Immigration proposal: border security, visa overhaul, then normalization

posted at 8:01 am on January 28, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

A bipartisan group of Senators have already released the conceptual structure of an immigration reform compromise, if not the legislative language.  This is getting plenty of press today, and it will probably take most of the attention in politics this week for both its own substance and how it plays in both parties and among voters.  The compromise provides normalization for most of the illegal immigrants in the US, but puts certification of border security and a visa-program overhaul first — as well as all of those applying legally for immigration as of the bill’s passage:

Four Basic Legislative Pillars:

1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

Since Pillar One will generate the most controversy, especially among conservatives, let’s take a look at the specifics.  The pledge includes a number of specific promises about adding resources to border security — long overdue, and held up by insistence on inclusion in a comprehensive bill.  The specifics of a path to citizenship come later in the section:

- Our legislation will require the completion of an entry-exit system that tracks whether all persons entering the United States on temporary visas via airports and seaports have left the country as required by law.

That should be one of the key components.  The broken visa system, along with lax security at the border, were both cited by the 9/11 Commission in its report of dangerous gaps in American security — and that was in 2005.  Almost eight years later, we’re just now getting around to addressing both.

- We recognize that Americans living along the Southwest border are key to recognizing and understanding when the border is truly secure. Our legislation will create a commission comprised of governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.

This improves on earlier proposals that gave the certification duty to the federal government.  It also provides border hawks in those states a very good argument for winning those gubernatorial and AG elections that will ensure that certification isn’t just a rubber stamp for DHS and the White House.

- While these security measures are being put into place, we will simultaneously require those who came or remained in the United States without our permission to register with the government. This will include passing a background check and settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes, in order to earn probationary legal status, which will allow them to live and work legally in the United States. Individuals with a serious criminal background or others who pose a threat to our national security will be ineligible for legal status and subject to deportation. Illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes face immediate deportation.

- We will demonstrate our commitment to securing our borders and combating visa overstays by requiring our proposed enforcement measures be complete before any immigrant on probationary status can earn a green card.

- Current restrictions preventing non-immigrants from accessing federal public benefits will also apply to lawful probationary immigrants.

This is another concession to conservatives, who have argued that an “amnesty” program would explode entitlement spending.

- Once the enforcement measures have been completed, individuals with probationary legal status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements, in order to earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. Those individuals who successfully complete these requirements can eventually earn a green card.

I assume those who don’t meet those prerequisites will get deported, but we will have to see what the legislative language says to know for sure.

- Individuals who are present without lawful status – not including people within the two categories identified below – will only receive a green card after every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who have complied with the law.

This is another concession to conservatives, and really to reality.  It’s the only way to incentivize legal immigration in the future, as opposed to sneaking in and hoping for the best.

- Our legislation also recognizes that the circumstances and the conduct of people without lawful status are not the same, and cannot be addressed identically.

For instance, individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.

Similarly, individuals who have been working without legal status in the United States agricultural industry have been performing very important and difficult work to maintain America’s food supply while earning subsistence wages. Due to the utmost importance in our nation maintaining the safety of its food supply, agricultural workers who commit to the long term stability of our nation’s agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play in ensuring that Americans have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume. These individuals will earn a path to citizenship through a different process under our new agricultural worker program.

Assuming that the border and visa problems are finally resolved, this makes sense as a compromise between the two factions of the immigration issue.  The idea that 11 million people are going to “self-deport” is fantasy, and unless we want to have a permanent underclass of people who are never properly vetted and then integrated, we will have to find a path to normalization.  The Wall Street Journal cautiously agrees:

Tricky issues have yet to be resolved, including how to assess whether the border-security benchmarks have been met, how to alleviate the backlog of people waiting for legal visas and how many people would be admitted under the new temporary-worker program. …

But many in Congress, particularly Republicans, worry that after legislation is passed, there will be a fresh wave of illegal crossings as the economy rebounds. To combat that, the framework proposes increased technology, infrastructure and personnel, including more unmanned aerial vehicles, to apprehend unauthorized entrants. It calls for stronger prohibitions against racial profiling and more training of border patrol agents. …

A Rubio aide said Mr. Rubio would like to see ‘operational control of the border,’ a standard some advocates fear would be both hard to define and never be met. … Once the enforcement measures are complete, people with probationary status could earn permanent legal residence, which can lead to citizenship, if they pay taxes, learn English and meet other requirements. They wouldn’t be able to earn a green card until all those waiting on the day the legislation is passed get theirs. That meets a GOP demand that people who came to the U.S. illegally don’t earn special treatment.

As far as the politics of Rubio’s intervention in this issue goes, a source on Capitol Hill writes to me that it put “a conservative in the room making sure our principles will be in whatever gets passed — they can’t cut their own deal.”  Obama was going to press forward on immigration reform in the Senate for sure, and probably hoped to further damage the GOP with Latinos, especially if House Republicans had to balk at an all-Democrat (or all-Democrat plus John McCain) deal.  Rubio’s influence on the package in insisting on a real border-first approach and a process that doesn’t allow normalization to occur ahead of existing applications for immigration “gets our principles out in front of the President” and stops Obama from “outflanking” Republicans on immigration.

This is an improvement over the 2006-7 proposals that ended up going nowhere.  It’s hardly perfect, but in a government with split control for at least the next two years (four, from the GOP’s perspective), it’s a good compromise to get us past this issue and finally start addressing border security to the satisfaction of the states involved, rather than the federal government.


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 3

On the ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ package today.
1) The first requirement is ‘better border security’; problem is, the requirement is for more ‘resources’ (tax money- actually deficit spending), NOT for RESULTS. More spending does not equal results, as our education system has proved for decades. Heck, they could spend the ‘resources’ on more signs warning U.S. citizens to stay away from the area.
2) Legalized status for illegal workers here will translate into a massive loss of their jobs, dumping many into the entitlement system. Because one of the primary requirements of the employment is that they ARE ILLEGAL, and therefore devoid of the expense of workman’s comp, insurance, withholding taxes, safety regulations and hundred of other rules that massively drive up the cost of an employee. Your lawn service Luis will come to you and tell you the cost of doing your lawn will have to go up to $40, instead of $25. When he loses enough clients, Luis becomes our newest welfare recipient, a net LOSS to the taxpayers.
3) NEW illegal immigrants will flood across the border to take these lost jobs, not impeded in the least by new ‘resources’ on the border. The new guy Juan will come to your door and offer to do the yard for $25 as before.

