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

i just read your post & i was wrong of saying you supported amnesty & i apologize for that. i was wrong. sorry for misrepresenting your views. your plan is a heck of alot better than Bush’s amnesty plan. although, i still pefer a 300ft. conrete wall from Texas to California. boy, do i feel really stupid now. again, you were right & i was wrong.

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 7:16 PM

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

So how many drinks does it require each night to keep the nightmares away?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 7:20 PM

By saying it

most often refers to Mexicans

you have just admitted that race has nothing to do with it. “Illegal alien” denotes someone living here illegally, for any number of reasons. The term in question is specifically refering to someone who recently snuck across an international border. The whole point of the term is in pointing out the difference between someone who has a paperwork problem vs someone who physically got into the country illegally.

You can’t see the value in such a discusion when one of the topics is if a fence would be built? Illegal alien is a derogatory term as well and so is felon. This is a case of people imagaine it is refering to a certain race therefore your right to be offended overrides what the speaker is actually saying.

Resolute on December 26, 2006 at 7:22 PM

I appreciate you saying that, Starblazer. My major issue with Bush’s plan is that it’s not comprehensive enough, and too much pardon is given to those who did break the law by crossing into our borders.

Unfortunately, my plan would be DOA, but it’s a fun thought.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 7:22 PM

You can’t see the value in such a discusion when one of the topics is if a fence would be built? Illegal alien is a derogatory term as well and so is felon. This is a case of people imagaine it is refering to a certain race therefore your right to be offended overrides what the speaker is actually saying.

Actually, illegal alien and felon are not derogatory terms – they are descriptive. An illegal alien is someone who has come to this country illegally and a felon is someone who has committed a felony crime.

The term in question here is, in common usage, intended as a derogatory and is most often used in association with Mexicans. Because the term has become so associated with a slur against a particular group, it has lost any purpose as a descriptive term and it’s for that reason that it adds nothing to the debate. How is your argument strengthened through use of the term? How is it weakened if you don’t get to use that term?

Also, how is it descriptive if someone never crossed a river to get here in the first place?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 7:27 PM

i think that my plan to have that 300ft. concrete wall with all of the other stuff i mentioned for that wall would also be DOA as well

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 7:31 PM

Slublog, actually your plan is very similar to the Attrition Through Enforcement plan that most Americans favor (according to a Zogby poll).

numbersUSA outlines it and has ways to fax congress and the President for free. The site is a wealth of information and tracks all votes regarding the immigration issue.

http://www.grassfire.org has a petition to sign at the moment that requests amnesty for the border patrol agents who are being jailed for doing their job.

NTWR on December 26, 2006 at 7:34 PM

i knew someone from high school who i use to hang out with & he did refer Mexicans as “WB” & i told him not to say that anymore because i thought it was wrong for him to say that, of course this was a long time ago & even before all of this illegal immigrants stuff came up. i have no problem with any ethnic group or anyone as long as they don’t piss me off, because if they do, i don’t care what color a person is, i will respond to what they say about me.

Starblazer on December 26, 2006 at 7:40 PM

Slublog, actually your plan is very similar to the Attrition Through Enforcement plan that most Americans favor (according to a Zogby poll).

Zogby?

Uh, oh. :-)

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 7:43 PM

I know, I know…

NTWR on December 26, 2006 at 7:45 PM

Gee, what laws do I get to break? (I don’t really want to break any).
Illegal aliens, O.J., Bubba Clinton, Mrs. Bubba Clinton, Representative Jefferson, D-Louisiana, Sandy Burglar, The New York Times, Jesse HiJackson, Edward Kennedy, 15% of the NBA, on and on and on.
Oh, I forgot, I am not allowed to break the law because I am a Conservative, Christian, white-male.
Soon: Press 1 for Spanish
Press 2 for Ebonics
Press 11 for English

mountainmanbob on December 26, 2006 at 7:50 PM

I am not an Etymology expert, but lets think about the word itself. It is quite clearly refering to someone who recently passed difficult terrain or even boats to arrive here. I mean it is a compound word it isnt that hard to figure out what it means. You are going to have to explain how that is racist beyond the fact that many of those people may happen to be of a certain race. I mean would that term ever be used agaisnt a “Mexican” who was here legally. Or even someone who was an illegal alien of the paperwork variety. I think not, and this is where your argument falls apart as nothing more then politcal corectness.

