New Congress can’t wait to pass amnesty bill

posted at 11:59 am on December 26, 2006 by Allahpundit

They’re already writing it up. The Republican point man in the Senate? St. John of Tucson.

The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.

The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support…

The plan under consideration would allow 10 million or 11 million illegal immigrants to become eligible to apply for citizenship without returning home, up from 7 million in the original Senate bill. To be granted citizenship, they would have to remain employed, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and enroll in English classes.

Flashback to November 9th, Hugh Hewitt interviewing Tony Snow:

HH: All right, now, I want to talk about immigration, as obviously, the President is a pro-regularization Republican, as I am, once the fence got passed. Now, it’s all about regularization for me. However, a lot of conservatives are worried that he’s just waiting to do the deal with Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, that is an amnesty deal, and that the fence will never get built. So question number one…

TS: No, the fence is going to be built. I mean, we’ve already made a committment to that.

***
HH: Did you see Mickey Kaus…Yeah, but no, the legislation is passed. It is up to the executive branch to get it built, and they’re not trusting the idea that it will show up. I want to move on, though, to the…

TS: Whoa, whoa, wait. I’m not letting you leave it at that, because what you do is you part by saying you guys are a bunch of liars, but I want to leave it at that.

HH: No, I’m not.

TS: Well, I’m not going to let you leave it at that. We’re going to get the fence built.

HH: I’m not calling you a liar at all. I’m saying that the public does not believe the fence is going to happen. In fact, the doubt is…

TS: Well, wait. Let me tell you something. The public needs to know, I’m telling you right now, the fence is going to be built. But I’m also telling you if you take a look, because we did a lot of work on this, too, the public also expects the rest of the stuff to get done.

The best chance of wringing a few concessions out of this will come from the House, where the Dems will want to give something to the blue dogs to placate their home districts.

Meanwhile, in Long Beach:

Police sought the public’s help Saturday as they searched for a “known thug” who shot two police officers during a traffic stop Friday on a bustling downtown street…

[Chief Anthony] Batts described Gallegos as a “known thug” and said his first arrest was in 1990 in Long Beach on a firearms violation. He was deported in 1994, he said.

“He may have been deported several times,” Batts said.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Traiters to their Country, all of them.

NRA4Freedom on December 26, 2006 at 12:09 PM

We’re only a melting pot if the incoming immigrants WANT to assimilate. They don’t. Why should they? There are no incentives…they don’t even have to learn English. Just like Katrina, you and I and anybody else that has a job will be paying for this for the rest of our lives, while the beneficiaries do nothing but b*tch and complain about how we’re not doing enough for them while they sit back and collect welfare and benefits that come out of OUR paychecks. Thank you to all conservatives who sat out the election.

JustTruth101 on December 26, 2006 at 12:16 PM

Once again, immigration reform is limited to allowing any illegal full citizenship as their reward for breaking our laws, and overloading our taxpayer subsidized giveaways. It is never about stopping the flow of illegals. NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We have already seen the failure of this plan in the mid 80′s, but heck, let’s just do it again.
Just for the record, I have no problem with legal immigration. I love living in this great country, and when we can get the best and brightest from other countries to come here, it is to our countries benefit as a whole. But the people that come here need to assimilate to our American culture, not recreate what they had back in their country of origin. We are not a melting pot anymore, now that the liberal education aristocracy has crammed their diversity religion down our throat. The only culture and history that isn’t worth being taught to immigrants, according to them, is American history and Culture. Once you lose your common heritage and identity, you lose your country.

still468 on December 26, 2006 at 12:26 PM

The fact that both sides are pandering to one part of the electorate, while selling the rest down the river, tells me all I need to know about BOTH parties.

Dam, we need a viable third option.

Romeo13 on December 26, 2006 at 12:34 PM

TS can say it’ll get done all he wants, and I’m sure he believes it. I Love Tony. He’s a good man, and he’s doing what he can in his position. The problem is that neither Bush nor TS can do anything about it.

The dems have the senate and the house. Funding will not pass, and that’s a good reason they’ll not have those houses … come next election.

This is a huge deal to people.

One Angry Christian on December 26, 2006 at 12:41 PM

It tears me up that we should legalize all the lawbreakers at the expense of the American poor. They truly are the most under-represented group in our country.

The high school drop out or high school graduate has twice the unemployment rate of all other groups in areas of high illegal immigration because of the tremendous competition for the same jobs. And teenage/young adult unemployment is off the charts (in the 30% range for black teenagers looking for work). (If I were an employer, I would hire a middle-aged adult with legal-looking docs before I would hire an inexperienced teenager for the samae job, so no “duh” that the teenagers are truly getting shafted.) After chronic unemployment, many of the poor finally just give up (welfare or working under the radar).