The result: more deficit spending, more welfare cases, and another wave of illegal immigrants, with that situations every bit as bad as before.

michaelo on January 28, 2013 at 9:20 AM

canopfor on January 28, 2013 at 9:02 AM

I feel your pain, I had one in Virginia a couple of weeks ago, I sucked down some Alka-Seltzer cold and flu gel caps and saline nose spray. Take care of yourself.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM

this immigration business is the last straw. throw away your birth certificates folks we’re all obama now.

right ed?

renalin on January 28, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I am dying for ANY of the bastards on the Hill to make the inquiry of their peers, “why precisely should any citizen follow the law when that status is there for people to take illegally?”

Why follow tax law you disagree with, gun law you don’t like, why follow O care when you can walk into an ER and gum it up like our betters the illegals?

Article V shut it down, the democrats are at WAR with the American people and illegal immigrants are their reinforcements.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Maybe because their negotiations have gotten our side nothing in return. Seriously, what have the House GOP achieved since Election Day?

You’ve made my point.

There is no question we have not negotiated wisely up to this point. That should not prevent us from realizing a good, realistic negotiating position has been struck.

We also can’t keep instantly flaming every person who wants to engage in solving these issues via negotiation.

Marcus Traianus on January 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

renalin on January 28, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I’m keeping mine, it something I have and he doesn’t. Just kidding.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

It’s not about personalities or proclivities; it’s about solving a problem.

What is the problem, in your opinion? Do you see it as a bunch of foreigners here, violating our sovereignty and our laws? Or, do you you see it as a bunch of people simply living “outside the law”?

There will be plenty of comments to follow from folks who, irrespective of what solution is put forward, will complain. I suppose their only solution is a straight out deportation- not a negotiated solution.

Why should I negotiate with law-breakers? When someone robs a bank, do you negotiate with him to return part of the money? Or, hey, he’s already spent some of it, so we’ll just ignore that bit? Generally speaking, we arrest him and throw him in prison and expect all the money to be returned.

It’s frankly an instructive lesson on why the Republican Party is in such disarray.

Yes, your response is very instructive. Why hold to principles when we can give a few of them away and get elected? It’s why so many people call the Republican party Democrat-lite.

The main goal should be to identify and deal with folks who are already here while not encouraging, in fact further discouraging, illegal behavior. Foremost should of course be finally securing the border.

OK, and how in the world will amnesty ever discourage further breaking of our immigration laws? Please tell me how that has worked in the past? Please tell me how it will work in the future? I’ve spent a lot of my life dealing with motivating people using negative and positive motivation, and I’ve never found a single instance where rewarding a behavior got you less of it.

This issue has for too long plagued our country, become a distraction and in the process made us less safe.

Marcus Traianus on January 28, 2013 at 8:30 AM

You are right there – it has plagued our country for far too long. And it has made us less safe. It is not, however, a distraction. If anything, it is a key issue that demonstrates what the left has done to our country – bit by bit destroying our sovereignty, first the states, now our nation, and finally our personal and family soveriegnty.

Why should normalization ever be a goal of conservatives? I don’t care – from a governmental, national policy perspective – how cute and cuddly they are. I don’t give a dang how hard they work. They invaded our country and they must go. If you know a hard-working foreign family illegally residing in the US, then fine – YOU sponsor them for entry into the US legally, once they have left our country. Do not make the government complicit in condoning law-breaking and the diminution of our sovereignty.

The government’s job is justice, not compassion. The amnesty of these invaders/law-breakers violates that principle and destroys us as a nation. Period.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

There will be plenty of comments to follow from folks who, irrespective of what solution is put forward, will complain. I suppose their only solution is a straight out deportation

Marcus Traianus on January 28, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Not true. If we got Congress to pass a deportation bill they’d say “Oh, like that’s every going to get implemented.”

Here’s the script:
1. Insist immigration is a federal problem and it’s their job to fix it.
2. Disparage and disbelieve any fix the federal government comes up with because we don’t trust them.

-Rinse/repeat

29Victor on January 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

So far, a bunch of whining, and no alternate solution on these posts…

The fact is, a real fact, we cannot physically remove 11 million or 20 million illegals from our country, it just isn’t feasible.

So we do what Reagan wisely did, create a way to solve the problem without creating further problems…the trick is to write the bills so they can’t be diluted, that securing the borders is funded, and given priority that can’t be written away by another bill.

The program is logical, but the implementation, the perseverance of the bill is what must be absolutely locked down tight with no wiggle room.

And as many stating that the farm labor, well, corporations need to be held accountable and “undocumented” workers need to be purged from the payroll of companies.Higher an illegal, lose your business license for a period of time…but of course, now find someone to work for a reasonable wage, and show up every day.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Another bunch of bull hockey. Notice, they never ever tell you how much it will cost. Letting the young stay means the old stay and each of them is 500k each in benefits when they retire… and it’s highly unlikely even the young will pay for the benefits they have and will receive.

We have laws. Enforce them. Making new laws that provide amnesty just means some will get amnesty now, and the rest later…. along with promoting more illegal immigration for the next amnesty in 10 or 20 years.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Rubio promise that he would not to promote immigration reform when we elected him? Is this not being said because so many in the GOP want him for president even though he is ineligible per the constitution?

aniptofar on January 28, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Marcus Traianus on January 28, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Come on now, do you blame of us for being skeptical? No one’s going to think anything is perfect, let us enjoy our first amendment right to b!tch about it, it’s all we have.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM

We also can’t keep instantly flaming every person who wants to engage in solving these issues via negotiation.

Marcus Traianus on January 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

We also can’t get any fiscal sense if half the GOP wants to outdonk the donks.

Congrats you win you’ll get your “negotiated solution.”

85% of what the donks want at 125% of the price.

Article V break it up shut it down.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM

So far, a bunch of whining, and no alternate solution on these posts…

The fact is, a real fact, we cannot physically remove 11 million or 20 million illegals from our country, it just isn’t feasible.

So we do what Reagan wisely did, create a way to solve the problem without creating further problems…the trick is to write the bills so they can’t be diluted, that securing the borders is funded, and given priority that can’t be written away by another bill.

1. We have existing law. Just because the liberals and people who want cheap labor stopped it from being enforced, it is still the law.

