, is harmful to the nation as a whole, and it is the function of government to protect us, not outsiders.
4. Enforce local laws like loitering, public indecency, etc. I’m tired of driving past Home Depot watching some guy take a leak on the side of the road. Problems: no downside here.
5. Stop offering government services in language other than English. Problems: None. Faster assimilation, in fact.
6. Stop offering any kind of welfare benefit to anyone other than legal citizens. Problems: we can grandfather people who have been here a while, but as it stands now we have a reputation that makes us a magnet for people who want a free ride as well as those who want to work. This must stop. Grandfathering is a reasonable solution.
7. Quickly deport illegal aliens the first time they commit any kind of felony. No exceptions. Problems: None I can think of – they’ll come back, so we’ll have to throw them out again, but it’s better than letting them stay and commit crimes uninterrupted.
Other things that would be a good idea:
1. Have a PR campaign or whatever – get people to understand that we have the right as a nation to decide what people come here, and to allow them in based on what is good for US. Our government has a responsibility to our taxpayers, not to nationals of other countries. If we want to send aid to Mexico and Guatemala, we can do that, but we’re under no obligation to allow everybody into America who wants to be here.
Better?
What concerns me more than any other issue is the lack of assimilation and the “multiculturalist” advocates who want to impede assimilation. Previous waves of immigrants brought their own cultures to be melded to the greater whole. No one wants to have any ethnicity give up their identities. After all, this is how we have such a great and varied cuisine in America…..among other things: music, art, fashion, literature.
The animus arises when we, the ordinary person, see that this current wave of immigrants has NO intention of become American citizens, assimilating or adding to the cultural mix of our country. Instead they keep to themselves, don’t learn the language, cling to their expatriate country by flying their flag above ours and will ultimately unable to be full functioning citizens who contribute to the community. We want citizens. We don’t want alien invaders.
The other issue that is seldom addressed is the depression of wages for the lower and middle classes perpetrated by having a large underground cash economy fueled by illegals. The carpenter who works legally and pays his taxes, buys his insurance, donates his time to school events and is a participating citizen in his community cannot compete with the illegal who is hired for cash and has no obligations to societ; because he exists in the shadows.
Yes. We do need to bring those who are here out of the shadows, but it must NOT be at the expense of the struggling legal citizens, who perceive this bill (rightly) as being a gift to the illegals and unfair to themselves. This is why we MUST fix the inflow of illegals before we even begin to address the issue of who, how and when people can become citizens.
When we allow our society to fragment by having a permanent underclass of people who are unable to fully participate, we are heading down a very dangerous and slippery slope. The middle class will be squeezed into poverty along with the illegals who are depressing wages and we will have an upper class of elites. Serfs and Masters. Is this what we want for our children and grandchildren?
The Anchoress wrote: Okay, please – stop now – don’t start sputtering at me that “President Bush hasn’t done enough to enforce the law since he made that statement“; granted.
But when President Bush had a congress and senate on his side and started talking about fixing the immigration problem, what did you do? You started screaming “no amnesty! Ship them all back! They’re criminals! Make them come in legally! If you don’t agree you’re a traitor!” and you killed anything constructive that might have occurred by scaring the easily-scared house GOP and listening to rabble-rousing and demagoguery designed by some to weaken the president, by others to promote themselves and by still others to pull the party ever-rightward into the pretend paradise of party purity.
Easily scared GOP House? Come on – fear and cringing is the GOP’s natural state! The GOP Congress did nothing about immigration and a host of other issues because they chose to do nothing – out of fear.
I have commented before on another thread about my wife’s immigration problems (she is a legal immigrant from Africa). USCIS has shown itself utterly incapable of handling the current load of legal immigrants. We spent nearly a year (and a ton of money) in bureaucratic hell trying to get her visa. Then came the sequel nightmare of her legal residence card (a.k.a. “green card”). Once we entered the country using her visa USCIS promply lost her paperwork, and we had to re-submit, along with more fees for lawyers and filing fees. USCIS never bothered to tell us that her paperwork had disappeared – it was a staffer of our local Congressman who nosed around for several months on our behalf and discovered the bureaucratic snafu. Nor is our story unique – I know of a legal immigrant whose renewal paperwork for his green card was lost four times (each time he tried to renew).
What on earth makes supporters of “doing something” think things will somehow change for the better with an even larger load being shoved down USCIS’s incompetent throat? They cannot handle the relatively small load of legal applicants that they currently have! “Registration centers” do not deal with the bureaucratic bungling, they only magnify it. Expanding USCIS and “giving it real teeth” (as one commenter on another thread put it on another blog) is a No-Go. Since when can we buy competence and success in government by flinging tax dollars at a problem and expanding bureaucracy? Did we learn nothing from the War on Poverty?
It is not hard to predict what will happen if this bill passes. USCIS, overwhelmed by new applicants and still frozen in its incompetent bureaucratic bubble, will simply start rubber-stamping applicants. No background checks. No investigations. No rounding up those who overstay their Z-visas. No $5000 fine. In other words – complete and total amnesty. You can bank on it.
And here is where you and I part company for good on this issue. Because of decades of lax enforcement and indifference we have no good choices left; only very bad choices. The only solution is border enforcement and deporting as many illegal aliens that we can catch. That means all 12 million (or 14 million, or 20 million or however many millions there are). Will this work? Almost certainly not – I predict that only a relative handful would be caught, even allowing for competent and vigorous enforcement. But the current amnesty bill is 100% guaranteed to make things worse. This bill says in effect that immigration laws are negotiable.
Capture and deportation is the only solution for the same reason that a chain smoker diagnosed with lung cancer must stop smoking cold turkey. Complaining that the solution is unreasonable or impossible does not change the facts in the case. Quitting smoking may not be enough to save you, but if you keep on smoking you are certainly finished. In this matter, enforcing existing laws might actually be the least destructive choice. As one sage put it, a nation that acts as if international borders don’t matter will soon have no nation.
Those who argue that current limits on numbers of legal immigrants are too stingy will get no argument from me. I believe that we can absorb many times the number of legal immigrants that we currently allow – if it is done in a legal matter. Which is what makes the amnesty bill currently in the Senate so wrong – it rewards illegal immigrants while playing legal ones like my wife for chumps.
Incidentally, there was a recent article about USCIS wanting to raise the application fee for a first-time green card to $1000. Soon, it will not only be faster to break the law by sneaking across the border, but cheaper. I have no doubt that the proposed $5000 fine for illegals will get scrapped or ignored.