Look at the massive lines that formed to get the jobs at the raided meat packing plants. There ARE plenty of people who want these jobs. Our citizens need jobs to support their families, and legalzing millions of illegal immigrants will only hurt them more.

Maybe if we had a massive illegal immigrant population filled with politicians, lawyers, and business executives, these law-makers would start losing their jobs and those that were left would make an attempt to curb the tide.

These guys are so dense.

Shouldn’t we take care of our poor first instead of abandoning them to take care of the poor of other nations?

TwoCents on December 26, 2006 at 12:43 PM

Noted at Traction Control

Bipartisan Effort to Draft Immigration Bill

The bipartisan bill would place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship.

[And just where are our elected representatives when we need them? Make sure yours doesn’t go and do anything, well bipartisan. From this renewed attempt to abdicate the sovereignty of the nation in order to pander for 11 million votes, it is evident that the 100 million voters formerly known as U.S. Citizens needs to throw out this bunch of incumbents, too. - Ed.]

And inside the article is this charming piece of news:

The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.

[Perfect. Just perfect. Perhaps it’s time to start recall proceedings now. - Ed.]

USCitizen on December 26, 2006 at 12:46 PM

gee, what a surprise. i guess all of those who did follow our laws & waited years to become american citizens & also want to assimliate into our culture – just got a huge slap in the face. i don’t care what you say Slublog, it is AMNESTY.

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Amnesty – to reward those who BROKE THE LAW

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 12:55 PM

well, it was said that the U.S. would become a third world country by 2050. it’s already happening right now by this amnesty bill

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 12:58 PM

I didn’t think they would really make people go back. As far as the fence — what reason would there be not to build it? To not keep people from entering this country illegally? What a joke!

EF on December 26, 2006 at 1:01 PM

If a Mexican is in my country with a Mexican flag, can’t I consider him an enemy combatant invading and shoot him??

“Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Ringmaster on December 26, 2006 at 1:02 PM

recall proceedings, or impeachment?

I mean, they ARE breaking the law, and infact violating the Constitution.

One Angry Christian on December 26, 2006 at 1:04 PM

gee, what a surprise. i guess all of those who did follow our laws & waited years to become american citizens & also want to assimliate into our culture – just got a huge slap in the face. i don’t care what you say Slublog, it is AMNESTY.

Nice of you to point me out, considering I had not even posted in this thread. Mature, compelling and rich.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 1:07 PM

I live just a few miles north of the mexican/USA border.
My district voted for a democrat. Will they get a surprise when the democrats legalize the wetbacks. Our hospitals are already overrun, and our schools held back with non-english speaking kids. Oh well, I am 78 and it won’t be my problem much longer!

navy1946 on December 26, 2006 at 1:31 PM

You know, I’m beginning to think it really is too much to ask that we have a thread devoted to this issue without some jackass using a racial slur.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 1:39 PM

I think that we should make it very clear to those Congresspersons that are inclined to vote for Amnesty,that if they thought that the Republicans getting taught a lesson in the last elections for abandoning their base was brutal, they should stop and think before hitting that “yea” button…we will not forget those that are hell bent on giving this country away to Mexico.

DoctorDentons on December 26, 2006 at 1:39 PM

Will they get a surprise when the democrats legalize the wetbacks.

niiice

crr6 on December 26, 2006 at 1:42 PM

The bungling Republicans blew their chance to make significant changes and now their job must be to stop the left at all costs. They should use fillibusters, vetos and any other means necessary to hold them at bay for the next two years. During that time they must convince the voting public to reject the leftist Democrats and regain the majority in congress.

rplat on December 26, 2006 at 1:45 PM

You know, I’m beginning to think it really is too much to ask that we have a thread devoted to this issue without some jackass using a racial slur.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 1:39 PM

So Slublog, what do you call them? Undocumented citizens?

right2bright on December 26, 2006 at 1:58 PM

no problem Slublog, since you support amnesty. oh, that’s right, it’s called “immigration reform” (yeah, right)

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 1:59 PM

So Slublog, what do you call them? Undocumented citizens?

Nope. I call them illegal aliens. It has the twin attributes of being – a)true and b)not a racial slur.

no problem Slublog, since you support amnesty. oh, that’s right, it’s called “immigration reform” (yeah, right)

I’ve explained my position in some detail to you. Your inability to understand my view doesn’t give you the right to misrepresent it.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:02 PM

call it what you will Slublog, it’s amnesty no matter what & it’s a disgrace to this country & a big FU to those who obeyed our laws & WANT to assimilate into our culture

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 2:06 PM

Across the board Impeachment seems to be the only way to get our law breaking government under control. Seems to me that I might have been the first one here to make that point.