2. What Reagan did was allow the bait and switch. Amnesty but no enforcement. AND HE CREATED THE CURRENT MESS!

If we chose not to obey the laws of the country, we just have anarchy. And please explain to me why I have to pay taxes when we allow people amnesty for coming to this country to make more money.

aniptofar on January 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM

We’ll have to mostly disagree. Many self-proclaimed “conservatives” have hurt both themselves and the movement with both word and deed. Some conflate “principled” with non-negotiable in an absolutist sense.

Meanwhile other self-proclaimed “conservatives” are willing to put their faith in a Party that sees compromise as surrendering on the major points while touting victory on meaningless tidbits thrown to them by the demorats. By the time your “gradualism” gets into gear it will be too late, the new order will have been cemented in place and nothing will move it.

Look at the personal attacks on people who are trying to truly bridge the gap and move use forward. People like Rubio and Ryan who now that they’ve tried to formulate wise, realistic negotiations on several issues are demonized by their own party members more than Democrats. Why?

Perhaps because conservatives watch as the Ryans and Rubios gladhand the demorats while telling us not to worry, that this time…THIS TIME…things will be different and it will all work out.

The GOP spends more time trying to appease the demorats than doing what they should be doing which is confronting them for their outright criminality. The Constitution is being trampled by the administration and all we get from the GOP is a stern message of concern at a sparsely-attended press conference.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 9:27 AM

The government’s job is justice, not compassion. The amnesty of these invaders/law-breakers violates that principle and destroys us as a nation. Period.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Well, that would be news to the founders of our nation…we are a nation of laws, and those laws were designed to be compassionate…indeed what is the lady in the harbor state?

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We just have to organize the huddled masses yearning to breathe free…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

What amazes me is that with an economy this bad the Democrats are still able to sell an amnesty. We throw around the 47% figure quite a bit, but are there really that many voters completely divorced from the economy?

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

What amazes me is that with an economy this bad the Democrats are still able to sell an amnesty. We throw around the 47% figure quite a bit, but are there really that many voters completely divorced from the economy?

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

That’s what’s being overlooked in the entire debate(and I used that term generously). The financial burden placed on the taxpayers by 12-20 million new normalized citizens will be devastating. And we’re already 16 1/2 trillion in the hole. We need to be weening the current citizens off of the government dole, not adding new ones.

Doughboy on January 28, 2013 at 9:30 AM

What amazes me is that with an economy this bad the Democrats are still able to sell an amnesty. We throw around the 47% figure quite a bit, but are there really that many voters completely divorced from the economy?

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

So you think removing 15 million (whatever figure from 10 – 30 million) from the payroll helps the economy?

Is the economy suffering because of business being stepped on, or because we have too many workers?

Hint: A booming economy depends on business being healthy, not removing people from jobs…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If we chose not to obey the laws of the country, we just have anarchy. And please explain to me why I have to pay taxes when we allow people amnesty for coming to this country to make more money.

aniptofar on January 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Correct in not even being able to enforce our borders and twisting the screws on the working people of America Congress has shown it is unworthy of the moral deference that the Constitution and Bill of Rights earned.

Quite simply there is no moral reason without Christianity it is logical for me to pay their taxes and work my tail off when I can go on the dole and work under the table.

A US citizen does this he goes to prison, an illegal does it he gets a vote.

Article V shut it down break it up.

There is no reason California should control what I as an Ohioan do if the national grouping of states cannot enforce the borders and allows one party to gain from their “generosity” with the tax coffers.

Break it up or your great grandkids will not have our freedoms we so obviously take for granted.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 9:31 AM

@Cindy lol

tommy71 on January 28, 2013 at 9:31 AM

…it’s a good compromise to get us past this issue and finally start addressing border security to the satisfaction of the states involved, rather than the federal government.

No offense, but that is naive. There will be token measures taken to “secure the border”, but nothing serious, and the board tasked with assessing when the border is considered controlled will be stocked with amnesty proponents. Provided anyone even really bothers with enforcement at all, what with all the ACLU and other liberal group lawsuits that will be filed.

William Teach on January 28, 2013 at 9:31 AM

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

a poem at the feet of some tart in a harbor is NOT part of the laws of this country and is completely irrelevant to any discussion of those laws.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM

I agree with the elementsof Rubio’s proposal. But I’ve had quite enough of thousand page “comprehensive” legislation. I agree with Midas, above. Take it step by step, short bill by short bill, with border security first. I think a lot of people have figured out that 2700 page laws are meaningless, and only lead to the tyranny of petty bureaucrats.

tngmv on January 28, 2013 at 9:33 AM

As far as negotiations:
I will negotiate within the bounds of the federal system set up by the Constitution. I will not negotiate outside those bounds. When the current government has already stepped outside those bounds I will insist on return to those bounds, with no room for negotiation until that condition is reached.

This is what so many fail to understand in the fight between principles and negotiation. Principles are there to give boundaries to the negotiation. If one side says they will only hold a position outside those boundaries, then there is no longer a basis for negotiation. If they hold a position far enough outside the boundaries that any compromise falls outside those boundaries, then there should be no further negotiation.

This is why the Republicans so often fail. They refuse to clearly articulate those boundaries – based on solid conservative principles – and stand by them.

The fact that so many of the American people no longer wish to live within those boundaries is why we are in this sorry state. And, it’s why so many have taken up the cry of Let It Burn.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 9:34 AM

The GOP spends more time trying to appease the demorats than doing what they should be doing which is confronting them for their outright criminality. The Constitution is being trampled by the administration and all we get from the GOP is a stern message of concern at a sparsely-attended press conference.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Use the illegals turn this around on the Super Statists right and left.

The Federal Government is not meeting the powers actually enumerated int he damned documents while seizing powers never intended.

If we are to be humbled and see anti-American acolytes of Bill Ayers reign supreme I am wondering what precisely sane states are gaining from this union?

Break it up Article V, or they will destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights without amendment and our destiny as Conservatives is what the aged defacto prisoners to Jihadi Jim and the uber left in EUtopia is….

this monstrosity MUST be stopped.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 9:35 AM

1. We have existing law. Just because the liberals and people who want cheap labor stopped it from being enforced, it is still the law.