Anchoress, please listen to someone who has been through the system. This bill is a complete disaster!
Laura,
Regarding the charges of bigotry, I don’t think anyone is saying everyone who opposes the bill (BTW, I don’t like it either) is a bigot. HOWEVER, there are a lot of very loud voices making their views known, and they’re quite telling. Did you see Linda Chavez’ article last week? Did you see the comments at that article (at Townhall)? I’ve got a collection of some of the comments here (excuse the link-dropping here, A). Yes, every group has bad apples, and yes, we had Abu Ghraib, but it sure seems like there’s a (un)healthy percentage of bad apples speaking for the anti-bill side. It’s completely turned me off the issue, because I will NOT associate with those people, nor with people who don’t eject the bigots. You can look on almost any good-sized blog and see that garbage in the comments, because the siteowners don’t control it like they should. It discredits everyone against the bill when those opinions aren’t kept out of the discussion.
And the “amnesty” meme–I don’t care how many times it’s repeated, it is NOT “amnesty.” There’s a huge difference. I also think the charge of Bush being “committed to amnesty” is disingenuous and appeals to the lowest common denominator–those who aren’t really interested in the hard details of the issue. I’m not sure what “amnesty” means to you or others, but it does seem like anything short of mass deportations constitutes “amnesty” to some people. Sure, some DO want those mass deportations, but it will never happen. Not because Bush is “committed to amnesty,” either–it’s because first, it’s not possible, and second, even if it were possible, it’d be catastrophic for the economy. I know, some will say they don’t care about business/the economy when it comes to illegal immigration. I’ll bet they would if they got their way, though.
Also: I don’t think anyone here is against border enforcement. I’m sure we’re all part of that 70% you cited. It’s a question of HOW to do it, though. Clearly, seventy percent of all Americans are not on the same page w/r/t the solution to illegal immigration, and probably not even on the nature of the problem itself.
Where’s all the discussion about non-Hispanics (specifically, non-Mexicans)? What about the Fort Dix Six and the 9/11 hijackers? None of them came through the Mexican border; no border fence would have any effect on them. What about the Canadian border?
See, if this is really about national security, as so many like to claim, there’d be a lot more discussion about how to stop illegal immigration (including expired visas) by those with whom we’re at war. I’d drop the whole issue of Mexican illegal immigration if we could stop that. So yes, I’m part of the 70%, but I obviously don’t see the issue or solutions the same way.
Terrye and lsusportsfan: Great comments.
(Roll Tide!)
/runs away
It makes no difference if this bill passes or not. We don’t control our borders now and John McCain proclaimed in tonight’s debate that we never will. Might as well just go back to drinking my friends.
Laura
Firs t I think we got to break down this illegal Alien class. While most are Mexican or Central American there are 1.5 million Asians that are illegal out of the total. THere are about 1.7 million of the 12 that are uner 18(many that have been here forever). Out of this total group there are about3.1 million American children(more than the state of Mississippi) that are born to these people.
I break that down because I think we have to start seeing a picture of what we are looking at. Now all illegals are the same. You have the 3 year old illegal to the illegal that owns a home with his American wife. So yes some are sending money back and some are not
As to Louisiana. I think when we are looking at burdens we have to look at the big picture. If Chraity , Tulane and various Hospitals were not practically out of commision near East JEfferson would not be bearing the brunt. Unfort it is. But he question must be asked? If they were not there New Orleans and Mississippi would be very much worse off. So we must acknowledge their labor is rebuilding our communities
Also this labor has a ripple effect for business that cause more revenue. However HEalth care is a issue. Especailly in NOLA where the Charity hospital is out. What we should be thinking about is health care. Why not under a guest worker program have some sort of very low cost emergency health care as a part of the bill that employers can pool into? THe major problem is that because they are illegal and life to say is uncertain we are not encouraging health insurance or anything
As to Bush. Again, it does seems like he is doing something. Again the article from Browns ville indicate that things are being done and we just can’t ignore the doubling of the border control on his watch. I have a hard time believing that Bush would order enforcement agents not to enact the new law. But in any case, by the time this is up and running Bush will be out of office.
One word about enforcement. I think one of the GOP people made a good comment at the debate tonight. THe border fence is not the big solution. Most of those 1.5 million illegal Asians did not come here over MExico. THe 50,000 illegal Irish did not cross from Mexico. They overstayed VISAS. One third if not more of our illegal alien population comes from that. The real defense seems to be this data base, ID card, and verfication system. That is in the bill
One last thing. Senator Simpson who co -authored the 86 bill has always said the reason it would fail and did fail was the lack of a ID card that could be used as presumptive proof that employers violated the law. Right now it is hard case to prove. THis bill has that. That is a plus.
Dust Bunny
#54
As to assimilation there is a great feature of this bill. That is for illegals under I think 18 is the age they can have acclellerated pathway if they join the Armed Forces. I think that is a great thing. TO be honest under certain conditions if they qualifyed I would have no problem if that brought their parents into a more legal status. If we are going to expand the armed forces we did to find the bodies somehow. THe hispanic and especially immigrant numbers are being targeted for the military and that think that is assimilation par execellance
I do think this problem of assimilation differs from place to place. Where I am living the assimilation process since 86 has appeared to work well. In many ways this is ort of like the earlier immigrant communities. Onece they got out of New York, New Orleans , Chicago and starting branching out assimilation happened. I wonder if these peoplehad more regularr status and thuis less fear of movement that it would naturaly occur. IN fact we are seeing that right now. THe Hispanic immigrant population is slowly dipsersing itself more equally around the country repeating past patterns.
I often wonder if states like Californa and especially partricular areas there have concerns that have to be met locally. FOr instance will the illegal Alien in LA that becomes a citizens have a different experience and assimilation that the illegal alien that becomes a citizen in North Carolina. I think by defination yes.
Haha, I think it’s hilarious that a former Minutemen supporter is now suing them for basically blowing his $100,000 donation (rather than using it for a “promised” fence!).
So much for Bush being the only one not getting fences built! hahahahahahaha
Maybe the Minutemen should hire a bunch of Mexicans to do the work that their donors are paying for.
ARGH! My comments are getting moderated! Stoopid computers!
Beth
This is tragic but a ton of conservatives of which I played a small researching role was screaming about the minutemen last year. The Simcox faction it was clear to see to scamming people. 80 cents out of every dollar went to the various direct mail comapnies, caging companies, and political consulting firms. THe web of all these groups and how they use immigration as just one of their issues is something to see. People are making a pretty penny off keeping thi issue unresolved so they can send out more donation request and sell more mailing list. I started looking and a huge percent of the donations were from retired people. I learned quickly that if I get a donation request from any “conservative group” to spend a hour checking them out.
