Good news: Pro-, anti-amnesty Republicans determined to pass bill; Update: Kyl under siege from constituents
posted at 6:41 pm on May 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Goldarnit, there’s a compromise to be had here. Why, just imagine what concessions our side might extract. More fencing? Harsher penalties on employers? Cooperation from Mexico in policing their side of the border?
Even better, my friends: retention of the meaningless, purely symbolic touchback requirement!
The compromise, backed by President Bush, won support from conservative Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) but was criticized by another GOP conservative from a border state, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas…
Hutchison said Republican opponents’ primary objection was what she described as an “amnesty portion” that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2007, and who paid $5,000 over the next eight years for a temporary “Z visa.”
Immigrants with the visas would be required to return to their home countries — “touch back,” in immigration parlance — only if they wanted to apply for green cards, which signify legal permanent residence.
Hutchison said she and other opponents wanted illegal immigrants to touch back before they were granted the visas.
“That is what is causing the amnesty outcry — that you can stay here, you will never have to go home, as long as you don’t want the permanent green card,” she said.
Specter said he was “prepared to negotiate” that provision, and he called Hutchison’s concession that the legislation was necessary “a breakthrough.”
Two-part exit question: Is there even a single opponent of this bill among our readers who (a) doesn’t think the border enforcement provisions are at least as important as the amnesty provisions and (b) gives a squat about the touchback requirement?
Update: To think — if Kyl was up for reelection this year instead of last, the bill might never have happened.
Angry calls poured into Senator Jon Kyl’s office this week by the thousands, expressing outrage beyond anything he said he had witnessed in his 20-year political career. The callers were inflamed by Mr. Kyl’s role in shaping the bipartisan immigration compromise announced May 17, which lawmakers continue to debate.
“Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents,” Mr. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said at a news conference on Thursday, drawing titters from those in the room…
The day after the proposal was announced, the eight phone lines at the [state Republican] party headquarters were so jammed that staff members almost decided to close the office.
“Every single line was literally off the hook most of the day,” said Sean McCaffrey, the state party’s executive director. “None of these were happy calls. Truly, from our headquarters to the 15 county parties, the ratio was 100 to zero. Not a single county chairman, not a single legislative district chairman reported having a single call from a grass-roots individual saying, ‘Please pass this immigration bill.’ ”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Thanks to the most fanny kissing Republicans in history, I have no one left to vote for. They can’t get their lips off of the private parts of big business to save their party or the nation.
doufree on May 28, 2007 at 6:44 PM
If we don’t enforce our borders, none of the rest means squat. The contempt these politicians have for the average American is astounding if they think we don’t grasp that little fact. The only reason enforcement isn’t getting priority status with the guys in Congress is simple…politics and 2008. How disgusting. Whatever happened to the welfare of our country and its security coming first?
katieanne on May 28, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Two Words…
“Operation Wetback”
Google it…
(dam… I don’t believe I just did a Rosie…… I feel Ill…).
Romeo13 on May 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Our Founding Fathers fought for their grandchildren to have a country of their own. So did the Civil War, WW1 & WW2 generations. The Baby Boomers just want to give their children’s country away to the 3rd world.
Now what? At this point the phrase “write your representative” is about as meaningless as a UN Resolution. So what do we do other than stand by while a corrupt government allows American culture to be overrun & actually imports crime, poverty, lower wages, disease, etc… into our country to prey on us?
well?…
DwnSouthJukin on May 28, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Can’t answer the exit questions since I think this bill is about as good as we will see for the forseeable future. If we don’t pass now, what will it be like in 2013?
For those who care to check the whitehouse fact sheet:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070525-3.html
I’m interested in people’s reaction to the mythbusters in the fact sheet.
Romeo,
The operation you mentioned collared 1.5 million people in two states. The magnitude of the problem is eight fold in numbers of people and complicated further with a much larger number of states where Illegals are settling.
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Oh yeah, and happy memorial day…pity we’ve become a country full of cowards willing to stand by & watch what others fought for be thrown away…
DwnSouthJukin on May 28, 2007 at 6:57 PM
And what do we do with the NEXT 20+ million that will come? And they will come because, in this case, if you don’t build it (the wall) they will come!
AAAAARRRGGGHHH!