DannoJyd on December 26, 2006 at 2:07 PM

I believe John Kyl has pledged to filibuster amnesty.

This might be the time to think about the unthinkable. We want to tie up the House and Senate for the next couple of years. Or at least until the next election cycle so about a year. How about teaming up with the nutroots and pushing for impeachment. It would be awfully hard for the President Arbusto to sign an amnesty bill while he is fighting impeachment charges and, if he was convicted, a President Cheney might be more sympathetic to stopping this.

The moonbats are clamoring for action from the Dem leadership. Let’s start the meme that we are willing to throw our weight into the cause if only to stop amnesty. They are rabid enough to welcome it. Also, we would only need a few Republicans to vote for impeachment. Those few would not be punished in 2008 because they would make it clear they are voting to stop amnesty.

Bill C on December 26, 2006 at 2:08 PM

besides, did’t you see the headline for this thread. if you didn’t – “New Congress can’t wait to pass amnesty bill” note the key word in this thread – “Amnesty”

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 2:10 PM

Hmmmm… WetBack… it used to mean someone who swam across the Rio Grande to get here illegally… explain to me how that is Racist????

Derogatory? sure…. racist??? nope… you can have WHITE wetbacks…

Romeo13 on December 26, 2006 at 2:10 PM

Hmmmm… WetBack… it used to mean someone who swam across the Rio Grande to get here illegally… explain to me how that is Racist????

Derogatory? sure…. racist??? nope… you can have WHITE wetbacks…

Romeo13 on December 26, 2006 at 2:10 PM

And you can hove Arab wetbacks which what I fear.

Bill C on December 26, 2006 at 2:11 PM

Gee, let’s see what American Heritage has to say about it:

wet·back (wĕt’băk’) pronunciation
n. Offensive Slang.

Used as a disparaging term for a Mexican, especially a laborer who crosses the U.S. border illegally.

[From the fact that the Rio Grande is a common entry point.]

Got any other racial slurs you’d like to justify?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:12 PM

Wait, Reagan already fixed this problem, with this exact solution, back in 1986.

How can this still be a problem?

Guess we have to try the exact same solution again until it works. I bet it’ll work this time… (ok, maybe not).

Honestly, lets use the exact same wording and passages (with the dates changed forward 20 years). Since we all know it won’t work (and didn’t work), won’t fix anything (and didn’t fix anything), and will leave us in as bad (or worse) shape in another 20 years (see today for an example), why are we bothering with new wording for an old fix?

Is anyone really of the opinion that this will do anything useful for the immigration problem?

Go Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 2006 2026 2046… surely it’ll work eventually.

gekkobear on December 26, 2006 at 2:13 PM

You know, I’m beginning to think it really is too much to ask that we have a thread devoted to this issue without some jackass using a racial slur.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 1:39 PM

Please don’t engage in the shaming language of the left. The word is meant to be descriptive. It is only racist when meant to be. And I don’t think that is what it is meant.

Bill C on December 26, 2006 at 2:14 PM

Please don’t engage in the shaming language of the left. The word is meant to be descriptive. It is only racist when meant to be. And I don’t think that is what it is meant.

Easy for you to say. However, since I’m a conservative with a Mexican background, I find the term insulting and offensive.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:15 PM

And I should add that those who resort to such terms should be shamed.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Gee, let’s see what American Heritage has to say about it:

wet·back (wĕt’băk’) pronunciation
n. Offensive Slang.

Used as a disparaging term for a Mexican, especially a laborer who crosses the U.S. border illegally.

[From the fact that the Rio Grande is a common entry point.]

Got any other racial slurs you’d like to justify?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:12 PM

I may be offensive but it doesn’t mean it is racist; considering Mexican is not a race. It is a word that describes someone who enters the country via the southern border, illegally.

Again, stop using the leftist language techniques.

Bill C on December 26, 2006 at 2:17 PM

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:02 PM

You are against racial slur, but it is ok for you to call someone a jackass?
Juat trying to figure out your logic.

Are you sure “wetback” is not anything more than a crude name for illegal immigrants that cross into the U.S. from the south (wet back, crossing the Rio Grande). The term was specifically applied to an illegal immigrant, and not a general racial slur. Or are you one of those who believe anything to do with another race must be racial motivated.

right2bright on December 26, 2006 at 2:18 PM

Easy for you to say. However, since I’m a conservative with a Mexican background, I find the term insulting and offensive.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:15 PM

To quote Rush, “It is your fault that you are offended.” No one here should have to change the way they speak in order to make you feel comfortable. You are imposing your own standard to the word wetback that was not meant certainly by me and I would guess by most on this board.