Now to be fair not all MInutement groups were like this. Some were horrified at what was going on and they provided the necessary evidence for others to build on and that eventually resulted in the Washington Times investigations.
Needless to say there are groups that again want to keep this issue unresolved so they can keep milking the cash cow. Liberals have the same problem on their side too
Beth – yes, I saw Linda Chavez article and I can’t tell you how strongly I disagree with it. A tiny minority is getting vocal; well, I can’t do anything about that but disassociate myself with that part of their complaints. But it doesn’t mean they’re all wrong. Ron Paul is spot-on as far as small government and a total loon on quite a few other things. He’s been a good Congressman who has represented his constituents the way they wanted; I can admire him for that while cringing at the thought of him being President and head of the GOP. I wish that *some* people who are also against this bill didn’t say things that either are racist or at least sound racist, but I refuse to sit back and let this bill pass without complaint just because of what some others are doing. It’s a bad bill. It’s worse than nothing.
You can say it’s not amnesty all you want, I say it is. So what? We can assert things all day long, but here’s my argument; please provide yours. You say there’s a huge difference between this bill and amnesty – well, what is it? This token payment is ridiculous – one payment, spread out over years, which is about 25% of what their households cost taxpayers PER YEAR even if they are paying taxes at all? Come on… how is that not amnesty? Not only do they get to stay, enjoy legal status, become eligible for a boatload of government benefits, even if they’ve earned enough to owe back taxes (which is unlikely) they won’t have to pay them, AND they get to essentially buy all this for a one time payment of 1/4 of what they cost us per year. How is that a good solution for the American taxpayer? How is it not being forgiven for breaking the law? How does that provide any semblance of justice for the tens of thousands of legal immigrants who have been waiting on lists for years to come here?
Late to the party….
The problem with this bill is ultimately philosophical. President Bush, big business and Congress believe that the fuel for our motoring economy has been illegal immigrants. It’s a supply and demand issue–thus the “jobs Americans won’t do” rhetoric. President Bush views the Mexican workers as a commodity. He believes that the demand for workers will be there even if the border is stopped up and that violence will ensue should that happen. He is right. It will. Inflation will also occur.
But…. and there’s always a big but… Wages for lower income Americans will rise. Wages for the new immigrants (legal or illegal) in America will rise. In fact, a Mexican friend of mine wants the border closed because “all the new Mexicans work for cheap”. One reason, the disparity between the classes is growing is because the lower wage earnings are depressed by illegal, untaxed and non-tax paying illegal immigrants. Stopping more of these workers coming in will cause costs of everything from food to services to rise.
These results sound like a bad thing. Well, it’s a little of bad and a little good. Right now, wealthier Americans are already subsidizing the poor through health care and other state services like education. If people were making more money, they’d have more money to pay for their services–IF they paid taxes.
The electorate wouldn’t like the inflationary pressure. Since America does need more workers, the solution is legal immigration. My concern about legalizing the current illegals is encouraging more illegal immigration. It will. Incentives drive behavior. An easy ticket is one heck of an incentive. If the border is finished (we’re America, this can be done or we are in worse shape than I thought), the economics will drive the action. We will need more workers. We will need more legal immigration.
I saw the contempt that Southern Californians heaped on the Mexican workers when I lived there (and that was twenty years ago). It was really horrible. The animosity goes both ways. I live in Texas and bad blood between the natives and illegals has not been my experience at all. There is a peaceful co-existence and an individualistic outlook. I don’t hear people complaining about the bi-lingual programs, etc. But the hospital situation is a disaster and growing.
Finally, the legislation doesn’t answer the question of fairness. For all the people desperate to come here and working their tails off to do it legally, this legislation is a slap in the face.
Beth
Just remember “Les is more” as Nick Satan will find out this Novmeber when LSU comes to town
Geaux Tigers
lol
20 serious loopholes that make this legislation *worse* than doing nothing:
http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=275456
Gerald’s false dichotomy:
“If you will not deport 12 million people, you have to offer them a chance to redeem themselves. Otherwise, you perpetuate the very problem you criticize.”
If we do nothing but consistently apply the laws on the books, gradually the 12 million will follow one of the following paths:
-Continue to work here illegally until deported or it makes sense to return under one’s own will. Wages will rise for illegals as the inflow stops, so many will make enough money to return sooner than planned.
-Find another way to stay: marry an American, get sponsored for another type of visa
-Leave right away to avoid being caught.
These alternatives make a lot more sense than unrealistic mass deportation or mass legalization. The really great news is that it does not require any new legislation, it just requires that the existing laws be enforced. Of course, congressmen pass laws, they don’t really get anything done unless it’s easy, like making all the illegals legal with the stroke of a pen.
In response to #36
No, they don’t need to be doing nothing while they build the fence. They can do as they like so long as the border is secured for what I care. I just haven’t seen any reason to believe that they want to secure the border at all, let alone anytime in the immediate future.
If I were in complete charge of everything, I would prefer that the illegals with any kinds or criminal records (besides the initial entry into the country) were deported, and then so long as that’s done, and the border is secured, then sure, they can grant the rest citizenship. I’m completely fine with that.
The problem I have with this bill isn’t so much that it’s not the solution I’d like. I could deal with that. The problem with this bill is that it’s not a solution at all. Come a few more years, the same problem will arise again. It’s a bandaid fix, if even that.
I’m convinced that a majority in congress does not want to deal with this at all. For whatever reasons they may have I really think they just want to put it off for a little while so someone else can deal with it instead of them.
laura:
I did not write that comment about bigots, I posted what someone else said. And so far as I know a bunch of outraged hardliners did not jump on that poster and tell her to cool it either. Every day I see things worse than that on comment sections in blogs and no one seems to have a problem with it, but people like me. In fact I saw something on one blog about McCain having relations with HoChiMinh and Kennedy and the folks were just acting like that was kind of cute.
So if people on the right do not want to associated with that sort of thing, they don’t need to make snarky comments to me for talking about it, they need to make snarky comments to the people who are actually saying this stuff.
A couple of weeks ago, Senator Kyl said that 65 miles of the fence is under construction. And btw, half the illegals in this country did not cross that border and that fence will not in any way effect those kind of people. What about them?
And if these people were nothing but a burden, they would not be here. The truth is most of them work and spend money and if you suddenly removed them from the economy, we would see problems more severe than anything we are seeing now. For instance, 47% of the ag workers fit into this category. And I don’t see people standing in lines for those kinds of jobs.