SouthernGent on May 28, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I would muchrather see nobill than this bill. This ain’t rocket science. Let the local cops talk to ICE. Let the agencies co-operate. Enforce the laws currently on the books and build a friggin’ wall. Within 5 years it’ll be under control.
commonsensehoosier on May 28, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Border security is of major importance and not just because of the millions of illegal workers flooding across our borders, there is a huge national security issue and I will never believe that Mexico or Canada will work to protect our nation half as well as we can. Secondly the “touchback” provision is symbolically important to me. If an illegal alien won’t take the steps to go home and then enter legally they just don’t want it enough. They need to return home, pay the fine and jump through these way too simple hoops or they can see how the land of opportunity works out for them without jobs or services. None of this should happen until the border is secure and a workplace enforcement system with teeth is in place however. Anything less is amnesty.
Buzzy on May 28, 2007 at 7:05 PM
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 28, 2007 at 7:09 PM
This is the same senator who voted against the amendment to strip out the amnesty provisions from the current bill. Unfortunately, she is my senator. Both she and Cornyn are RINOS, who will sell out Texas to get this passed. They have been receiving overwhelming calls, faxes and emails from conservatives who want strong enforcement before a guest worker program. They are ignoring their constitutants. This is nothing more than a placebo to those conservatives. I don’t care about touch back (like anyone is going to do it), I care about border enforcement which the Feds will just not do, thanks to Texan George Bush and his big business cronies.
Neocon Peg on May 28, 2007 at 7:11 PM
If a single reader here gives a squat about this squat of a bill; then step forward so they may be struck down by the Lord straightaway and be done with it.
Them in Congress that defile the Lords gift of the greatest free nation the earth has ever seen…have their turn with the Lord coming.
Speakup on May 28, 2007 at 7:12 PM
I care very much about the touchback requirement. It’s very proposal, and subsequent retention, serve as the ideal barometer of a lousy bill. It’s the cherry on the top of a dog crap-flavored ice cream sunday.
Wineaholic on May 28, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Don’t know who your source is but
Kyl quit the Republican party earlier this week and he certainly isn’t a conservative.
LakeRuins on May 28, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Bradky-
You’re always pushing this bill, despite people pointing out its flaws.
I scanned the page you sent and sure it ‘answers’ its own questions but doesn’t deal with a lot of other problems.
There are provisions in the bill that allow portions of it, like deportation, to be waived in ‘hardship cases’; in other words, gems like this:
The Secretary may waive the application of subsection (a)(7)(C) for an individual alien or class of aliens.”. ‘waive tha application…for a class of aliens’
The ‘triggers’ are financial and process, not results based.
$1500 for public services hardly covers the cost for an illegal immigrant family; Heritage says it’s 19k a year per illegal worker.
Has a provision for the REAL ID act, required by all workers (bill text at TTLB doesn’t say illegal/legal
immigrants)
The page you sent says that family will only be allowed in if they can be supported, but then later says that this ends chain migration. Which is it?
Why no medical exams? This is required for legal immigrants.
They didn’t mention that CIS has 24 hours to nix the visa application and complete the check or it is granted. Can the government do ANYTHING in 24 hours, except sharpen some pencils (and collect our taxes?)
There’s gems like this, notice the bold:
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, for such purpose, increase the subject to the availability of appropriationsnumber of positions for full-time active-duty border patrol agents within the Department of Homeland Security
When questioned recently about the border fence from last year, McCain said that he believed there weren’t sufficent funds appropriated to do more. Loophole, anyone? Funny, there’s always funds for Congressmens’ pet projects…
Funny verbiage like this is also prevalent:
The Secretary is authorized to require aliens…
So, you’re authorised to require, but not authorised to mandate. It’s not set in stone.
Then of course, there’s this gem I saw today:
H.R. 1999: To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National
Council of La Raza and the Raza…
HR 1999 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1999
To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National Council of
La Raza and the Raza Development Fund.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 23, 2007
Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself and Mr. RENZI) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
…..
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be
appropriated for grants under this section–
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(2) $10,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter
How does everyone feel about giving money to a rascist organisation? Anyone…?
This is BAD BAD BAD. No real enforcement, waivers and loopholes out the kazoo, and special kid glove treatment for lawbreakers. Why are people having trouble groking that?
linlithgow on May 28, 2007 at 7:19 PM
If the average English speaking American is having trouble understanding this legislation just who is going to explain it to the millions of non English speakers in thsi country? How will they know what to do if they don’t understand the provisions? If I was one of the illegals I would just say to heck with it, things are going good now why mess it up?