2. What Reagan did was allow the bait and switch. Amnesty but no enforcement. AND HE CREATED THE CURRENT MESS!

If we chose not to obey the laws of the country, we just have anarchy. And please explain to me why I have to pay taxes when we allow people amnesty for coming to this country to make more money.

aniptofar on January 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Pal, read a little history, Reagan did not “create the current mess”…before commenting, read his bill, read what was done to it…his pathway to citizenship was reasonable…it was torn apart by democrats after going back on their solemn oath. It was one of Reagan’s greatest disappointment, and he never trusted the democrats again…in fact if anything, this was the start of the huge divide between dems and Republicans, and rightly so.

And btw, what is wrong with “cheap labor”? You think a country, a business thrives on expensive labor, like what the unions provide?

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM

So you think removing 15 million (whatever figure from 10 – 30 million) from the payroll helps the economy?

Is the economy suffering because of business being stepped on, or because we have too many workers?

Hint: A booming economy depends on business being healthy, not removing people from jobs…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:31 AM

What are we going to do with these no skill peasants when this hits, and it’s not far off now. So yes, I say get rid of them now so we don’t have to pay for them the rest of their lives.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM

It’s not about personalities or proclivities; it’s about solving a problem.

There will be plenty of comments to follow from folks who, irrespective of what solution is put forward, will complain. I suppose their only solution is a straight out deportation- not a negotiated solution. It’s frankly an instructive lesson on why the Republican Party is in such disarray. We’ve forgotten how to negotiate. A word which has become synonymous with surrender due to numerous unwise agreements that have come as of late. But that should only serve to help us identify when a good negotiation has occurred- not buttress us against listening to any potential deal.

The main goal should be to identify and deal with folks who are already here while not encouraging, in fact further discouraging, illegal behavior. Foremost should of course be finally securing the border. Those principles will be tenets of any wise policy.

This agreement mostly encompasses all those principles and it’s about time. This issue has for too long plagued our country, become a distraction and in the process made us less safe.

Marcus Traianus on January 28, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Do you mean “the republicans have forgotten to negotiate” because
a) they just cave in to the lefties or b) the repub rinos and lefties are of the same mind set so there is no need to negotiate?

Our progressive government has over the course of a decade or
more let the illegals in this country because minorities would
most certainly vote for the lefties (free stuff). We citizens then have to pay for our government’s follies in one way or another.

It is impractical to march 11 million people back over the border. However much I and others would like to see it. A path
that mandates learning and using English would be most welcome.
I feel like I am in Babylon when I am at our local grocery store.
Which leads me to another item. Everyone assumes that the
illegals are from Mexico; I bet a good percentage might be of
other countries as well. Has anyone read anything about that?

I also wonder how many “IRS Agents”/LOL are going to be hired to
facilitate this program?

Amjean on January 28, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Build the fence north of where McCain and Graham are standing…

TheAudacityofNOPE on January 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM

illegals distort the labor market just as badly as unions do. it provides an element that can take work outside existing labor laws. its the reason why so many blacks and teens can find no work.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Will they get to be dual citizens?

Buddahpundit on January 28, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Wow. Lots of questions with this proposal:

1. Are they saying that border security will be VERIFIED by the southern states BEFORE any talk of normalization?

2.

For instance, individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.

How does this work exactly? Are they saying that if an illegal has kids here then they are automatically going to be normalized because they won’t separate the children from the parents?

3. What about birthright citizenship? If all these illegals here have children while waiting to be normalized will their children automatically be citizens and thereby guarantee de facto normalization for their parents?

4. What about chain migration? Are they going to allow the extended families of all these people into the U.S.? If so, then we will be nothing but an extension of Mexico in a very short time.

KickandSwimMom on January 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 9:35 AM

No, I’m putting my trust in a political Party which has frittered away just about everything and has morphed into some sort of noodle-spined lapdog for the demorats.

After the debacle of the 2012 elections when I willingly and with much vigor supported Rombo, I’ve decided the GOP can pound sand. Until they man-up and stop worrying about their seats and start representing us again I’ll be voting Lizard Man.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM

those laws were designed to be compassionate

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

You are wrong. Those laws were founded upon natural law and common law, and compassion does not enter in. There is one and only one nod to compassion within the entire Constitution, and that’s the retention of the pardon power. And many of the Founders didn’t think that was something that should be kept. It was too close to the concept of the executive as the bestower of God’s grace which permeated the monarchies of Europe. It was retained only as a check on the judicial branch.

The Founders also were – generally speaking – a Christian and Deist group. That means they were operating partly from cultural assumptions based on scripture, where the government is specifically remarked upon as the bringer of justice, not compassionate in any sense.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

a poem at the feet of some tart in a harbor is NOT part of the laws of this country and is completely irrelevant to any discussion of those laws.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM

In other words, the Statue of Liberty, blind justice is a “tart”…and the reason for our society, freedom from persecution is not up for discussion…okay, you should try picking up a history book and reading it someday…

I guess John Locke was just some fool who thought that the notion that each individual is free and equal in the state of nature was a foolish notion…probable some gigolo…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

KickandSwimMom on January 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM

For instance, individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.

i didnt notice that little gem before. so now ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse??

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM

KickandSwimMom on January 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM

All good questions, K&SM. And, you can bet that they will all be answered in the least restrictive fashion possible.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM

We just have to organize the huddled masses yearning to breathe free…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM

You’re just the whole picnic aren’t you, the whine and the cheese.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:43 AM

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

what the F* does a poem have to do w/ our laws?? did our elected representatives vote to give it some weight?? i guess we can use hiawatha as a basis for allowing indian casinos? it means nothing, we have a Constitution as the basis for our govt, not a poem.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM

No, I’m putting my trust in a political Party which has frittered away just about everything and has morphed into some sort of noodle-spined lapdog for the demorats.

After the debacle of the 2012 elections when I willingly and with much vigor supported Rombo, I’ve decided the GOP can pound sand. Until they man-up and stop worrying about their seats and start representing us again I’ll be voting Lizard Man.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I’ll vote GOP when I can vote in Mexico like Mexico votes here.

Until then enjoy the ride RiNOs you win it is YOUR party.

I will spend the rest of my life trying to break this Federal monster by every legal means necessary.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM

The Founders also were – generally speaking – a Christian and Deist group. That means they were operating partly from cultural assumptions based on scripture, where the government is specifically remarked upon as the bringer of justice, not compassionate in any sense.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Yeah, that makes sense, they were mainly Christian, so they put aside that compassion part of Christ and just made laws…good grief…look what John Locke thought, Madison thought, my goodness, we do have the public educations schooling system rising to the surface today.

You don’t think that the founders understood repression, understood the lack of compassion from the government, that the “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” was just for business, and not for personal redemption, peace, tranquility? Those are not words of compassion?