Bill C on December 26, 2006 at 2:19 PM

Ask one hundred people what a “wetback” is, and most will give the definition I quoted above. The continued attempts by everyone on this board to justify or downplay its use, despite the word’s history and common use as a slur against Mexicans, more than justifies the light insult I used against the guy who first used it.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:23 PM

You are imposing your own standard to the word wetback that was not meant certainly by me and I would guess by most on this board.

It’s offensive. I’ve banned people before for using it. “Illegal alien” works just as well.

Allahpundit on December 26, 2006 at 2:23 PM

Actually the term “Wetback” is not racist. It’s actually a government operation that once took place to try and stem illegal immigration.

See for yourself here.

Scorched_Earth on December 26, 2006 at 2:24 PM

Having said that, though, I apologize to Navy1946 for the insult.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:24 PM

Actually the term “Wetback” is not racist. It’s actually a government operation that once took place to try and stem illegal immigration.

I don’t believe that justifies its usage in this debate, however. Most people consider it an offensive term, and using it does little to advance the argument.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:27 PM

It’s offensive. I’ve banned people before for using it. “Illegal alien” works just as well.

Not wishing to seem niggardly or be banned, I will end this disagreement.

Now let’s get back to discussing impeachment.

Bill C on December 26, 2006 at 2:29 PM

I don’t believe that justifies its usage in this debate, however. Most people consider it an offensive term, and using it does little to advance the argument.

I agree Slu. It all depends on the usage.

Scorched_Earth on December 26, 2006 at 2:29 PM

Slublog,

If you want to continue this debate, why don’t you start a thread on your blog? If not, I certainly understand.

Bill C on December 26, 2006 at 2:30 PM

Bill – I’d rather not. I posted something on my blog once about this issue and immigration and attracted some actual racists (I don’t think anyone who posted here is a racist, even if I do believe the term itself in its common usage is) The experience was extremely unpleasant and not one I wish to repeat.

Sometimes technorati is more trouble than it’s worth.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:41 PM

(I don’t think anyone who posted here is a racist, even if I do believe the term itself in its common usage is)

Excuse me. That should read “the term itself in its common useage can be)”

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 2:44 PM

Getting back on topic, I hope this bill fails or is filibustered. Contrary to popular belief, I do not support amnesty.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 3:02 PM

if it does pass, this country is offically a third world country

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 3:18 PM

OOOooHHHhh OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…….

SOMEBODY GET THE GAFFER TAPE—–I’M GONNA BLOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW!!

After that b*tch, Nancy Pelosi gets finished with her four day long party Carnival Inaugural, she is driving this country straight into the seventh ring of Hell.

I need a drink.

A big damn drink.

seejanemom on December 26, 2006 at 3:19 PM

correction – if it does pass, then the U.S. is an official third world country

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 3:20 PM

I’m through with the Republican Party if this bill passes.

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 3:20 PM

if it does pass, this country is offically a third world country

How? We still have the greatest military, an advanced technological, transportation and communication infrastructure and an enormous GDP. While amnesty would be quite bad for the country, I hardly think it would drive us into third world territory.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 3:23 PM

At present, America seems intent on proving to the world that it is, indeed, a paper tiger. In war (as we let the Axis acquire nukes), at the border (what border?), in schools and in the media, nearly everyone bows before the gods of Political Correctness. It’s like a siren song drowning out everything else since the November election debacle.

I spit on it.

Halley on December 26, 2006 at 3:24 PM

I need a drink.

A big damn drink.

I’ll bet Nancy’s shindig is going to have some fine spirits. Maybe we should crash it.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 3:25 PM

Navy, seems like the use of this very descriptive and racially non-specific term for illegal aliens is more trouble than it’s worth. I agree with you and Bill, but look at the BS you get for it. Wasted thread.

Back to Tony Snow: I call Bullshit on Tony. The fence is not going to get built, and it’s his fault, and it’s Bush’s fault, and it’s McCain’s fault. They have handed the imbecile Democrats an opportunity to do what they do best: undermine national security.

My money goes to the first Republican who takes this issue nationwide and into the light, as long as he/she isn’t named Tancredo. There are many, many Democrats who are in no position to support Bush’s amnesty program and will cross over, just as many RINOs have crossed over to the open borders party.

Let 2008 be about the borders and the war on terrorists and nothing else.

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 3:26 PM

Slublog,

How? We still have the greatest military, an advanced technological, transportation and communication infrastructure and an enormous GDP. While amnesty would be quite bad for the country, I hardly think it would drive us into third world territory.

And no way to maintain it all.

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 3:28 PM

But how does that make us a third world country if one bill passes?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 3:30 PM

[Chief Anthony] Batts described Gallegos as a “known thug” and said his first arrest was in 1990 in Long Beach on a firearms violation. He was deported in 1994, he said.

“He may have been deported several times,” Batts said.