And laura:
About the loopholes, if that is true, close them. Do not just kill the bill and say the status quo is better and then complain about the status quo. If the people who are unhappy with this bill can wreck its passage, then they should be able to come up with a viable alternative. If they really want to. And I am beginning to wonder if they do.
Laura, you are not alone.
I for one believe the outrage and decibel level is quite appropriate. There are several larger issues here.
I see many Christians that have a tendency to put compassion before justice. Justice must come first. Too many find it so much easier to administer compassion without justice – and therefore compound and perpetuate the misery. Compassion without justice will produce anarchy. We see it happening now, just as we saw it result from Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ welfare system.
Forgiveness should also be accompanied by repentance. We have seen many images of precisely the opposite being true – from both the illegal alien and the government official communities.
The inverted logic I do not understand he attempt to put those who believe that our laws are to be enforced and out citizenry protected on the defensive while elevating those who knowingly broke the laws to some sort of nobilty. I honor the legal immigrants – I refuse to insult them. I respect the many American crime victims, not the perpetrators or the misguided officials that have enabled the crime spree.
Favoritism towards business and the resulting suppressed wages is wrong. Why are businesses getting a free pass on this? There are clearly many who are profiteering at the expense of the American working class. The profit motive is driving he pro-amnesty debate more than anything else. (The disingenuous excuses it don’t cut it – inability to speak English is a major clue.)
Reading the bill leaves me with the impression that the bill was written in bad faith – Either that or a detachment from reality. Words on paper do not make things happen. Those who take the immigration issue seriously can only feel insulted by the shoddiness of the legislation. It is obvious that the proposed legislation is not enforceable. The priority of the bill’s authors clearly was not secure borders .
I could go on and on reiterating the many points that others have already made. Heritage Foundation, National Review, Congressional Budget office, Heather MacDonald, and crime statistics are all readily accessible.
But until we, the people, see that our alleged representatives are representing us and not special interest groups and not trying to find he easiest way out of the predicament that their own dereliction of duty has produced, our politicians should feel uncomfortable about their political future. the more uncomfortable the better. They took an oath.
Why does the corrupt government of Mexico get a free pass on this? They’ve turned illegal immigration into an industry. It’s outrageous.
After witnessing 21 years of the immigration farce, I have a new appreciation for the Boston Tea Party. If the cost to inspire our politicians to take this issue seriously, without comprising first principles, and without insulting those who believe in the rule of law is upsetting your peace, so be it.
So until such time as we see out government get truly serious about solving the problem, Crank up the volume. No more kicking the can down the road. Enough is enough.
I will continue to monitor this board throughout the day, but just wanted to say a few things:
A) I am amazed and very gratified (and proud of y’all) that this conversation is managing to be civil, thought-provoking, full of ideas and sane. Please keep it up. Your comportment is restoring my faith that the blogosphere can still be a place of ideas and dialogue, and not just a screaming echo-chamber.
B) I’ll remind you that if you’re going to propose “a solution” or “the solution” you’re also being asked to be honest about what problems may impede that solution. For example, “simply enforcing the law” sounds really great, except to do that on a scale that can manage to be truly effective, one must take a moment to imagine how that would actually play out, in businesses, in courts, in law offices, in our society. You’re talking about huge-scale enforcement, which may well meet serious resistance from a large part of the society that may find it too “draconian” on such a scale. If they get loud enough, the whole scheme falls apart. I’m just saying – you have to think about how any plan will be received and how its reception will affect its effectiveness
C) I’m in the process of writing Part II to this but twice now the computer has eaten it halfway through (I need a new computer…sigh) and re-writing it is getting me nuts. Also, Buster has again worn himself into a severe bronchitis and will be distracting me a bit, so if you find your comments are held in moderation longer than usual, please be patient.
D) I’m thrilled to death with this thread and hope the constructive and civil conversation will continue in Part II (when I post it) but these comments are huge and eating an enormous amount of bandwidth. I really hate to ask, but since my new site design is already stretching the blog-budget to it’s limits, if you are enjoying this give-and-take, please consider throwing a peso or two (heh) into either donation button found in the sidebar, to cover the increase. Thanks.
And igout, do you really believe “it’s all lies and the government has sold out the country?”
Because if I really believed that, I wouldn’t be able to sit at a keyboard and grouse about it…I’d have to leave the country.
Yes, Anchoress, and yes. But cheer up:
Terrye in the next post observed that if the government is selling out, it’s getting plenty of help from the American people who by default have given their approval. I’m afraid she’s right, but that only strengthens my case. The whole bill is a joke, the government knows it, the people know it, nobody cares, except a fringe of racists, bigots, nativists, cranks, losers, so no problemo, if I may anticipate the coming newspeak.
So see? we’re all squawking at one another over nothing. Want to talk about opera now?
But I am curious. If you did really believe that, what country would you leave to? Me? I like this one… while it lasts.
RoyE
I am glad you brought up Christianity. I suspect a lot of Christians are on this board and we need to talk about that aspect. In fact maybe it should be the first.
First I read something prodound that a Huge Christian man said and let me share it. Pope Pius XII, in 1952, declared the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph to be the archetype of every refugee family. He based this on their flight into Egypt, calling them “the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.”
That is something to keep in mind. Needless to say Pius XII(no feel good liberal) had seen ther effects of migration in post war Europe.
I understand what you say aboout justice. That is one reason I am so involved because as a Republican I felt called last year to fight the House bill. We see in all this talk about the need to punish illegal aliens. They re illegal. As a former prosecuter at times I sit back in astonishiment. I prosecuted far worse people for much lesser offense than wanting to work. Now did they break the law? Yes. Should their punishiment of consequences for not doing this properly? Yes. But again we are talking in the end for many their crime is work. Their needs to be a contemplation of work in a Christian sense here.
But my biggest complaint about the justice argument is this. IT is all one sided. It all falls on the illegal.FOr the moms that hired them to mow or babysit the children to big business that hired them in droves-no consequences. We needed them to help fuel this expanding Economy we prospered as a nature and now they are JUST illegal. Right now we have 30,000 workers many illegals on the gulf coast working like heck to prepare us the the hurricane system We need their laboir. We profit by it. YEtr we curse them. THe point is the lack of uniformity of justice to all parties is so one sided on the illegal that it almost seems to scream to God as a injustice in itself. That should give all us Christians pause.