LakeRuins on May 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM
All Enemy’s Foreign and Domestic…
Impeach Bush & Congress for Amnesty For Illegals
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 28, 2007 at 7:28 PM
The triggers have to be in place within 18 months before other provisions can start.
Some of the items mentioned specific progress in the enforcement area in terms of arrests, fines, etc. already accomplished.
But let’s be realistic shall we:
a. The Republicans had six years in which to accomplish one that is more in line with what the base wants. It failed to do so. Why?
b. If one is not passed in this administration when do you really think one will be passed? My opinion is that it would not be earlier than 2013.
c. When the “base” starts kicking out republicans such as Hutchison as not worthy I submit the base has over estimated its influence.
d. There is enforcement in the bill. You choose to believe it is not enough.
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Yep… 1.5 MILLION in two states, with very limited resources…
Uh… lets see… we have 25 TIMES that many states… so deporting 12 Million, which is only 10 TIMES that number spread throughout the entire US should be doable.
We used to be a country who said “we can do it, lets figure out how”… now some say (whiney voice) “We can’t do it… its too hard…”
Sorry, don’t buy it.
Romeo13 on May 28, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Have the democraps drugged the republicans? What is going on in Washington? Mass insanity has stricken the city
Zorro on May 28, 2007 at 7:33 PM
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Bills says that during the time we are setting up these provisions, that we stop deporting anyone not caught at the border itself. Anyone brought before an immigration judge will be assumed to be covered by the amnesty…
The same beurocrats who LOST 600,000 illegals with expulsion orders, are now going to be put in charge of figuring out who gets to stay, and they only have 24 hours to do so….
It also gives a pass to anyone who has been in this country using identity theft to work…
National ID.
Militarize the border.
Use the existing Border Patrol to do an expulsion… especialy of those already ordered out…
Then create an orderly immigration policy with guest workers IF we really need them.
PS, this also DOUBLES the amount of regular immigration… which is at historicaly high levels.
Romeo13 on May 28, 2007 at 7:38 PM
One last thought - a hypothetical.
An enforcement only policy goes into effect and the national guard and local police agencies fan out throughout the country to round up illegal immigrants. If you recall the Elian Gonzalez episode, how many of those video taped incidents would occur before the media had successfully brought enforcement to a grinding halt?
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 7:38 PM
There would be no need to round up the illegals in this country. Simply enforce the laws against employers that hire them. Start putting employers in jail and then watch the job market shrink. No jobs, no illegals. It may take time but then we have plenty of time.
rockdalian on May 28, 2007 at 7:55 PM
What do you think the minimum wage hike was all about?
- The Cat
P.S. I love how in touch congress is. Oh I see what to do, we’ll simply keep the ones that have no desire to become one of us.
MirCat on May 28, 2007 at 8:01 PM
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070522.html
4. MYTH: DHS only has only one day to complete background checks.
* FACT: Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status is a multi-step process that includes thorough background checks with no guarantees. It can be broken down into three parts: probationary period, Z status, and LPR.
1. Probationary Period. The undocumented worker comes out of the shadows to acknowledge they have broken the law. In order to obtain probationary status, they must show they are employed and pass a preliminary background check. There is a provision in the bill that says DHS has one day to find a “disqualifying factor,” but that is not the end of the process. That is a very short term way of ensuring that if someone comes out of the shadows and admits their illegality, they will not be deported while the process is ongoing and can continue working while the full background check is completed. At any time if something pops up, the applicant becomes deportable, and will never have a chance at Z status and certainly not LPR status.
2. Z Status. If they have passed the hurdles above, the undocumented worker is considered for Z status. At this stage they must pay their $1,000 fine ($1,000 is just for a head of household – there is an additional fine of $500 for each dependent) and processing fees; are subject to updated background checks to make sure they have not committed crimes while in probationary status; agree to meet English and civics standards as a condition of renewal; and show employment. There is no one day “Treatment of applications” in this process. One must complete or agree to all of the above before they are able to achieve Z status.
3. LPR Status. Here, there is another $4,000 fine and more processing fees. More background checks are also conducted in order to make sure that the applicant has kept his or her record clean. The applicant will have had to have stayed employed and met the English and civics requirements. They will have to make an application from their home country, go to the back of the line, and demonstrate merit under the new green card points system. Then, and only then, will the undocumented worker obtain a green card.
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Source?