I guess he is one of those “guest thugs” we are all supposed to be so enthusiastic about. I’d like to say to Gallegos: “Welcome to America! We obviously didn’t care enough about our borders – or our fellow citizens – to keep you out!”

A look at white versus Hispanic incarceration rates:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/061215_nd.htm

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 3:32 PM

You grant citizenship to a huge group of illegals who vote as a block in allegiance to another country, that’s how. I guess you don’t live in the southwest.

I don’t like to cry that the sky is falling, but only a fool doesn’t understand this problem.

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 3:35 PM

But how does that make us a third world country if one bill passes?

Tens (or hundreds) of millions of Third World immigrants later and you won’t even have to ask.

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 3:35 PM

Now we know why BushCo and a bunch of key Repubbies didn’t seem very concerned over losing power in November. Could it be that the elections were a great way to purge conservatives from the party so they could tend to their agenda with like minded Democrats?

I had opportunity to ask a union rep why they support the Democrats who support flooding the labor market with so many illegal non union workers. He told me straight up that the Democrats intended to make all these illegals citizens so the unions would have millions of additional workers paying union dues very soon.

Buzzy on December 26, 2006 at 3:42 PM

You grant citizenship to a huge group of illegals who vote as a block in allegiance to another country, that’s how. I guess you don’t live in the southwest.

I don’t like to cry that the sky is falling, but only a fool doesn’t understand this problem.

I understand the problem, but your definitions still don’t explain how the United States, with the passage of one bill, would become a third world country.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 3:43 PM

Buzzy,

I don’t think they intentionally wanted to lose the elections. On the other hand, I think they certainly are taking a “glass is half full” perspective towards the matter. Immigration deform has been a fetish for this president.

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 3:45 PM

I understand the problem, but your definitions still don’t explain how the United States, with the passage of one bill, would become a third world country.

Among other mechanisms, the inability to educate a sufficient number of scientists and engineers needed to maintain a First World economy would be a substantial concern. It isn’t just a matter of producing a sufficient number of such individuals but producing them in proportion to the greater population. If it comes to needing highly educated professionals in demanding, intellectual professions, the evidence is that Hispanics are detrimental:

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002109.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001959.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003517.html

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 3:50 PM

I’ll bet Nancy’s shindig is going to have some fine spirits. Maybe we should crash it.

I’ve already been personally escorted to the door by Ms. Pelosi at a fund raiser for Barbara Boxer after I yelled out, “Where’s the free drinks?!”

EF on December 26, 2006 at 3:57 PM

To be granted citizenship, they would have to remain employed, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and enroll in English classes.

Sure. Has anyone given any thought as to the absolute idiocy of this? How in the world will the government acquire and track all of that information? On over 11 million people, no less.

I see another huge, expensive bureaucracy in the works.

Hell, it’d be easier to just tell the illegals that all is forgiven and you’re now a citizen. We’ll even give you the citizenship test in spanish. Rather than waste zillions of dollars on the resources to track the data, let’s give them all a house too.

BacaDog on December 26, 2006 at 4:02 PM

Sure. Has anyone given any thought as to the absolute idiocy of this? How in the world will the government acquire and track all of that information? On over 11 million people, no less.

They’ve given it plenty of thought. They know exactly what they are doing. Under the previous Hagel-Martinez proposal immigrants would have only had to pay three years of back taxes (with no fees or penalties) regardless of whether they were here for three years or fifteen years. (Remember though, the Banana Republicans don’t want you calling this an amnesty.)

What will probably end up happening is that they will pass this bill and people will either fudge their income or, more
likely, simply not pay their taxes. There is no proposal for deporting those who don’t go along with the program. They get to stay anyway. This will leave millions of illegals out of the loop since most of them aren’t interested in citizenship, just residency. Gradually, subsequent legislation, or perhaps moves on the part of a future president, will waive the back tax requirement altogether. In the end, most will likely only have to pass the ridiculously trivial “English language” requirement (where they will learn a negligible amount of functional English), an easy to study citizenship test, and be waived on through just like 1986 all over again but much bigger. The same system that cannot track visa violators will be expected to cope with all these illegals. Expect a huge amount of immigration fraud along the way. Welcome to America!

But remember: don’t dare call it an amnesty!

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 4:13 PM

With poll after poll showing that Americans want less immigration of any kind, especially illegal, Congress and the President refuses our will. Aparently our government is broken, it no longer works for ordinary citizens. If it did, there wouldn’t be any talk of amnesty and the wall would be built as we speak.

With a broken system, two choices remain. Impeachment or a citizens revolution. I would prefer the former but will accept the latter as I will never accept amnesty. Of course we can collectively do nothing and just let amnesty happen. That will be the end of this country as we know it today. No borders, no sovereignty and no rule of law. The end.