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Rubio is dead to me!

KOOLAID2 on January 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM

it means nothing, we have a Constitution as the basis for our govt, not a poem.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Well, since you only have then about 10 things worth reading and learning from…I think education is a waste for you.

I guess you would also say, the Bible, what do those words from 2000 years ago have any meaning…thanks for the insight to your intellect.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:49 AM

peace, tranquility? Those are not words of compassion?

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Peace, and tranquility have left the building, and compassion won’t be far behind.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

It’s nonsense and a set up for Lucy to take the ball away from Charlie Brown.

There is no reason to have to bargain to get the border security and visa enforcement we rightly deserve. If they can do it as part of this bill they can do it, as they should have all along, without this bill.

This will be 1986 all over again despite the assurances. Mark my words.

Furthermore, there is never justification or means by which it is okay to violate the rule of law. This is a violation of the rule of law, plain and simple.

voiceofreason on January 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

This is so cool ’cause now we have to feed them , medical them , phone them ,
EBT them , house them , food stamp them etc ..
Where does this end ?

Lucano on January 28, 2013 at 9:51 AM

You’re just the whole picnic aren’t you, the whine and the cheese.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:43 AM

And your solution is???

I think I am the one who pointed out that whining on this post, no solutions, at least I am supporting a solution…nice try turning this around.

Let’s see your brilliant solution…and put a pencil to it, and a cost…at least Reagan understood how to resolve a problem.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:51 AM

In other words, the Statue of Liberty, blind justice is a “tart”…and the reason for our society, freedom from persecution is not up for discussion…okay, you should try picking up a history book and reading it someday…

I guess John Locke was just some fool who thought that the notion that each individual is free and equal in the state of nature was a foolish notion…probable some gigolo…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Wow, talk about conflating notions……

First of all, the “tart” thing was a sarcastic reference to The Holy Grail, I’m sure.

Second, Lady Liberty is not the same as Blind Justice. Big difference. (Though, I will admit you can’t have one without the other. Guess which one is the prerequisite? It ain’t Lady Liberty.)

Third, while Liberty is the raison d’etre of our nation, we fought to be sovereign. That is the fundamental expression of our liberty within this nation: the sovereignty of the individual and the family, the sovereignty of the state, and the sovereignty of our nation. Illegal immigration – by definition – violates that sovereignty.

Fourth, a little ad hominem (“you should try picking up a history book and reading it someday”) goes a long way. It also invites others to point out the irony in your accusation.

Fifth, individual sovereignty does not equate to freedom to violate another’s sovereignty – which is what illegal immigrants are doing. The idea of a right of freedom to move across borders is not Lockean, but a radical progressive one, designed to destroy the sovereignty of nations.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Yeah, that makes sense, they were mainly Christian, so they put aside that compassion part of Christ and just made laws…good grief…look what John Locke thought, Madison thought, my goodness, we do have the public educations schooling system rising to the surface today.

You don’t think that the founders understood repression, understood the lack of compassion from the government, that the “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” was just for business, and not for personal redemption, peace, tranquility? Those are not words of compassion?

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Let’s play “talk like a democrat for a minute” day.

You think the founders would ever in a million years have tolerated the leftist invasion of our schools and media expressing racially divisive and anti-American rhetoric on the Taxpayer’s dime?

This whole thing has mutated so far beyond the Founders’ intent I am touched you would invoke them.

If the Founders felt that the borders should be open and “who really cares what being an American is?” Why is their a Natural Born writ in the document?

Alexander Hamilton deserved leadership far more than Barry Soetoro, he fought to found this nation after all.

Congratulations your addiction to cheap labor has destroyed US power and in short order will see our sovereignty subsumed to the UN when the Democrats hold an unassailable majority in the Senate.

The United States either has law or it doesn’t, and we either have a border or we don’t.

The answer is obvious on both counts we don’t.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 9:53 AM

voiceofreason on January 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

You are exactly right. We are being forced to give in to something that is not in our best interests just so we can have the federal government do their constitutional job of securing our borders. This is really pathetic and the fault of BOTH parties.

KickandSwimMom on January 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Let’s see your brilliant solution…and put a pencil to it, and a cost…at least Reagan understood how to resolve a problem.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:51 AM

This summer school buses, armed guards, and a lot of diesel. How’s that for cheap.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Rubio and Ryan have both exposed themselves as proponents of big government solutions. They think increasing taxes solves our spending problem and that breaking into the country is a legitmate path to citizenship.

Panther on January 28, 2013 at 9:55 AM


The the numbers…..
*********************

Released: December 6, 2012
Unauthorized Immigrants: 11.1 Million in 2011

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-million-in-2011/

canopfor on January 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM

i didnt notice that little gem before. so now ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse??

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Yeah, when you are 6 days old, kind of hard to understand laws…

This land was founded by what? Legal immigrants?

Ever hear the term WOPS, without papers? More than a few Italians, Poles, Irish, the backbone of our country, entered illegally…in fact my great great grandfather was one, Irish, pulled of the streets of Dublin to fight the war for England, he was shipped to Canada, jumped across the border and fought for the U.S. against England, had to change his name…he was illegal. The horror…tens of thousands, probably about the same % as illegals now, came across in similar circumstances.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Jonathan Turley ( who I used to think was a liberal puke ) on
cspan today admitted that we need a third party in the country
that followers the constution .
None too kind to the one either .

Lucano on January 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM

I think that immigration reform needs to happen for the Republicans politically, but let’s not pretend that Rubio is doing this because of his deep seeded desire to enact good policy. It is Rubio trying to show that he isn’t a lightweight in advance of 2016.

Illinidiva on January 28, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Give us 10 years of true border security and visa enforcement first. If it’s effective, then we’ll consider other alternatives to enforcing our laws. We’ve been fooled too many times.

voiceofreason on January 28, 2013 at 9:58 AM

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM

you still make no sense. compassion and laws are not compatible. when you show compassion to one person you are being uncompassionate to another. and your personal experiences mean crap in this debate.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Yeah, that makes sense, they were mainly Christian, so they put aside that compassion part of Christ and just made laws…good grief…look what John Locke thought, Madison thought, my goodness, we do have the public educations schooling system rising to the surface today.

You don’t think that the founders understood repression, understood the lack of compassion from the government, that the “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” was just for business, and not for personal redemption, peace, tranquility? Those are not words of compassion?