Again this is not the thoughts of just liberal political christians. It is the the voice of Popes, of amjor Evangelical leaders. It is the Voice of DR Land of the Southern Baptist Convention that says basically the same thing.
Anchoress, this is the coolest Bar & Grill in cybertown, and I’ve completely forgotten my manners! I’m making a beeline for your donate button to buy my excellent hostess a round of band widths.
I too am thrilled with this thread and very grateful for the thoughtful, productive offerings from all around the table. I’m learning a lot and rethinking some things as well. It gives me hope that we can accomplish something when things remain civil and focused on solutions. Is it too late in the day for reason to prevail over emotion & hysteria? Let’s find out.
Based on this, Anchoress, you’re making the same argument I’ve seen in liberal op-eds. I think it was in the NY Times a couple days ago, saying that the restrictions in the Senate bill are too strict, won’t be enforced, if we limit the guest workers to 400,000, that just encourages people to break the law, so we might as well discard the limit on guest workers altogether. It’s a question of the rule of law. Yeah, I’m throwing that bumper sticker slogan out there, too. You’re say the current immigration laws on the books are too strict and would require too much manpower, and there’s no political will to enforce them. That last is definitely true. That’s why we’re in this mess in the first place. And why on earth do you think this bill is going to change that? You really believe the measures will be enforced? That we really, really are going to build the wall, hire more border patrol agents, do background checks (within 24 hours!) for every Z-visa applicant?
If the old laws weren’t enforced, what makes you think new ones will be? Because the new ones aren’t as strict? There’s an incentive to take Ted Kennedy’s word. All the ranting and screaming you dislike so much is because the Republican base doesn’t believe for a second there’s any political will to get a handle on immigration. You seem to be saying, “take what we can get, this bill will fix it.” Um, no, it won’t.
The legal immigrant you quoted missed the point entirely, and I think you did, too. I don’t know how many different ways I can say this, and it’s frustrating beyond description to have to try again. For the hundredth time, this bill IS NOT GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. It’s going to make it worse. Gerald, who you quoted in your initial post, mentioned that the INS is “bottlenecked” with applications from legal immigrants. And you think that implementing a Z-visa program requiring background checks for every single illegal in this country is going to fix that? Implementing a guest-worker program for 400,000 additional foreigners is going to improve the bottleneck? Including a ‘merit’ points system is going to make the INS’s job easier? What kind of logic is this?
You really think the border is going to get secured this time? Walls, agents, etc? Based on what? Certainly not based on history, and you know what they say about those who refuse to learn from history. We had a bill for almost 800 miles of double-walled fence last November. It’s been knocked down to a bit more than 300 miles of fence now. THAT is how seriously they’re taking securing the border. That’s the kind of promise we’ve extracted from these people. That’s the overall impact of this bill. Feel-good promises, no will to fulfill the promises made, and the compromisers chiming in with, “we have to take what we can get, something must be done, something’s better than nothing.” NO IT IS NOT. For the trillionth time. Yes, I’m furious. Because I’ve read the bill and know damned well what it’s going to do, and I don’t think I’m being unreasonable when I say I don’t believe a word of the enforcement promises. I know exactly what the left is trying to accomplish with this bill, because they’ve bloody well told us. Republicans are hopeless fools if they refuse to see it.
The slogans ‘enforce the law,’ and ‘security first,’ aren’t unreasonable, and I’m tired of the President, Senate, and bloggers that think we have to take what we can get acting like it is. This is the richest, most powerful nation in the world. If there was the political will to do it, the border could be secured by sunup tomorrow. Do you really need the rundown of the problems with this bill again? The loopholes in the z-visa, the non-requirements for citizenship, the facts on the taxes? Illegals won’t have to pay back taxes. They consume more tax dollars than they put into the system now, by nearly $20,000 a year per illegal immigrant.
I’ll quote Rush on this one. Rape laws are pretty strict, too. I say we get rid of them, since we can’t enforce them 100%. Make some less-strict rape laws so the rapists will come out of the shadows. Then we’ll know where they are, make them pay for it–because they’re not paying for it at all right now, and a little punishment’s better than none, right? Then we can rehabilitate them into being productive members of society.
No, I’m not saying being an illegal immigrant is the moral equivalent of being a rapist, but I am saying that kind of cockeyed thinking is what produced this bill, and it’s not going to put a hitch in the step of the millions more trying to get into this country illegally. It’s going to encourage more of them to come, and I don’t believe for an instant, based on history and experience, that there will be any serious effort to stop them. Which is why my position is, seal that border as a sign of good faith. Prove it’s sealed and we’ve knocked down illegal crossings 95%. Then we’ll talk. Until then, I don’t believe a word the government says, and we have nothing to talk about. THAT’S my plan. Secure the border as a sign of good faith. Then the government can talk about z-visas and guest workers until they’re blue in the face.
igout – I’d rather stay here, myself. But if I had to leave, I’d go somewhere where the Guinness is good and wait for the end, since I believe if America is lost, the world is too. But I don’t believe she is lost.
Sentry wrote: I’ll quote Rush on this one. Rape laws are pretty strict, too. I say we get rid of them, since we can’t enforce them 100%. Make some less-strict rape laws so the rapists will come out of the shadows.
A surprisingly specious argument from Limbaugh. Enforcing rape laws 100% would be a drop in the bucket compared to enforcing these immigration laws even 50% when you’re talking the size and scope of 12 million people and all of the family/social/business dynamics at hand.
I’m surprised Limbaugh said this; it’s an unconvincing, dubious comparison since it cannot take into account the scope of the huge enforcement undertaking. It would like me trying to sell you a 6,000 btu air conditioner and telling you that because it cools a 20 x 20 room, it’s a sufficient cooling solution for the Empire State Building!
I’m still writing Part II and tending the sickroom, but checking in!
Sentry:
You said
“You really think the border is going to get secured this time? Walls, agents, etc? Based on what? Certainly not based on history, and you know what they say about those who refuse to learn from history. We had a bill for almost 800 miles of double-walled fence last November. It’s been knocked down to a bit more than 300 miles of fence now. THAT is how seriously they’re taking securing the border. That’s the kind of promise we’ve extracted from these people.”