I believe this issue has different boiling points depending on geographic location. California, Texas and Arizona are about to explode over this issue. Unfortunately, I believe we will see physical violence taking hold in these areas before the new year is out. In the Northeast, many remain blissfully ignorant of the issue. However, the awareness of it is definitely on the rise. This issue is like a can of gasoline waiting for a spark. When it get’s it, the explosion that ensues will engulf the entire country. It’s ashame our government has put us in this position through their incompetence and deriliction of their duties.

voiceofreason on December 26, 2006 at 4:23 PM

Slu, I unwisely put myself behind the “Third World Country” notion, which I think is hyperbole. But if that overstates the issue, then your “one bill” assertion understates it.

It isn’t “one bill”; it’s 7 million illegal aliens given amnesty in 1996 — largely from one country — followed by a massive invasion of illegals — again, largely from one country — along with the millions of children born to the illegals, who are insta-citizens (really, really bad policy) and then another amnesty, this time twice as large.

It’s racial voting patterns which create a racialist “Hispanic” caucus, which pushes illegal-alien-friendly legislation, which expands the cycle, to where the U.S. is under a focused influence of citizens from essentially one foreign country.

Have you seen any rallies of millions of illegal aliens carrying the flag of Sweden lately?

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 4:24 PM

Bravo “Jaibones”, well spoken.

rplat on December 26, 2006 at 4:32 PM

Anyone who gets amnesty under this bill will never be a true citizen in my eyes. They attempted to steal citizenship and our politicians were all too happy to put citizenship up for sale to them.

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 4:34 PM

Btw, Slu, since we’ve gone here anyway: what the heck is a Hispanic? Are we talking Spanish? Or someone from Hispanola? And since “Mexican” seems to be a race to some people, what race exactly is it?

I see lots of people whose ancestors are from Mexico who don’t look anything alike.

On the original point, I wouldn’t want to allow 35% of the votes in a Presidential election to go to first generation Americans from China or Saudi Arabia…would you? Why Mexico? Because their citizens can’t find jobs and have lots of kids? This doesn’t seem like a rational public policy to me…

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Slu, I unwisely put myself behind the “Third World Country” notion, which I think is hyperbole. But if that overstates the issue, then your “one bill” assertion understates it.

That was my point. My question was ultimately directed at Starblazer, who said “correction – if it does pass, then the U.S. is an official third world country.” It’s that sort of rhetorical excess that makes the argument more difficult than it needs to be.

You and tommy1 have put forth some good arguments detailing what an influx of illegal immigrants would do to the economy and have raised some interesting points (although I have seen data suggesting that minority higher education achievement is more linked to the failure of K-12 than a refusal to assimilate) – those are the sorts of things we should base our arguments upon, as I believe phrases like ‘third world country’ tend to keep people from taking the pro-enforcement side seriously, as do the comments of voiceofreason, which I think are unnecessary.

Threatening revolution or speaking of the “inevitability” of physical violence are both talking points that just invite people to dismiss the pro-enforcement argument as mere ravings.

There is a sound argument to be made that unless we stem the flow of illegals, the medical, social service and educational infrastructure in this country will be taxed to the breaking point. Sticking to these arguments will help in this debate, since facts and history suggest enforcement first is the best route to take.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 5:07 PM

On the original point, I wouldn’t want to allow 35% of the votes in a Presidential election to go to first generation Americans from China or Saudi Arabia…would you? Why Mexico? Because their citizens can’t find jobs and have lots of kids? This doesn’t seem like a rational public policy to me…

This question seems to assume I agree with the pro-amnesty argument. That assumption is incorrect.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 5:09 PM

Why is this surprising? The House was our only defense with this, but some of y’all were saying the Republicans deserved to lose the House. Congratulations! You’ve also lost your country.

SouthernGent on December 26, 2006 at 5:10 PM

This question seems to assume I agree with the pro-amnesty argument. That assumption is incorrect.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 5:09 PM

I see that I was letting others define your position for you. Sorry.

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 5:20 PM

He told me straight up that the Democrats intended to make all these illegals citizens so the unions would have millions of additional workers paying union dues very soon.

Buzzy on December 26, 2006 at 3:42 PM

That was the pitch the unions gave the blacks back in the late 50′s early 60′s. Look what it got them, low paying wages, few were allowed to move up to union leadership. Like most promises to minorities, they are way to keep them in line–not give them any power.

I wish everyone could walk into most any emergency room at midnight on any night in Californina. You would probably be one of the few english speaking “patients” waiting for treatment. Wall to wall illegal immigrants, looking for free treatment. It is remarkable, and you will never see a newstory about the impact.
The fight California had to eliminate Spanish speaking classes in grammar school students and institute immersion english was a classic fight that should be studied.