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM

The compassion of Christ is for the individual to implement, not the state. Unless, of course, you are advocating living in a theocracy? The Founders didn’t give a hoot about compassion from King George! They cared about justice! The whole concept of liberty was to allow the individual to pursue those things. Government was not there to help him, it was to simply ensure justice and protect his rights so the individual could get to doing what he desired. It is not the place of the state to care for and love anyone. It is their place solely to provide a safe and just environment in which the individual can pursue their happiness.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM

This summer school buses, armed guards, and a lot of diesel. How’s that for cheap.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Great, no figure out how large of a government entity is needed for that…

The paperwork, the processing, the documentation, probable another 50,000 government employees, the way they do it, and we pay for it with taxes…and more since we are removing probably 10 million taxpayers…like I said, sit down and do the math, put a pencil to it.

We don’t extradite people in this country without due process, it’s the constitution…think of the court time…unless you want to bypass the constitution to enforce the constitution.

Think it through, now come up with another solution, yours is worse than keeping them here.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Illinidiva on January 28, 2013 at 9:58 AM

If the GOP needs this to happen then it is more clear than ever that they are not a viable party. Not for conservatives or liberals as liberals already have the dem party.

I love how the appeasers allow the leftist media to define what was once the conservative party.

voiceofreason on January 28, 2013 at 10:01 AM

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:51 AM

you keep bringing up reagan but you have it wrong. the amnesty wasnt his idea, its what he had to take to get the enforcement. and he got screwed. now we have dems who are even less ethical than the ones reagan dealt w/ and you think we should trust them? the fact that they are so excited about this should cause the GOP to run screaming from it.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I haven’t changed my position on immigration at all. I’ve always been a fix-the-border-first, all-else-is-negotiable guy. Check back at Captain’s Quarters. Rubio’s position has been my position all along.

Ed Morrissey on January 28, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Did a google search and Ed supported 2007 McCain amnesty at Captains Quarters but has been against amnesty while blogging at hotair.

In 2010, echoing Bill Whittle, Ed was against amnesty:

Whittle first dispels the myth that Tea Party activists are anti-immigration; instead, he explains that the Tea Party movement wants immigration to occur through lawful channels, and then he explains why….
Thus, as Bill states, illegal immigration and tolerance for it insults those who legally migrate to the US, a process almost everyone supports. It also insults the rule of law to offer those lawbreakers amnesty, especially a second time.

In 2011, Ed called out Christie for supporting amnesty

Interestingly, the list of issues looks a lot like the same issues on which conservatives are hammering Perry. For instance, on immigration, Christie has insisted that the US has to come up with “a clear path to citizenship.” As Amira notes, we already have a clear path to citizenship for legal immigrants, so this sounds more like an amnesty approach — a conservative heresy that Perry hasn’t committed. Christie has also called illegal immigration an “administrative manner” rather than a crime, and proved it as a US Attorney with an unusually thin record of prosecutions in this area, which made Lou Dobbs lament Christie’s record as “an utter embarrassment.”

Midas is right that there has been a “sea change” at hotair.

sauldalinsky on January 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

It is not the place of the state to care for and love anyone. It is their place solely to provide a safe and just environment in which the individual can pursue their happiness.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM

So the statement “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was just an error in judgement?

I didn’t say the state “cares” I stated they protect, they provide a haven for compassion…just like you stated.

And many come here just for that, just like the Irish, Italians, etc…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I think that immigration reform needs to happen for the Republicans politically, but let’s not pretend that Rubio is doing this because of his deep seeded desire to enact good policy. It is Rubio trying to show that he isn’t a lightweight in advance of 2016.

Illinidiva on January 28, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Politically? At what cost? Losing the house in 2014? Your nuts! Welcome to minority status

jjnco73 on January 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM

It’s not that big a deal, 20 million new citizens overnight can be handled. Why, just add a zero or two to a few spending bills and viola, problem solved.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Midas is right that there has been a “sea change” at hotair.

sauldalinsky on January 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Yes, it’s called open registration compliments form the establishment Republicans.

jjnco73 on January 28, 2013 at 10:05 AM

This summer school buses, armed guards, and a lot of diesel. How’s that for cheap.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM

School buses are too small, tour buses are the ticket.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM

you keep bringing up reagan but you have it wrong. the amnesty wasnt his idea, its what he had to take to get the enforcement. and he got screwed. now we have dems who are even less ethical than the ones reagan dealt w/ and you think we should trust them? the fact that they are so excited about this should cause the GOP to run screaming from it.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I bring up Reagan because his pathway was the right way…about the only practical way. His wasn’t an “amnesty” it was a pathway, and that is what we should have had all along.

Now we are at a breaking point…but just to say “ship them on buses” is naive…we have to come up with a solution…and btw, many of those “illegals”, I would rather have them working for me than the tens of thousands on welfare that are “citizens”…get your priorities in order.

Take care of the leeches, and worry about productive members of society later…

Removing “illegals” won’t be a boon to employment, you think the welfare recipients will come off and go to work where the illegals are working??

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Great, no figure out how large of a government entity is needed for that…

The paperwork, the processing, the documentation, probable another 50,000 government employees, the way they do it, and we pay for it with taxes…and more since we are removing probably 10 million taxpayers…like I said, sit down and do the math, put a pencil to it.

We don’t extradite people in this country without due process, it’s the constitution…think of the court time…unless you want to bypass the constitution to enforce the constitution.

Think it through, now come up with another solution, yours is worse than keeping them here.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM

You’re full of crap. You even tallied up some BS numbers to make it seem like you were serious. How much do you think illegals use in government services? You should stick with the emotional arguments. You’re math is pathetic.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 10:07 AM

( that was follows the constution )

I don’t like seeing the name Rubio up there with
those stellar conservatives MaLame , Schumer and
Mendez .

Lucano on January 28, 2013 at 10:07 AM

it sounds aout as reasonable as we could hope for at this point, except for the part about letting fruit pickers jump the line and get citizenship– what the hell is that part about?

Every other reasonable proposal in the past proposed some kind of guest worker program for migrant farm workers– I am baffled why they are getting a special carve out here, this group of all people could be easily handled with a visa/guest worker program. This is giving citizenship for thousands of uneducated, minimum wage laborers who will immediately go on welfare/Medicaid.