Ok lets gets the facts straight. Who knocked it down? Are we talking about a final bill that passed congress? IS the PResident ignoring building the fence? I suspect not. In fact as we see in this article the opposite appears to be the case
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/border_77031___article.html/fence_officials.html
That article seems to indicate that the 300 miles that you refer too is what is online to be constructed within a time frame. Notice in the article that locals have seen maps that have been leaked to the media and they are in a uproar because by law they have not beeen consulted/ It appears the Govt is doing a lot and that things are proceeding as to the fence. Also notice in the article that there is no indication that the 800 miles of fencing has benn scraped. In fact quite the opposite
You said Sentry
” the border could be secured by sunup tomorrow. Do you really need the rundown of the problems with this bill again? The loopholes in the z-visa, the non-requirements for citizenship, the facts on the taxes? Illegals won’t have to pay back taxes. They consume more tax dollars than they put into the system now, by nearly $20,000 a year per illegal immigrant.”
Ok I hear that. No they couldnt secure the border by sunup tomorrow. Borderagents and back up personal do not just drop down from HEaven. They have to be hired, they have to be trained, more personal to back these people up have to be trained. We have already seen that Governors blak when there is talk about using more of a streatch National Guard on the border. There is porgress being made but it is going by steps
Sentry:
You said
T”hey consume more tax dollars than they put into the system now, by nearly $20,000 a year per illegal immigrant.”
I have seen this figure alot on the net. This figure and others comes from the heritage report that looks at “Low Skilled Labor”. TO say the least there is numerous problems with that report. I could go into them in all day. But fundamentally the big problems is that it looks at the illegal Aliens(in truth they are taking a look at Low skilled workers as a whole) and just looking at a tax revenue outlook. What they do not go into is how the labor of the illegals help business that pays taxes and that business dollar that is generated goes out into the community and spurs more growth. It fact that basic economic fact is ignored in all these reports I see. It also treats illegals as one vast group and not look at all the subdivisons. One of the reports most fundamental flaws is what “unskilled” is. For instance if unskilled means a lack of a diploma. YEs. But skills are more than a diploma. The illegal that can build a house is skilled. The illegal that can in and do landscaping work is skilled. The worker that that can come and do work on my air conditioning is skilled. Some illegals have more marketable skill than other. I am just pointing out the danger of seeing this as one group. Further the study does not look at states that are more income taxed based and those that are more slaes taxed based.
Sentry
I wanted to break this post up to also comment what you said here
“the facts on the taxes? Illegals won’t have to pay back taxes.”
First I need to check to see if that got back in the bill. I think it did. Now lets take all practical concerns of how we caculate that off the table now.
THe reason that there is concern that it should not be in the Senate bill is that the requirement that all bills that are revenue neutral must originate in the HOuse. In fact as has been reported Conservative that are against this bill already plan to “blueslip” it because they will claim the tax clause is invlaidates the whole Senate bill. That only that could be in house bill. Again not everything is what it seems
That’s me paraphrasing Limbaugh, but his point is that the argument against trying to enforce the law is that we can’t possibly get 12 million of them, so let’s give amnesty–and that’s what the z-visa is–to all of them. We can’t get 100% of rapists, so let’s not prosecute the crime at all. There, problem solved. No rapists or illegal immigrants in the US, because rape isn’t a crime and neither is coming into this country without following the existing rules. Illustrating absurdity by being absurd, as Rush says.
I would like one of the compromise supporters to explain to me how the z-visa isn’t amnesty. How it’s not letting illegals cut in line in front of legal immigrants, when the illegals get to stay in the US and the legals have to wait in their own countries. How the government is going to implement the z-visa for 12 million people when it can’t handle the bottleneck from legal immigrants.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants come into this country without a high school diploma or the ability to speak English. That constitutes ‘unskilled,’ even if they’ve got a construction job or are working on my AC. The point is, the lower tax brackets consume more taxes than they pay, and yes, this is true of unskilled American citizens, too. But these illegals AREN’T American citizens, and they’re coming here in such numbers that they’re straining our social support systems. It’s one thing for our tax dollars to go to fellow citizens. It’s quite another to be bankrupting ourselves in Social Security, closing hospitals, and packing public schools with people that broke the law to come here. That’s the fundamental difference. Non-citizens that broke our law are taking advantage of government largesse, and it cannot continue indefinitely. The $20,000 figure doesn’t mean every single illegal is taking that amount out. That means the costs, distributed across the guesstimate of how many illegals there are, amount to that much money. Some use more, some use less.
Bottom line, I see nothing in this bill that will solve the problem, and a great deal that exacerbates it. Proponents of the compromise should explain why they believe the government really is going to follow through on enforcement this time, and how they expect the INS to be handle the z-visas, verify the background checks (within 24 hours, mind you), implement the points system, and verify that each immigrant was in this country before Jan 1, 2007. You’re telling us that the government can’t enforce the current laws, but they somehow will be able to enforce the new ones. Why do you have such faith in that? Because “something has to be done?” Given the events of the last twenty years, since Simpson-Mazzoli, why on earth do you think it will be?
Even if that provision did get back in the bill, it’s still a joke. The lowest income tax brackets don’t pay taxes, and I speak as someone in the lower tax brackets. I get back more money in a refund every April than I paid throughout the year. Even if they calculate the taxes owed, they’d still get them back, because that’s how our current tax system works.
Anchoress – In response to your comment, which is now way up there…
My solution to this problem is that we should first secure the border. The fence must be built before we pass any law that would grant amnesty. The reason for this is a simple one: if the border is not first secured, millions more will flood across the border with the hope of receiving the amnesty that those who are already here will be eligible for. Yes, yes, I know that this is supposed to be impossible, because amnesty will be backdated; but the documents needed to prove that one has been here are so flimsy that they can and will be forged, which means that people can and will come across the border hoping to get amnesty that they’re not truly eligible for. That’s why we must first secure the border.
With that said, I’m not completely opposed to amnesty as some are. I favor a trial period of temporary legal residency in which illegal immigrants are given the opportunity to prove that they want to be and can be productive members of our society. If they fail to prove this during their period of temporary residency, then they should be deported; if they prove that they are willing and able to be productive members of our society, then there should be a path to permanent legal residency. This path should include a hefty fine for coming here illegally and strict requirements designed to acclimate them to our culture and society, including a mandatory English education. There should be no path to citizenship open to illegal immigrants, because those who come here illegally do not deserve the privilege of citizenship. Giving them citizenship would only encourage others to come here illegally in the hopes of becoming citizens twenty years down the road, and it would be profoundly unfair to those who are waiting in line to become citizens legally.
Illegal immigrants should also be excluded from most if not all of our welfare programs, and they must be excluded from Social Security. It was certainly not my intention in my last comment to imply that illegal immigrants want to come here to live off welfare. On the contrary, I know that most of them want to come here to work. But given the low wages that many of their jobs pay, many of them are still eligible for welfare programs even though they are working; and letting them become eligible for entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security will bankrupt the federal government and/or the American taxpayer. Thus they must be excluded from most if not all of our welfare programs and all of our entitlement programs.