Resolute on December 26, 2006 at 7:54 PM

Oh, and there’s a NEW entitlement looming for illegal aliens courtesy of the new congress: free legal aid!

He’s not a kook or an alarmist and he doesn’t hear voices, strange eerie ones, in his head. He understands all too well what can happen and how if the public has been lulled into a false sense of security — especially when the issue is illegal immigration.

As absurd as this story line surely must seem to rational people, Mr. Boehm worries that someday taxpayers actually could be forced to pay for lawyers representing illegal aliens in the U.S. who want amnesty and citizenship.

Boehm is co-founder and chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia nonpartisan foundation promoting ethics in public life. He also is not delusional.

Send your letters, faxes, get on the phone. Things are getting a little too wacko for my taste.

NTWR on December 26, 2006 at 7:54 PM

P.S. I didnt use the term as I dont even live near a border, anyone illegal here most likely has done so by a paperwork issue. The original poster specifically said he lived near a border

Resolute on December 26, 2006 at 7:56 PM

I am not an Etymology expert, but lets think about the word itself. It is quite clearly refering to someone who recently passed difficult terrain or even boats to arrive here. I mean it is a compound word it isnt that hard to figure out what it means. You are going to have to explain how that is racist beyond the fact that many of those people may happen to be of a certain race. I mean would that term ever be used agaisnt a “Mexican” who was here legally. Or even someone who was an illegal alien of the paperwork variety. I think not, and this is where your argument falls apart as nothing more then politcal corectness.

While I don’t believe the word has the same level of offensiveness as true racial slurs, I believe it does have a racial component in common usage. My argument is not based in political correctness – it’s based in efficacy. How, exactly, is one’s argument strengthened by using a word that many consider offensive?

Also, Mirriam-Webster, American Heritage and Wikipedia disagree with you on the racial usage of the word.

More to the point, why would one desire to use a word considered offensive to make a political point on a sensitive policy issue?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:01 PM

Also, Mirriam-Webster, American Heritage and Wikipedia disagree with you on the racial usage of the word.

Correction: disagree with your view on the racial aspects of the word.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:04 PM

Slu—-bless your heart, you’ve had a hard day…

I’ll buy the first round.

The next one will be on Nancy…Literally on Nancy.

It worked for Dorothy.
(via Sniper One)

seejanemom on December 26, 2006 at 8:07 PM

I’ll buy the first round.

Heh. Too late. The first round has been poured and drank (drunk?, dranken?)

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:11 PM

Slu—-bless your heart, you’ve had a hard day…

You have no idea.

I’m on vacation this week, so my wife picked up a day shift. She usually works a couple of nights a week so she can stay home with our daughter. Most of my day has been spent chasing my daughter (who is nine months old), keeping her from sticking electrical cords in her mouth or listening to her scream when she realized that she hadn’t seen mommy in hours.

Cabernet…take me away…

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:14 PM

The original poster used it as a descriptive term to refer specifically to people who had physically crossed the border near where he lives. Of course it is offensive because it is descrbing them as a criminal. Until you can explain how the term is only for 1 race and can be used as a slur against that race even when they dont meet the self contrained description in the word of sneaking across terrain then you are just in the realm of

I believe it does have a racial component in common usage

in other words PC

Resolute on December 26, 2006 at 8:22 PM

Perhaps you missed the part where I cited numerous sources that noted the racial aspects of the word. Allow me to repeat them, with links.

Merriam-Webster.

American Heritage

Wikipedia

Again, political correctness has nothing to do with it. And I’ll ask my questions a third time:

How, exactly, is one’s argument strengthened by using a word that many consider offensive?