And FYI, for all of the liberals, look at the schools in Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Irvine, and look at the schools in the Pico district, East LA, Orange, Hollenbeck, South Central. That will show you how much the liberals care about the illegal immigrants and other minorities.

right2bright on December 26, 2006 at 5:21 PM

So, anyway…screw this amnesty bill and the Republicans it rode in on.

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 5:22 PM

No problem. Starblazer seems to have it in his/her (darn internet) head that when I said “comprehensive immigration reform” I meant “amnesty.” While I understand that the president uses the same terminology to describe his amnesty-based program, I do not agree with him.

My own view is a multi-step approach that begins with a wall. You’ve got to figure out how to stop the leak before you can start bailing out the boat, so to speak.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 5:25 PM

My own view is a multi-step approach that begins with a wall. You’ve got to figure out how to stop the leak before you can start bailing out the boat

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 5:25 PM

Exactly.

In the meanwhile, San Fran Nan is dolling up* for a four day orgy of Nannism to tell us all that she is really a blue collar gal, and pay no attention to the vinyards and multi-millionaire real estate.

And she just can’t wait to screw the suckers in the lower middle class who believe it, as someone else has pointed out. Guess who loses out when Swift can pay Paulo $11 an hour instead of paying Paul $21 an hour? Hint: it isn’t guys who write for Weekly Standard or National Review…

(*I still say she had them done…)

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 5:54 PM

Why is this surprising? The House was our only defense with this, but some of y’all were saying the Republicans deserved to lose the House. Congratulations! You’ve also lost your country.

Blame those Republicans who weren’t staunch enough on immigration, not on the voters. Those who failed to support tough immigration policies lost much bigger than those who did (not that the entire election season wasn’t an incredibly tough one last time around, Republicans were just trying to hang in there as it was). Parapundit is down for the moment, but he had results from a study a few weeks ago which showed that those Republicans who supported immigration deform sustained much higher losses last time around.

tommy1 on December 26, 2006 at 5:58 PM

I’ve already been personally escorted to the door by Ms. Pelosi at a fund raiser for Barbara Boxer after I yelled out, “Where’s the free drinks?!”

Awesome. I crashed John Baldacci’s victory party a few years back, when he was re-elected to Congress. His family owns an Italian restaurant, so the food was incredible.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 6:01 PM

you can call it “conprehensive immigrqation reform” all you want Slublog, but the fact remains – in reality it still Amnesty

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 6:14 PM

correction – you can call it “Conprehensive immigration reform all you want Slublog, but the fact remains is that is still amnesty

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 6:16 PM

you can call it “conprehensive immigrqation reform” all you want Slublog, but the fact remains – in reality it still Amnesty

Yup. Okay.

What exactly is your motivation for continuing to misrepresent my views?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 6:18 PM

correction – but the fact remains, it’s still amnesty

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 6:19 PM

like “I” said, you can call it what ever you want

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 6:20 PM

like “I” said, you can call it what ever you want

Sure thing. But that doesn’t answer my question.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 6:22 PM

AMAZING I see so much talk about the illegals coming across but it is really all about politic’s period. If anyone in this blog who had a family to provide for and couldn’t find work and saw all that is given to the illegals in our country,wouldn’t you come illegally if you could?? Our unions,which are tearing this country apart to get a piece of the action, including the teachers unions is a major disgrace for this country. Non citizens are getting better care,jobs,school deferments and everything else than our seniors, vets or low income citizens.WHAT the heck is wrong Each of us better start putting pressure starting at the local level on up before we are into a third world status. All our major problems are with who gets a darn vote, NOT on what the people in this country want them to do. I have a family ene pool that covers many nationality’s and all came through the legal system.WHY are our senators and congressmen even thinking about an amnesty type program is more than baffling to me. I know I will be starting right here in NH with the only republican senators left in just about the who;e northeast. It is a start. Happy New Year, I hope.

bones47 on December 26, 2006 at 6:23 PM

did you not say in another thread about this that you supported “comprehensive immigration reform”? well, guess what – it’s called amnesty, so therefor , i have not misrepresent your veiws nor do i have any motivation whatsoever & for the last time , you can call it what ever you want

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 6:28 PM

did you not say in another thread about this that you supported “comprehensive immigration reform”? well, guess what – it’s called amnesty, so therefor , i have not misrepresent your veiws nor do i have any motivation whatsoever & for the last time , you can call it what ever you want

So you get to define what I believe?

That is quite simply the most intellectually dishonest argument technique I’ve seen on this site. Again, I’ve explained to you many times my definition of “comprehensive immigration reform” and it does not resemble the president’s plan. Your inability, or more to the point, refusal to acknowledge those differences seems to indicate a grudge of sorts rather than a disagreement on the issue itself.