That is my solution. Again, though, I don’t think any amnesty provisions should be even discussed until after the border is secured. Otherwise, more will come across in the hopes of claiming amnesty that isn’t rightfully theirs.
Terrye, I wasn’t going to touch this but since you brought it up again… you said – “laura: I did not write that comment about bigots, I posted what someone else said. And so far as I know a bunch of outraged hardliners did not jump on that poster and tell her to cool it either. Every day I see things worse than that on comment sections in blogs and no one seems to have a problem with it, but people like me. In fact I saw something on one blog about McCain having relations with HoChiMinh and Kennedy and the folks were just acting like that was kind of cute.”
The “bigoted” quote in question was – “Jeb: just because you married a mex national doesn’t mean the rest of the country wants to be in bed with them….stop the invasion – you and your brother are both full of it on this issue”
And you posted here regarding it, “Hey, but don’t call em bigots”
Bigotry, like obscenity, is pretty much in the eye of the beholder and I’m giving you every benefit of the doubt and assuming that you truly believe that statement was bigoted. Time after time, I’ve seen people on the left seize the high moral ground by crying racism! bigotry! and completely shut down debate, but I honestly don’t believe that’s happening here – I believe what’s happening is that we are all getting hypersensitive to anything that might be bigotry, because we don’t want to be on the receiving end of these charges. But I’m going to challenge your point of view on this because I really do think you’re wrong.
There are statements that can be made, that are uncomfortable, but objectively true, like “Approximately half of all Latino teenagers, regardless of their head of household’s legal status, drop out of high school.” Nobody likes that stat, and racists will take it and say, “See?! Proves they’re stupid (or lazy, or whatever.)” But just because racists use that statement to further their own POV doesn’t make it less objectively factual.
Then there is the kind of harsh political rhetoric that has been bandied about this country for more than 200 years, and it was actually a great deal worse back when Thomas Jefferson was slamming the crap out of President Adams behind his back. Things like “Ted Kennedy is a killer,” or “The Democrats are in bed with the trial lawyers.” And that “in bed with” is a phrase that has been used for many decades to describe politicians with relationships that are considered too close to some person or group. Well, a woman died and Ted Kennedy may or may not have been able to prevent it; to some that makes him a killer. Democrats do get a lot of money from trial lawyers. There is a kernel of truth in those statements, and how unfair you think they are depends on where you are in the political spectrum. That comment you called bigoted clearly falls under this category. Jeb Bush is married to a woman of Mexican heritage. I have no idea how or when she or her family came to this country. It’s not relevant to me. Many conservatives believe that both George and Jeb Bush have been “carrying water for” or have been “in bed with” the Mexican government for years. In that context, the statement was harsh and snarky, but certainly not bigoted. There was no racial slur and no pejorative. No one was even called an insulting name.
YES, I absolutely agree with you that some conservatives/Republicans have made racist statements. Your larger point stands. It’s happening. But when you list that quote as an example, you’re throwing your net WAY too wide and tarring a lot of us as bigots when we’re not.
Terrye, you write – “About the loopholes, if that is true, close them. Do not just kill the bill and say the status quo is better and then complain about the status quo. If the people who are unhappy with this bill can wreck its passage, then they should be able to come up with a viable alternative. If they really want to. And I am beginning to wonder if they do.”
Of course people are attempting to close them, and they’re being shot down at every turn. Of course other proposals are being made, and so far are being blocked. So the question for you is, since these loopholes really do exist and are so large you can drive a truck through them, does that change your opinion of this bill?
Hmmm I think this may officially be the longest thread in this blog’s history, excepting one about my brother when he was dying, but we lost that one when I moved from blogger.
Quick observation: Sentry, do you remember that part of the Gospel where Jesus says, “we played you a jig and you wouldn’t dance, we sang you a dirge and you wouldn’t mourn?” That’s immediately what popped into my head when you wrote: Even if that provision did get back in the bill, it’s still a joke..
Ah, taxes. According to the left, only the rich are getting tax breaks, and here on the right we see someone in need who gets a little more (which is perfectly fine) and he doesn’t like that, either. You can never please folks with taxes.
Please remember folks, this thread is not for general bitching; you can do that on 1000 other threads. If you have an idea, serve it up, fully considered, with caveats and complications on the side!
Part II is here, if you’re interested.
I just have one other thought before this goes to the new post.
LEt us say last year this same exact senate bill was proposed. More fencing, more border patrol, a real id for workers, heavy fines on employers, a real workplace verfication system system, etc etc. But there is one crucial difference. That the regualrization of the 12 million was not dealt with?
In that scenario would not many of the people saying the Govt will not do this and all the above is unworkable perhaps be praising the bill to high HEaven. Praising and saying that finally the Congress is getting serious?
Again the issue is the 12 million in the end I think that colors everything else even how one views the provisons of the bill. TO be fair perhaps becuse I ahve concerns about the 12 million here I am overly optimisitic on these provisons working.
It is something to keep in mind
I received an email yesterday with some very surprising numbers. Let me preface this by stating at this point, I am dubious of all stats, numbers, and claims coming from every direction in this immigration “debate” such as it is. The Heritage foundation has been found to be playing with their numbers, big time. The outfit NumbersUSA is a John Tanton org and exaggerates to scare people and raise money, etc.
So for what it’s worth., what if the figures below are correct… is it possible that illegals are not the total and complete drag on our economy and systems as many would have us believe? Is it possible some factions use only stats and numbers that advance a particular agenda, without any commitment to solving problems on a comprehensive basis which to me is the critical thing.
*$1.05 Trillion
Immigrants create a demand for American goods and services, which increases the prosperity of the middle class. In 2004, the Asian-American and Hispanic consumer markets accounted for $1.05 trillion dollars in purchasing power.
Source: Humphreys, Jeffrey. Georgia Business and Economic Conditions.
“The Multicultural Economy 2004: America’s Minority Buying Power” (Third Quarter, 2004)
*Immigrants don’t steal jobs – they create them.
In 2005, companies founded by first-generation immigrants employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in sales. 80% of these companies provide jobs in software and innovation/manufacturing-related services.
Source: Vivek Wadhwa et. al. University of California, Berkeley and Duke University
“America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs” (January 2007)
*81% of Americans believe that no-one in their family has lost a job to an immigrant worker.