Neocon Peg on May 28, 2007 at 8:07 PM
The only “breaththrough” here are the ones breaking through the borders.
Daily.
Hourly.
Unstopped.
Untracked.
Security, thy name is nada.
profitsbeard on May 28, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Is there a provision in this bill for nice boxes for us to be buried in?
TwinkietheKid on May 28, 2007 at 8:15 PM
By your own post.. they have 24 hours for the probationary check…
then are checked LATER to make sure they have not commited any crimes from when they got probation, to the date of the further Z1…
They are NOT going to go back further and check their actual identity… they can’t not for 12-20 million people PLUS those who come in under Z2 and Z3 status (kids, spouses, and parents).
I can pretty much guarantee that once the first 24 hour period is done, no one will go back and further check their background because they will NOT be given the resources to do so.
The fact is that there are no REAL protections built into this bill, becuase it does NOT FUND ANY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not a SINGLE MENTION OF FUNDING!!!!! ANYWHERE!!!!
Its the border fence all over again… sign the bill, don’t fund is so it can’t be built. Its called pulling the wool over the eyes of the voter.
And as to your bleeding heart scenario of the videos of illegals being deported??? SO DAM WHAT??? Put up videos opposite of them of all the people killed by illegals over the last 5 years. Propoganda works both ways.
Romeo13 on May 28, 2007 at 8:18 PM
That would have been Top Pick material at HA if true. Kyl has lost all respect from what is left of the conservative base.
Valiant on May 28, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Take amnesty out of the bill and you have a shot at getting something constructive done. It’s the force feeding of the amnesty part of the bill that is gumming up the works.
However, when lobbyists like La Raza and the Chamber of Commerce get seats at the negotiating table without the American middle class represented, you have the ingredients for the mess of a bill we have at hand.
voiceofreason on May 28, 2007 at 8:31 PM
H.R. 1999: Assistance for National Council of La Raza and Raza Development Fund
baldilocks on May 28, 2007 at 8:54 PM
FWIW, according to Wiki, the National Council of La Raza has:
baldilocks on May 28, 2007 at 8:58 PM
NO BILL is better than this bill. BUILD THE FENCE - control the border, THEN let’s talk about what to do with those that are here. Otherwise, it’s all just more money out of my paycheck to support those who I cannot afford to support, who will NEVER support me.
Rememebr folks, for EVERY uneducated immigrant, we PAY $3 for every $1 they pay in taxes. My friends, however, that I hired on J-1 visas and helped get citizenship because they have skills, now they pay taxes…I want more tax payers, not welfare takers.
JustTruth101 on May 28, 2007 at 9:13 PM
We have to keep the pressure on these senators and congressman! They cannot pass this bill hoping that the 20+ million new “citizens” will save social security. It will not happen and citizens understand that. Why can’t congress? The eight year time-line is curiously connected with the time baby boomers retire. Congress is doing this because they actually believe that illegals pay taxes, whether social security or income taxes. FACT:
Neocon Peg on May 28, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Oops, hit enter by mistake
FACT: Most illegals do not pay into social security or federal income taxes. Those that do, get those taxes back and then some. For every illegal who is “paying” taxes, they are getting 2/3rds of what they pay in social services. Thus, $10,000 costs the American taxpayer $35,000. The companies who hire these guys get the benefit and the taxpayer gets screwed.
Neocon Peg on May 28, 2007 at 9:45 PM
oops again,
2/3rds should have been 3 times.
Neocon Peg on May 28, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Yep. Primary objection. That there’s funny.
HerrMorgenholz on May 28, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Bradky,
I hate to point this out, but we have enforcement laws now that are being ignored. What makes anyone think that any enforcement provisions in the future will be enacted?
This is why you can’t trust La Raza: The term “La Raza”, which they translated as community, means the race. Sorry to break it to you , but community is “la comunidad.”
So, they are obviously lying about the translation. I wonder if they’re lying about anything else?
cmay on May 28, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Romeo, cmay, don’t feed the trolls. Bradky is a dickeater and is only here to spew leftism and hijack threads.
Jaibones on May 28, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Heh. Not like I know a heap of people, but I haven’t met anyone wanting that bill passed either. Go figure.
The lying schmuck would be out on his rear end, pronto.