Just a horrible idea

thurman on January 28, 2013 at 10:08 AM

School buses are too small, tour buses are the ticket.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM

We don’t use school buses in the summer. My goal was to keep it cheap.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 10:08 AM

The idea that 11 million people are going to “self-deport” is fantasy, and unless we want to have a permanent underclass of people who are never properly vetted and then integrated, we will have to find a path to normalization.

If the US can put a man on the Moon, it can be done. In fact, it was done back in 1954.

Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove illegal immigrants, mostly Mexican nationals from the southwestern United States.

he effort began in California and Arizona in 1954 and coordinated 1,075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies. Tactics employed included going house to house in Mexican-American neighborhoods and citizenship checks during standard traffic stops.

Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 illegal aliens were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal aliens are believed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory before releasing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

sentinelrules on January 28, 2013 at 10:09 AM

The idea that 11 million people are going to “self-deport” is fantasy

Sheesh, is that you, Barack?

PLEASE STOP USING THIS BS AMNESTY SHILL TALKING POINT TO JUSTIFY THE AMNESTY PLAN YOU CAN’T WAIT TO IMPLEMENT.

If it’s such good idea, you should have no problem defending it honestly instead of pulling this tired old canard out of your rear end.

xblade on January 28, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Pal, read a little history, Reagan did not “create the current mess”…before commenting, read his bill, read what was done to it…his pathway to citizenship was reasonable…it was torn apart by democrats after going back on their solemn oath. It was one of Reagan’s greatest disappointment, and he never trusted the democrats again…in fact if anything, this was the start of the huge divide between dems and Republicans, and rightly so.

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM

That is exactly the point he was making. Reagan gave us the current mess by agreeing to exactly the same proposal. And, this is why we don’t trust those who make the exact same proposal this time around, regardless of their party affiliation.

GWB on January 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM

So the statement “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was just an error in judgement?

I didn’t say the state “cares” I stated they protect, they provide a haven for compassion…just like you stated.

And many come here just for that, just like the Irish, Italians, etc…

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

You’ll have to show me the Irish version of this little video….

http://youtu.be/kLOnxnimjB8

Now we conservatives warned that the ’86 fix wasn’t….and the donks made sure it wasn’t…

Spending has gone up and the Hispanic portion of welfare spending has as well.

The ONLY way I can support Amnesty is the abolition of the minimum wage and the removal of Enviro Nuts from EPA.

The last time we tried our best to make the case for limited spending in the wake of the “come on in Amigo!” cave on ’86….

this time I think since it is obvious nobody in DC is serious about allowing a free economy we will have to turn the Hispanic racists against DC and allow them to get their way on taking back “mexican soil.”

Viva La Raza baby….

it’s coming.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM

We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

kingsjester on January 28, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Strikes me as slightly ironic ;)

DarkCurrent on January 28, 2013 at 10:11 AM

If the GOP needs this to happen then it is more clear than ever that they are not a viable party. Not for conservatives or liberals as liberals already have the dem party.

I love how the appeasers allow the leftist media to define what was once the conservative party.

voiceofreason on January 28, 2013 at 10:01 AM

It provides the Republicans an opening into the Latino community. There are lots of Republican policies that will benefit Latinos, such as school choice and education reform. However, as Rubio said, it is hard to get people to stay and listen to those ideas when they think that your party wants to deport Nana. We need to hit about 35% in both the Latino and Asian communities going forward and a sensible immigration policy provides an opening into both communities. Asians will appreciate the increase in green cards based on education and skill; I went to grad school with lots of Chinese and Indian students who would have loved to remain in the U.S. ater graduation. Latinos will appreciate the less divisive tone that Rubio is preaching.

Politically? At what cost? Losing the house in 2014? Your nuts! Welcome to minority status

jjnco73 on January 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Ummm… So you are going to stay at home and pout because Rubio and Ryan only agree with you 85% of the time. Geez, lots of people have cases of the Mondays here.

Illinidiva on January 28, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Now we are at a breaking point…but just to say “ship them on buses” is naive…we have to come up with a solution…and btw, many of those “illegals”, I would rather have them working for me than the tens of thousands on welfare that are “citizens”…get your priorities in order.

Take care of the leeches, and worry about productive members of society later…

Removing “illegals” won’t be a boon to employment, you think the welfare recipients will come off and go to work where the illegals are working??

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM

The old shipem out on buses red herring.

Enforce and tighten the laws to make being here as uncomfortable as possible and they will self deport.

It’s called attrition by enforcement. That means no social services, workplace enforcement, no free education and no EMTALA induced free medical care. We’ve never had the enforcement, thus we haven’t had the attrition. It’s not only doable, it’s the only sensible way of dealing with the problem and what has happened for decades is the exact opposite. A leniency in enforcement will never get us attrition. This proposal is more of the same and will be a stronger magnet for more illegal immigration.

voiceofreason on January 28, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Before everyone gets their pants too far in a wad; what I saw this morning from the “group of 8″, was border security had to be in place before the next step could happen and those here ilegally had to go to the back of the line.

Seems there more of a concern that “Lucy will pull the football”.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2013 at 10:15 AM

canopfor on January 28, 2013 at 9:02 AM

I feel your pain, I had one in Virginia a couple of weeks ago, I sucked down some Alka-Seltzer cold and flu gel caps and saline nose spray. Take care of yourself.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Cindy Munford:Thank-You Cindy,will do:O

canopfor on January 28, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Ummm… So you are going to stay at home and pout because Rubio and Ryan only agree with you 85% of the time. Geez, lots of people have cases of the Mondays here.

Illinidiva on January 28, 2013 at 10:13 AM

You think the Hispanics are willing to listen?

Good luck Chuck….

the donks weaponized race and soccer mom never made them pay a price….

have fun hoping for affirmative action when YOU are the minority Mi Amiga it will not stop….

the donks have been in a cold civil war since the 1960s and we refuse to fight them.

The federal Government is about to become a jailer.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Rubio’s star was rising but if he continues his association with those lame brains and dingbats it will soon be in a steep nose dive.

rplat on January 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM

We don’t use school buses in the summer. My goal was to keep it cheap.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Good point, I defer to your superior planning.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Illinidiva on January 28, 2013 at 10:13 AM

A truly viable political party doesn’t need to play the lib game of identity politics. Your assertion is absurd because anything the GOP stands to gain in the Hispanic community they will lose in base.

voiceofreason on January 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM

right2bright on January 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM

you really think all welfare recipients are lazy and dont want to work?? a large number would love to work if given a chance. and if in addition to making illegal immigration less attractive we restricted welfare those would have to find jobs. you are a prime example of whats wrong w/ the GOP, you’re lazy. if a solution is hard or not popular you want to capitulate.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM

As Chesterton wrote in his immortal novel The Flying Stars, the best way to hide a diamond is to bury it in a pile of fake diamonds. And the best way to hide someone’s illegal citizenship status is to bury it in a pile of new illegal citizens…

Archivarix on January 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Ummm… So you are going to stay at home and pout because Rubio and Ryan only agree with you 85% of the time. Geez, lots of people have cases of the Mondays here.