Source: Pew Hispanic Center
“March 2006” (America’s Immigration Quandry)
*$7 Billion in Taxes
Undocumented workers contribute to critical public services that we all use. Although they are not eligible for either program, undocumented workers pay nearly $7 billion into Social Security and $1.5 billion into Medicare every year.
Undocumented workers are not eligible for any federal public benefits, including food stamps, income supplements, and health care.
Source: Porter, Eduardo. The New York Times.
“Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions” (April 2005)
…and here’s a figure that really stopped me in my tracks:
*DEFENSE
Immigrants play a key role in the defense of the United States. As of May 2006, 33,449 non-citizens served in the armed forces.
Source: Migration Policy Institute
“The Foreign Born in the Armed Services” (January 2007)
Sally, you’re conflating legal immigrants who have to qualify to get in, provide proof of skills, good health, etc. with illegal immigrants who are typically undereducated and unskilled. Please provide a breakdown for the stats you provided on which is which in terms of contribution/withdrawal to our economy.
ANCHORESS:
“Quick observation: Sentry, do you remember that part of the Gospel where Jesus says, ‘we played you a jig and you wouldn’t dance, we sang you a dirge and you wouldn’t mourn?’ That’s immediately what popped into my head when you wrote: ‘Even if that provision did get back in the bill, it’s still a joke..’”
Well, what kind of insensitive fool plays a jig at a funeral, after all?
TIme for some humor
“The Senate failed to reach a compromise on immigration legislation, which
would have allowed illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. longer than
five years to remain, while those who have been here between two years and
five years would have to leave, but could return as guest workers. And
immigrants here less than two years will be right back with your entrees.”
-Tina Fey, SNL WEEKEND UPDATE
LOL, Laura, you really, really don’t want me breaking anything down that involves numbers. If anyone could make things more confusing, it would be me. I see what you’re saying about those first two stats tho… which appear to be talking about “immigrants” not necessarily illegal immigrants. But what about the $7 billion in taxes which does specifically state undocumented and illegal. Also the armed forces number says non-citizens.
The point I was trying to raise is this war of the stats in general. I’ve been reading lots of boards where people argue. I can’t ever seem to find a number or statistic that holds up for long… teams of people immediately descend to tear them apart and present an entirely different set — which is always the 100% Honest Truth, so help them God. Do you see what I mean? It happens both ways of course, from the Right and from the Left. The affect of all this on me is I end up not believing any of the numbers and dismissing them all. And again, it makes me think the extremes on both ends are warring with tactics designed to make the truth harder to find and the debate less accessible to ordinary people. The middle people are not being well served by the hype in my opinion. I try to keep up as best I can but it’s a challenge.
Yeah, and I take your point, but disagree. The bills introduced last year were bad, too. That doesn’t mean we should accept a worse one now. I’m sure I could come up with an analogy, but it’s midnight EST. So I’ll just say that the supposed goal of the immigration bill is to fix the immigration system. This bill fails utterly to meet that goal. Throw it in the garbage and make another one. Or make it a campaign issue and let it play out. With this bill, there will be no positive impact on securing the border either way, so we can better afford to let it ride and vote a candidate based on immigration. No, the status quo isn’t good. If this bill passes, it’ll get worse. Better to let it ride, and I don’t see why that’s such an appalling statement.
Yes, that is my plan to solve the immigration problem. To throw some math out there, we’ve got 12-20 illegal aliens since 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli. That’s 572,000-950,000 illegals per year. Pass this bill, and we see a rush on the border to a) get in in case any border security measures actually get implemented and b) more easily find a way to prove residence before Jan. 1, 2007. Proof being the word of a non-family member and an unsecured ID, i.e. a phone bill. Add 400,000 guest workers with the promise of the Senate that they really will be guests. Guest status enforced by the same people enforcing immigration law now.
There was an illegal immigration bill (Ted Kennedy supported) in 1965. Far fewer, to the point that I can’t find the numbers, illegals in this country then. In 1986, 21 years later, another immigration bill when there were 3 million illegals. In 2006-7, another 21 years later, we have another immigration bill and 12-20 million illegals. If this bill passes, would anyone care to hazard a guess how long it’ll be before immigration makes it back to the table? Or how many illegals, based on the numbers above, will be in the US then? And what damage will be done to the country, given that immigrants vote Democrat 8-1 and we can already see a major impact in every city due to their presence? Northern Virginia isn’t even bad, comparitively speaking, and we have chickens in the streets. Border states have it a lot worse. This bill passes, it will get much, much worse. And we won’t be able to drag immigration back to the forefront for a long time.
Let it ride. Get another President and Congress to deal with it. The current geniuses aren’t up to the job.
Ok, here’s my stab at it…
I vote we fix immigration first. We let those who are here, get on a path-citizenship, permanent residency, whichever your bandwidth. I’m ok with either. Now fixing the problem of people still coming over…I think a lot of that would have to be done on a more local level. It’s not the federal government that allows illegal children to attend schools paid for by local taxes. That would be your local government. So pass the local laws necessary. Fight against stupid state laws- such as Massachusetts (I think it was Mass?) passing a law that illegal residents could qualify for in state tuition. I’ll break from my liberal breatheren on that one, because we’ve fixed the problem-if there’s no reason to come here illegally, then I’ll buy into harsher penalties for those who do so after a simpler path is found. If the only way to have a better life here is to come here legally, AND THERE IS A REASONABLE PATH TO DOING SO, then most people will do so.
I think people are right that that’s something that hasn’t happened before. But we can do it,whenever we want. At the State level. It’s the STATE that gives medicaid, WIC, foodstamps, etc-they are federal funds, sure but administered BY THE STATE. So we can’t balme the ferderal government for state failings.
BUT I personally feel that part of the reason the “illegal” situation is what it is is because legal immigration has been so messed up. Fix that first.
Border fence- ok, this is not an immigration issue to me as much as a security issue. We should not conflate the two. We need to close our borders because harmful people can cross them- no problem, I buy that. I think you’d have a lot more people (possibly that phantom 70%# I hear spouting so much)backing it if it was less about immigrants who desire to work and more about keeping bad guys out. It’s part of defending our country-why isn’t it part of Defense? Now, there is no rapid way to build this as is. IF we had civil service requirements, such as Israel does (which is an EXCELLENT idea, btw) and everyone was expected to give 2 years at 18 to help their country, we’d have labor. But getting the land from the people who own it will take time. But we built the Hoover Dam with the New Deal- why can’t we build fence with welfare recipients of today?
And now I owe Ancoress some money for all the bandwidth I just used