AZ_Redneck on May 28, 2007 at 11:05 PM
a. The house passed an bill last year that was heavy on enforcement, increased penalties for employers, and included no amnesty. The senate wouldn’t even consider it.
b. How about never - we can hope anyway. If the laws already on the books were enforced, we wouldn’t need “comprehensive” immigration reform, either now or in the future.
c. If Hutchison or any other republican votes for a bill that includes amnesty, they deserve to be kicked out - and will be.
d. As I told you on the other thread (and which you lamely non-answered to), the “enforcement” in the bill is only there as bait to get us to swallow amnesty. Those provisions are there in bad faith, as the political class has absolutely no intention whatsoever of enforcing those provisions. Actions speak much louder than words, and the actions (or lack of) on enforcement by our federal government in the last several decades is more than enough reason not to trust them this time.
For you to continue to harp on these “enforcement provisions” can mean only one of two things. Either you’re being extremely disingenuous, as you know that there is no intention enacting any actual enforcement once they have their amnesty - or you’re just extremely gullible.
Take your pick.
thirteen28 on May 28, 2007 at 11:17 PM
BTW, for the rest of you, you should read this essay entitled “Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will” and encourage others to do the same.
thirteen28 on May 28, 2007 at 11:18 PM
harsh, but the part about Bradky’s purpose being the hijacking of threads is true. Stupidity and low self-esteem and lefty talking points combine to make a really annoying troika of troll-ism
Janos Hunyadi on May 28, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Of all the very interesting things in this thread, this one kind of ’struck’ out at me…is this person threatening supporters of the bill with holy retribution? God is doing contract killings? Am I reading this wrong? Part of me finds this amusing; I’m also quite offended by it. Well, if I don’t post a follow up to this, it might mean that I’ve been ….
austinnelly on May 28, 2007 at 11:21 PM
You are dreaming if you think a negative backlash wouldn’t occur. Your dreaded MSM types would see to that.
So now the white house is part of the conspiracy?
But still no viable alternative plan from you… yawn.
Just what part of this post did your words of wisdom contribute to this particular thread? When one has no good contribution one resorts to name calling and accusations.
Bradky on May 28, 2007 at 11:43 PM
“Not a single county chairman, not a single legislative district chairman reported having a single call from a grass-roots individual saying, ‘Please pass this immigration bill.’
Will it make any difference to Kyl?
katieanne on May 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM
On Friday I went to the AZ GOP office and told them I was going to change parties. I switched to the Federalist Party (I don’t know, I may just be the only member). I told them to tell Kyl I will take my family out of the GOP if the bill passes, we will vote for anyone except him.
I also explained that I will no longer be giving money to the GOP, nor my family.
Kyl’s office has been nothing but rude to me. They refuse to answer their phones most the time.
McCain is worse, he office hung up on me. I said, “Hi, I would like to leave a message to McCain about this Amnesty Bill…” *Click*
I guess I have no representatives in the Senate for my state.
I want no bill, only enforcement.
Tim Burton on May 29, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Kyl, welcome to the third rail, enjoy your stay.
P. James Moriarty on May 29, 2007 at 2:49 AM
Bradky:
I checked out your suggested link, and all I saw was the White House countering strawmen instead of addressing the actual questions and objections folks are voicing.
The only mythical components of #4, for example, are the idea that millions of illegals will come streaming out of the shadows to pay their fines, at the risk of potential deportation, so they can start paying taxes too, and the illusion that we’ll have anything remotely like a way to handle them effectively if they do. Of course, all that assumes that illegals can also pony up the $$ for the bilingual lawyers they are going to need along the way. Frankly, when it comes to checking backgrounds, I sure don’t want to rely on anything of importance just “popping up,” do you?
In the final analysis, if we can’t get a handle on who’s coming and going, how is the rest of the package even supposed to work? The real fiction here is the conceit that there’s any compelling reason not to make reinforcing the borders the sine qua non of further legislation. To date, I have yet to hear anyone step up to the plate and argue that point convincingly, including you. In fact, contra your best shot scenario, I have yet to be convinced that what may well turn out to be the outrageously expensive pretense of comprehensive reform is better than no bill at all.
JM Hanes on May 29, 2007 at 3:34 AM
That is really the bottom line. What we say to each other is informative, encouraging and sometime enraging. What we say to them has a slender chance of swaying their vote.
roydee43 on May 29, 2007 at 5:47 AM
Y’all continue to play right into ‘Bradky’s’ strong suit which is to hijack Conservative threads with the same old liberal rhetoric and links to obfuscating BS articles.