Illinidiva on January 28, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I predict:
1) they get amnesty
2) all vote democrat because they will virtually all be on public benefits.
3) Nothing gets done, zero on border policy
4) in 10 years well be here all over again.
5) that the democrats only want this because they want a permanent underclass to rule over while bleeding the productive dry of the lat penny.

If the libs take the house in 2014 kiss your 401K money goodbye and welcome gun control. Pretty good reason to stay home, right?

jjnco73 on January 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM

you really think all welfare recipients are lazy and dont want to work?? a large number would love to work if given a chance. and if in addition to making illegal immigration less attractive we restricted welfare those would have to find jobs. you are a prime example of whats wrong w/ the GOP, you’re lazy. if a solution is hard or not popular you want to capitulate.

chasdal on January 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The democrats hole American labor and by proxy the world’s standard of living hostage with minimum wage laws, government wealth transfers and their cronyism. There is an economics definition of minimum wage and Granny McRictus Botox Pelosi’s ain’t it. The United States is willfully being reduced to less power by the left because they want to destroy liberty and install a collectivist oligarchial state.

Our currency is being debauched and NOBODY is on that hill fighting for free people to set their own worth through labor and prudent investment.

Not one elected official will admit the Government cannot guarantee everyone a middle class lifestyle.

Article V it reduce the amount of mischief they can do, let as many replacement nations as it takes form on the carcass of this failed republic.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Before everyone gets their pants too far in a wad; what I saw this morning from the “group of 8″, was border security had to be in place before the next step could happen and those here ilegally had to go to the back of the line.

Seems there more of a concern that “Lucy will pull the football”.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2013 at 10:15 AM

You don’t get it man. The GOP is Lucy.

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 10:27 AM

If the libs take the house in 2014 kiss your 401K money goodbye and welcome gun control. Pretty good reason to stay home, right?

jjnco73 on January 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM

It is the best reason to stay home.

The GOP is doing nothing serious to secure the Bill of Rights long term anyway.

Sit down, stop voting and let the democrats wreck it all.

It is what the New England RiNOs want and I am finally ready to give the Republican party the “freedom to do the right thing” Obama was invoking….

you win left it is yours, I will break it up if able and partner with hard working, Freedom loving people of any stripe to escape your Marxist tyranny.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 10:27 AM

The ONLY way I would swallow this newest stinking AMNESTY is if it is accompanied by a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT banning birthright citizenship AND outlaw any FUTURE AMNESTIES.

mrsmwp on January 28, 2013 at 10:29 AM

I have to admit I’m not sure what the “consevative” position on immigration is? Is it close the borders and round up all of the illegals? Is it make them go to the back of the line? or argue that it isn’t the perfect conservative bill and do nothing?

Seems to me the proposal tends to have the priorities straight; enforcement first, legalization (from the back of the line) second and the ability to hire farm and seasonal laborers with a tracking mechanism.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Seems to me the proposal tends to have the priorities straight; enforcement first, legalization (from the back of the line) second and the ability to hire farm and seasonal laborers with a tracking mechanism.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2013 at 10:29 AM

We already have a seasonal worker program. It’s not used because illegals are cheaper. Can you ever envision a time when illegals won’t be cheaper?

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Seems to me the proposal tends to have the priorities straight; enforcement first, legalization (from the back of the line) second and the ability to hire farm and seasonal laborers with a tracking mechanism.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Go back and read the 1986 bill.

We’ve been here before thanks.

The GOP does this on top of increasing taxes and spending I am done with them.

Nobody in DC represents free market, self-responsibility.

I do not “want” the gift of paying 20+% of my wage to two Ponzi scheme programs one of which Obama raided for about a trillion bucks to give care to non payers.

Nope GOP delanda est.

Go full Pelosi communist let’s get it over with.

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 10:31 AM

And I mean the Constitutional Ammendment would outlaw any future amnesties not just some crappy bill that they will choose not to enforce.

mrsmwp on January 28, 2013 at 10:31 AM

We can deport 11 million illegals.

It was done, before, in 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wet….back

The effort began in California and Arizona in 1954 and coordinated 1,075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies. Tactics employed included going house to house in Mexican-American neighborhoods and citizenship checks during standard traffic stops.

Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 illegal aliens were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal aliens are believed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory before releasing them.

sentinelrules on January 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM

“it’s a good compromise to get us past this issue…”

-Ed

Get us past this issue? This is drool-on-the-chin level idiocy. As if we’ll pass Amnesty and overnight add tens of millions of citizens, while allowing in millions more in extended families of those just amnestied, and then just move on to other issues. No ramifications to the deed.

Amnesty will not be the end of this “issue”. It will be the beginning of a nightmare that has no parallel in recorded history.

My god you’re dumb, Ed.

sartana on January 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM

cheap labor

Sorry, but once they are legalized they are no longer cheap labor. They will be replaced with illegal aliens and we will start a new cycle of insanity. This of course assumes that all 10 million are working which they are not. 75% of South American immigrants are on welfare.

Wigglesworth on January 28, 2013 at 10:35 AM

We already have a seasonal worker program. It’s not used because illegals are cheaper. Can you ever envision a time when illegals won’t be cheaper?

DFCtomm on January 28, 2013 at 10:31 AM

No and they do not care.

The illegals come here because not every job is worth the imaginary number Pelosi and Barack set….

that is the cold economic fact, and not every job can withstand union pressure to ram the wage ever higher….

If the minimum wage was abolished and government got the hell out of the way with at best controls against industrial excess on environment we’d be in a blasted Boom by now….well our parents would have been maybe….see they had vocational skills…

we have underwater lesbian basket weaving in ancient atlantean studies majors….

but we’d be able to have a boom in all likelihood.

Be like our Mexican betters work illegally under the table and collect benefits mi amigo

harlekwin15 on January 28, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3