More to the point, why would one desire to use a word considered offensive to make a political point on a sensitive policy issue?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:32 PM

To those two, I’ll add a third:

Why are you so invested in believing that you should be able to use this particular word in the debate over immigration reform?

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:34 PM

5. Deport all illegal immigrants who have committed a crime other than illegal status

Mohammad Atta was in the country illegally. Are you saying we should wait until the illegal alien carries out a crime before we deport?

Perchant on December 26, 2006 at 8:39 PM

Mohammad Atta was in the country illegally. Are you saying we should wait until the illegal alien carries out a crime before we deport?

Actually, since Atta had applied for an extension, he was given a de facto extension. The student visa issue is one that needs to be addressed, but since most illegal immigrants don’t apply for such visas, I did not mention them in the policy I outlined.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:42 PM

Personally, though, I think student visas should be limited to those who have been accepted to a course of study at an accredited public or private post-secondary institution or diploma-granting secondary school.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 8:47 PM

Enough talking! We have called written and steamed over this. It is time to take action. We need to refuse to file federal taxes until the border is SECURED. It is our right as Americans and the only one that counts. Without it , what right do they have to our money?

Mellen on December 26, 2006 at 8:59 PM

Most of my day has been spent chasing my daughter (who is nine months old), keeping her from sticking electrical cords in her mouth or listening to her scream when she realized that she hadn’t seen mommy in hours.

Cabernet…take me away…

Slu, sugar, when I left the hospital with my first, twelve years ago, I left the two day supply of diapers that they foist on you and took the IV pole. I’ve been mainlining Valium ever since.

I love that country song, “Mr.Mom”. You have my sympathies. Truly.

seejanemom on December 26, 2006 at 9:00 PM

Actually, since Atta had applied for an extension, he was given a de facto extension. The student visa issue is one that needs to be addressed, but since most illegal immigrants don’t apply for such visas, I did not mention them in the policy I outlined.

Is there anyone here in the US illegally who you believe it would be ok to deport prior to carrying out a crime?

Perchant on December 26, 2006 at 9:12 PM

Is there anyone here in the US illegally who you believe it would be ok to deport prior to carrying out a crime?

I’m willing to admit – the plan is not perfect, but I tried to strike a balance between the ‘deport them all now’ and the ‘amnesty for everyone’ views on the issue.

Slublog on December 26, 2006 at 9:15 PM

Hey, could a couple of you take a break? The rest of us can’t get a word in edgewise.

Really now, C’mon, you all know the thread/topic has a comment limit per person Maybe it’s an unwritten rule, but I’m just guessing that 25 to 30 comments each, and an argument between just a few of you totaling something like 60 or 70 posts has got to be approaching that ‘limit’.
Makes it tough to read if I don’t want to get involved with the side topic you found so captivating.

Maybe we need IM on this thing? MM? all that extra dough you’re making subbin’ for big O’…

shooter on December 26, 2006 at 10:49 PM

You misunderstand me. I simply am annoyed by politcal correct reasons for redefining words. I have nothing invested in this particular word nor would I likely even use it, because I agree it is offensive. But it is offensive to illegal aliens not to Mexicans in particular since the point the word is to highlight a specific illegal act they engaged in not a class of people. It may appear in reference sources as applying to Mexicans but this is the result of the politcally correct process of redefining words – which you are enganged in – and clearly not the original meaning of this self-explanatory compound word.

Resolute on December 26, 2006 at 10:56 PM

I’m willing to admit – the plan is not perfect, but I tried to strike a balance between the ‘deport them all now’ and the ‘amnesty for everyone’ views on the issue.

You’ll run into big problems when you try to compromise the rule of law. Exceptions are hard to justify.

I’m still waiting for a city to declare itself a sanctuary for polygamists or tax evaders like several cities have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens; just to see if the feds will take action to enforce those laws while they refuse to enforce our immigration laws…exceptions are hard to justify.

Perchant on December 26, 2006 at 10:56 PM

Wow. I just came back to catch up with this thread. I did not think this issue would arouse this high level of discussion.