Ignore him/her, don’t respond to the bait and the asshat will soon go away…this stuff just eats up bandwidth.
DoctorDentons on May 29, 2007 at 6:41 AM
I didn’t use the word conspiracy. You did. Are you arguing that the Executive Branch has built the wall that they were required to by law? If so, please provide pictures.
Or are you arguing that we don’t currently have any immigration laws that are being flaunted? Maybe you’re arguing that Bush is not an open borders advocate.
Maybe you’re arguing that Bush has not been in consult with the Congress on this bill, which is also clearly false. Attempting to hide your unfounded point in vague accusations is pathetic, even for you Bradky. So I’ll repeat my point:
We have enforcement laws now that are being ignored. What makes anyone think that any enforcement provisions in the future will be enacted?
And let me expound: We don’t need a new law. We need to enforce the ones we have. Have you noticed the small scale raids (which supposedly won’t work on a large scale) that the administration has offered as window dressing? I guess they are outside the law.
cmay on May 29, 2007 at 6:52 AM
Funny, I didn’t realize that the White House links were (a) liberal links or rhetoric, and (b) had no relevance to this subject
Guess I need to emulate you and call people names. That raises the level of the discussion soooooo much more.
Bradky on May 29, 2007 at 7:26 AM
We are going around in circles on this. The bill is going to pass - I get the impression that there is no bill that you would be happy with. If that is so you are at odds with the majority of your fellow citizens.
Deal with it.
Bradky on May 29, 2007 at 7:29 AM
Okay, I’ll byte: why must there be a bill?
It is the same old sophistry your kind has been using for gun control since time began. The laws on the books now (that are being ignored) aren’t enough. We need more laws, redundant (i.e. ignored) laws, to fix the problem.
Or are you like the Swimmer (Kennedy) who said in 1986 when Simpson-Mazzoli passed that we will never have to pass another bill like this one again? Mary Jo Kopechne is still unavailable for comment………
TwinkietheKid on May 29, 2007 at 8:34 AM
A bill I would support…sure there is. Secure the border, enforce our current laws and do away with sanctuary cities. Attrition is a powerful tool. The key is to make sure no new illegals can come in (at least not by the thousands) and that people you find and deport stay deported. It really isn’t that hard. After the border is secured and we are enforcing employee workforce hiring laws then we can talk about what to do with all the people here illegally, though I would offer that after a few years of attrition we might see the problem start to clean itself up. Problem with my plan? Not enough good people in congress to make this happen, certainly not my RINO TX senators.
b4itsover on May 29, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Janos Hunyadi and Jaibones,
You are both being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest in characterizing Bradky as a troll and thread-hijacker. While I may not agree with much of what he posts it should be obvious to any honest and intelligent reader that he posts consistently to induce rational thoughtful dialog.
Honest rational descent was considered to be the hallmark of a true patriot by the founding father of this great republic, an attribute that thanks to the narcissistic self-indulgent and immature gaining access to the internet seems now to have fallen out of favor with the American public.
If we can no longer have public discourse where diametrically opposed ideologies confront one another with civility then our public discourse becomes nothing less than a DKos anally retentive feces fight.
Yes I think Bradky is wrong on the immigration issue and I believe that it is indeed time for Operation Wetback II, but so long as Bradky enunciates his position rationally logically and civilly he deserves the respect of having his position debated civilly.
doriangrey on May 29, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Already gave you one - enforce the laws on the books. That stops the flow of immigrants coming in and will result in fewer employers willing to hire illegals.
BTW, which did you pick - disingenuous or gullible?
thirteen28 on May 29, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Doriangrey,
Thanks, I appreciate your comments on my behalf.
Best regards,
Bradky
Bradky on May 29, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Bradky,
I think you know by now that I do enjoy a good old fashioned flame war when the discussion degrades into one, however when the subject is of such national importance and the individual being flamed remains civil I cannot find any justification in encouraging a flame war where civil debate on dissenting opinions has the potential to bring about a useful public policy.
This issue is far too important to be allowed to degenerate into a diatribe of vitriol flung at dissenting individuals. Sometimes we really do have to agree to disagree.
As I said before I believe that your opinions on this issue are predicated on wishful thinking and an unrealistic expectation of action on the part of what has for 40 years now been a body politic distinguished by inaction and stubborn refusal to fulfill the well publicized will of the American electorate.