Your answers in this thread and your out-of-the-blue mention of my views (without provocation) also point to this conclusion. So I will ask you again to please stop misrepresenting my views on this.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 6:33 PM

Let 2008 be about the borders and the war on terrorists and nothing else.

Jaibones on December 26, 2006 at 3:26 PM

AMEN.

NTWR on December 26, 2006 at 6:38 PM

Medi-Cal pays for over 100,000 births by undocumented women

From that racist, conservative rag the LA Times…

LOS ANGELES – More than 100,000 undocumented women each year bear children in California with expenses paid by Medi-Cal, according to state reports.

Such births and related expenses account for more than $400 million of the nearly $1 billion that the program spends annually on health care for illegal immigrants in California, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing state reports.

PS: in the vineyard industry, it’s common to hear Mexicans born in the USA refer to illegal aliens by the dreaded “WB” term. They’re pissed to be losing jobs and paying taxes for jerks who give them hell for speaking English, too.

NTWR on December 26, 2006 at 6:42 PM

fine. you can call your view of “conprehensive immigration reform” not amnesty all you want.

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 6:50 PM

if they had built the 300ft concrete wall with 100,000volt wire across the wall from Texas to California with only 3 points of entry & landmines in front of the wall that stretchs to the Mexican border and with the U.S. Milltary patrolling behind the wall with other sercurity measures, then we probably wouldn’t have this problem & yes, i’m willing to pay higher taxes to fund this for a very long time.

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 6:56 PM

For the record, here is my version of comprehensive immigration reform:

1. Build a wall. Stopping the flow of illegal immigrants is the most important step in order to avoid a repeat of the Reagan-era immigration debacle.

2. Once the wall is built, start enforcing the laws against hiring illegal immigrants. One of the big questions regarding immigration reform is whether we can identify who is illegal. The best way to do this, I believe, is through employers. There should be economic disincentives to those who break employment laws.

3. Tighten up the laws on who receives entitlement benefits, such as medicare, welfare or school loan programs intended for citizens. Since many of these programs are state-based, some states will resist. Overcome this resistance by tying highway funds to compliance.

4. Settle the constitutional questions of citizenship raised by the 14th amendment, either through another amendment or through new Supreme Court interpretations of the amendment brought about with legal proceedings. In addition, make English the official language of the United States for government transactions. This will provide an incentive to learn the language, a vital step in assimilation.

5. Deport all illegal immigrants who have committed a crime other than illegal status, including non violent crimes such as drug use.

From here, we need to acknowledge the reality that we quite simply do not have the ability to deport 11 million to 20 million people. Since a wall would have been built by this time, there are no new coming in, so the question becomes what do we do with those who have not been deported?

This is where a sort of point system would come in. Those who have jobs and pay taxes would be the first considered for citizenship programs. Those who do not would be later in the list, or not considered at all and would be deported. Citizenship could take either the form of classes now offered, or would be a more Ellis Island-type approach of a processing center. Both are consistent with tradition and law.

Until a person does the work to become a citizen, they are considered a resident alien and not entitled to the benefits of citizenship. No general pardon will be given to them for committing the original crime of entering this country illegally, and they would be forced to pay a fine (either removed through an income tax or paid direct) and serve a probationary period before citizenship. If a crime of any type is committed during that probation, they are deported.

6. Clean up the election system to ensure that no illegal immigrant votes count toward electing people to public office. Require photo ID for all voters and paper ballots or records of votes.

That’s what I mean by comprehensive immigration reform.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 7:02 PM

This thread is quite a quandry. On one hand we have people on the right in favor of impeaching bush to stop amnesty at all costs. On the other hand we have people enaging in politically correct left wing double speak that can’t even bring themselves to use a term that might be offensive to illegals. The term clearly applies to people who entered by rough terrian, ie not at a diplomatic point of entry ie illegally. Im dissapointed to see Allah adopt left wing PC moderation policies on a term that has nothing to do with race.

The chances for popular support for stopping amnesty legislation is exactly zero when on right wing blogs you can not use a term that is offensive to illegals

Resolute on December 26, 2006 at 7:06 PM

The chances for popular support for stopping amnesty legislation is exactly zero when on right wing blogs you can not use a term that is offensive to illegals

Actually, it’s offensive to quite a few people, as it most often refers to Mexicans and is a rather derogatory term. What does using it add to the debate?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 7:08 PM

Awesome. I crashed John Baldacci’s victory party a few years back, when he was re-elected to Congress. His family owns an Italian restaurant, so the food was incredible.

No drinks. No food for me. All I got is old Nancy politely grabbing my arm and saying, “You can go now.” lol!

EF on December 26, 2006 at 7:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2