Credit to Slublog, you have done yeoman’s work in defending your position. Just so you know I don’t disagree with your position on immigration but someone telling another what a word they used should mean and, therefore, not be used drives me batty. Funny thing is, I used to be with the WSJ on immigration. It does not affect me in a negative way. 9/11 changed my perspective.

I believe there won’t be amnesty but there will be some sort of work permit program and a program for allowing long time illegals to gain citizenship. At least that is what I hope happens. As long as we get a handle on who is coming and going.

My biggest fear is that we get a series of terrorist attacks and it is linked to a border crossing. Right now I can’t get too worked up about the people who suffer from economic dislocation caused by illegals. When young people and blacks start voting their economic interests maybe I will. Until then I will enjoy the cheap lawn care, restaurant food, and car washing.

One positive is that hispanic voters are Catholic and more likely to be socially conservative. Once they get in they will probably do what all the other immigrant groups that have come behind them- lock the door.

Bill C on December 27, 2006 at 1:15 AM

Unless employers and landlords are imprisoned for hiring or renting to illegal aliens, any Amnesty program will simply double the number of illegal aliens in 15 years. It will result in continued wage erosion that will affect most Americans, thanks to competition from illegals, it will result in higher taxes to support the support infrastructure (schools and hospitals, etc.) and in higher insurance costs (illegal aliens do NOT bother to carry auto-insurance for the most part).

Amnesty is BAD public policy all by itself because if promises a reward for breaking the law. But without sanctions against landlords and employers it becomes a disaster for all residents of the United States.

I’m not surprised that the Democrats will do this. They continue to prove that they put the fortunes of the Party above America’s national security. They are traitors.

georgej on December 27, 2006 at 7:44 AM

One positive is that hispanic voters are Catholic and more likely to be socially conservative.

You keep hearing that but I have met very few republican hispanics. Those that were, were hardcore. But they were also strong middle class. Of the upper class or the poor hispanics I meet, none are social conservatives.

EF on December 27, 2006 at 9:33 AM

I come from a family of conservative hispanics, a few generations in America. In general I am sympathetic to recent mexican migrants and every one I have encountered would make a fine citizen and neighbor. However the indifference of the government to control the borders and establish an orderly, timely and legal migration process is most frustrating.

The beneficiary in my view is employers for the lower wages and workers that likely have fewer job mobility options due to legal status. Target the borders and employers first and then improve the legalization process when those are fixed.

MRegine on December 27, 2006 at 11:38 AM

One positive is that hispanic voters are Catholic and more likely to be socially conservative
You keep hearing that but I have met very few republican hispanics. Those that were, were hardcore. But they were also strong middle class. Of the upper class or the poor hispanics I meet, none are social conservatives.

EF on December 27, 2006 at 9:33 AM

We no longer need to speculate how Mexican immigrants will vote once they become citizens and have the political power to choose politicians that suit them. These “social conservatives” fancy the ACLU types like Villaraigosa.

Perchant on December 27, 2006 at 12:19 PM

Hispanics are not conservative in any real sense. They have a nearly 50% rate of out-of-wedlock births for heaven’s sake. How “family friendly” can they be? They are going to vote for the party that promises them the most big government goodies, not the party that preaches personal responsibility. The children of Hispanic immigrants are almost certainly less conservative than their parents. Even a Republican as left-leaning as Schwarzenegger has done no better than attract about 35% of the Hispanic vote and do we really want big government Californian Republicanism to be the wave of the future?

Two articles to read:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_05_08/cover.html
http://www.vdare.com/awall/mexicans.htm

tommy1 on December 28, 2006 at 8:05 AM

Bill C

When young people and blacks start voting their economic interests maybe I will. Until then I will enjoy the cheap lawn care, restaurant food, and car washing.

All subsidized by the taxpayers and those with medical insurance who must foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ children’s education, their health care, and their social and economic cost as criminals in our society. A cost which continues generation after generation.

tommy1 on December 28, 2006 at 8:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2