The very concept of Sanctuary Cities smacks of tyranny of the minority considering that the vast majority of Americans have clearly enunciated their opposition to the concept as well as the concept of amnesty and equally clearly stated that they want the already existing laws enforced.
Virtually every single poll has shown beyond any shred of doubt that the majority of Americans want 1) the border secured first and foremost and 2) that they want illegal aliens prosecuted under existing US law.
I find it amusing that the same group of individuals who cannot trust the US government not to abuse the Patriot Act or Bush’s controversial Wire Taping program suddenly have the faith to believe that the US government will vigorously enforce the provisions of the new immigration bill.
Let’s face reality here, the vast majority of the public has lost any faith in the government enforcing this bill because for the last 40+ years they have miserably failed at enforcing immigration laws that are already on the books.
It look’s to the majority of us as if our elected officials really have no intention of listening to what we the people have to say on this issue. And no amount of posturing on the part of a tyrannical minority is going to convince us that they will suddenly do a 180 degree about-face and start doing now what they have for 40+ years refused to do.
doriangrey on May 29, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Good points. Could be wishful thinking on my part but my main point in all of this is that if not now, it may never happen. People have good reason to be upset that little to nothing has been done in forty years, I agree. But at least according to the White House link many gains have been made in the last six years.
The main bone of contention for me is that I don’t think it is very realistic to think we will round up 12 million people and deport with the existing laws. Enforce the laws first absolutely, which is what the bill states. But deal with the illegals in a more sensible fashion. The bill hasn’t been completely fleshed out yet, which is a postive sign that a better version can be constructed. I just think that with the gains Bush has demonstrated in the enforcement side, honest efforts will be continued.
Call me strange in regards to the Patriot Act and Wiretapping measures I think they are just fine and don’t need to be scaled back.
Bradky on May 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Bradky,
Sorry I find this to be a truly egregious and fallacious argument. This issue has been rising in temperature for the last 6 years, it is no longer a pot on the back burner simmering and now and then letting off a little steam, it currently is at a roiling boil and about to explode violently in the faces of our elected officials.
One thing this issue is not is what the media constantly attempted to portray it as. It is not an issue of concern only to radical right wing conservative republicans. All the polls show that it is a totally bi-partisan issue with the majority of the public democrat republican and independent holding nearly identical views on the issue.
There is therefore no justification in accepting a bill that only a tyrannical minority wants out of fear that failure to accept this unacceptable legislation would result in no legislation at all.
The true and justifiable fear here is that acceptance of this unacceptable legislation will in fact result in exactly the failures predicted by those suggesting a failure to accept this unacceptable legislation would result in a failure to secure the border or enforce existing laws.
The degree with which this bill needs to be overhauled is so extensive that the additions to and deletions from required to make it even remotely resemble the will of the people would amount to a complete rewrite retaining only the bills title.
Just 26% Favor Senate Immigration Plan
doriangrey on May 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Border security is paramount; It does not mean there is room for compromise on amnesty/visa to individuals that are illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens should not be rewarded for breaking the law. They should not be granted temporary/permanent worker visas. They should not be allowed to procreate children in this country to manipulate the immigration laws.
Suggested immigration policy, we deport those illegaly here, and replace them with the good people standing patiently in line, following the law. As these individuals arrive and take the jobs the illegal are currently providing we will remove their incentive for returning. So if it takes twenty years, better than manure currently being tossed about as immigration legislation.
MarkB on May 29, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Bradky,
I’ll repeat my point:
We have enforcement laws now that are being ignored. What makes anyone think that any enforcement provisions in the future will be enacted?
I notice you’ve not answered this question. Please answer it.
First, nobody on here has argued the inevitability of its passage; only the advisability of it. Second, I am not the one at odds with the majority of Americans. From every poll and the reactions that Congressmen are reporting, I am in the mainstream. Deal with it.
And by the way, what makes you think that any new immigration laws will be enforced?
cmay on May 29, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree as well. You mention the tyrannical minority. Have you seen Medved’s oped at Townhall.com — good observation on how the polls can be viewed in two different ways.
As for the boiling pot analogy I think it is likely to fall off the radar if no bill is passed. If this happens, the bill that does get passed is going to be largely to the like of the Democrats and the Republicans will have no leverage.
Bradky on May 29, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Hey Bradky, why are you ignoring the question:
It’s a tough one to answer, isn’t it?
cmay on May 29, 2007 at 8:05 PM