The Boston-immigration reform non-sequitur

posted at 12:01 pm on April 23, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The Boston Marathon bombing has given us a rare opportunity to see politicians on both sides of an issue seize the same non-sequitur to promote their cause.  There is almost no overlap between the immigration status of the Tsarnaevs and the comprehensive immigration reform bill under consideration in the Senate, and yet both sides are insisting that the case should either accelerate the adoption of the bill — or postpone debate indefinitely.  That led in part to this testy confrontation in the Senate yesterday between Charles Grassley and Chuck Schumer yesterday, via Eliana Johnson at NRO:

Tensions rose at today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Gang of Eight’s proposed immigration bill, as committee chairman Patrick Leahy accused opponents of the bill of trying to “exploit” the Boston marathon bombing for political gain. “Last week, opponents began to exploit the Boston Marathon bombing,” Leahy said. ”Let no one be so cruel as to try to use the heinous acts of two young men last week to derail the dreams and futures of millions of hardworking people.”

But sparks flew when New York senator Chuck Schumer accused Republicans of doing just that. Schumer argued against delaying immigration reform due to last week’s terrorist attack and criticized Republicans for using it as “an excuse for not doing the bill or delaying it, many months or years.”

That insinuation was too much for Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, an opponent of the current bill, who angrily interrupted Schumer, asserting, ”I never said that! I didn’t say anything about delaying the bill!”

“I didn’t say you did, sir,” Schumer replied.

But Grassley actually had:

Grassley last week urged caution in proceeding on immigration reform, arguing that lawmakers should take more time to understand the flaws of the current system and to read the bill itself.

“Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system,” he said. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”

So too did Rand Paul yesterday:

I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.

We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?

On the other end of the non-sequitur spectrum is Paul Ryan:

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan said the terrorist bombing in Boston should push Congress to pass immigration reform.

Speaking at a church here alongside Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Ryan initially said he’ll “stay off of Boston” as a subject. But the GOP lawmaker relented when pressed about its impact on the debate over immigration.

“We have a broken immigration system and, if anything, what we see in Boston is that we have to fix and modernize our immigration system for lots of reasons,” Ryan told a throng of reporters. “National security reasons, economic security reasons. For all those reasons we need to fix our broken immigration system.” 

Even CBS took note of the exploitation:

And so on, and there are plenty of other examples. In my column today for The Week, I note that the Tsarnaevs’ immigration status has nothing to do with the processes that the Senate bill addresses, which makes both ends of this argument ridiculous to the point of demagoguery:

Lindsey Graham tried offering his own argument to push his bill in light of developments in Boston. “Now is the time to bring all of the 11 million [illegal immigrants] out of the shadows and find out who they are,” Graham declared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. “We may find some terrorists in our midst who have been hiding in the shadows.” That’s certainly true — but entirely unrelated to what happened in Boston. Not only was Tamerlan a green-card holder for years, he had actually competed to represent the U.S. in the Olympics in boxing a few years earlier. His younger brother and alleged co-conspirator Dzhokhar became a naturalized American citizen last year, ironically on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Whatever else the Tsarnaev brothers were doing, they weren’t “hiding in the shadows.” …

That didn’t stop Charles Grassley and Rand Paul from demanding that consideration of the bill be stopped to reconsider national-security issues. “Given the events of this week,” Grassley said during a hearing on the bill Friday, “it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system.” On Monday, Rand Paul wrote a request to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to postpone debate on the bill, saying that the bombing case had “exposed a weakness in our current system…. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism?”

Those aren’t bad questions, either — but they are irrelevant to border security, visas, and the status of 11 million people already in the U.S., all situations that also demand attention. Nearly a decade ago, the 9/11 Commission highlighted all three of those issues as pressing national-security concerns, and the U.S. has done nothing to address any of them since. In part, that’s because Republicans and Democrats have fought continuously over whether to address them separately or comprehensively. We don’t have to wait to figure out what happened with the decision to admit the Tsarnaevs before fixing other long-broken parts of our immigration and national-security systems. Even if Paul and Grassley insist on addressing other significant issues, that could be accomplished through an amendment process to the central bill under debate.

The real question about the Senate bill is whether it actually fixes the systems it addresses.  So far, I’m not convinced:

Overall, I take an agnostic view of the Gang of Eight proposal. I want the issues identified by the 9/11 Commission to be resolved, especially on border security and visa reform. We need to find a way to treat the people encouraged by the U.S. to provide cheap labor over the years in a humane fashion while prioritizing those who played by the rules to live in the U.S., and that process should allow us to get a much clearer idea of who is in the country — and narrow considerably the search for those “hiding in the shadows” for malicious reasons. But national security has to come first, if for no other reason than to avoid having to address the same issues all over again a decade down the road. Does this bill do that? So far, the triggers don’t appear to have significant teeth, but the debate and amendment process may well improve them to ensure that we actually solve the problems we face.

Matt Lewis argues that the bill does solve those problems:

1. Border security. In 2006, the Secure Fence Act appropriated $1.2 billion (which many thought was an inadequate amount) to build a fence on 700 miles of the southern border. Much of this fence was never completed. This led border security hawk and former Sen. Jim DeMint (now head of the Heritage Foundation) to offer an amendment to the DHS appropriations bill in 2009 that would have mandated the fence be built by December 31, 2010. The amendment passed the Senate, but never became law, much to the dismay of DeMint and many other conservatives.

The new immigration reform bill contains $4.5 billion to implement border security. A majority of the border security funds go toward actual fence-building or maintaining a physical presence on the border — physical, not “virtual” fencing.

2. E-verify. Conservatives have long complained about employers hiring illegal immigrants and getting away with it. This bill contains tough e-verify provisions — potentially the biggest deterrent in the bill to future illegal immigration and illegal immigrants not eligible for legalization remaining in the US. This is significant, considering that many liberals and civil libertarians (for whom immigration reform is an important issue) oppose it. America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group, viewed inclusion of E-verify as a “trade-off.” The ACLU obviously is  not enthused about E-verify forming a part of the bill. But conservatives got it into the bill.

Well, we can discuss just how effective these solutions are, and how much teeth those triggers will have, as long as we’re focused on the very real problems of border security and the broken visa system — neither of which have anything to do with the Tsarnaevs.  We can discuss whatever issues may arise in the investigation about their immigration to the US, but clearly those are separate from the large system problems in other areas of immigration and national security, and can be addressed separately, too.  Their case provides no reason to accelerate or delay consideration of issues that have festered for well over a decade, or determining whether this proposal solves those problems or makes them worse.


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

But national security has to come first, if for no other reason than to avoid having to address the same issues all over again a decade down the road. Does this bill do that? So far, the triggers don’t appear to have significant teeth, but the debate and amendment process may well improve them to ensure that we actually solve the problems we face.

How much of a debate or amendment process will the Senate allow? I thought they were trying to ram this thing through.

Doughboy on April 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Schumer…smarmy smug sob.

d1carter on April 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The real question about the Senate bill is whether it actually fixes the systems it addresses.

The current system couldn’t successfully vet TWO. Yet those liberal asses in Washington think vetting 11 MILLION will be easy.

GarandFan on April 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM

The Dems want it rushed through to get the votes needed to keep the senate and take over the House. Let’s be honest for once.

Deano1952 on April 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

1. Immigration moratorium NOW.
2. Secure all the borders.
3. Repatriate everyone here illegally.
4. Repeal the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act and replace it with something based on REALITY and not on WISHFUL THINKING.
5. Amend the 14th to get rid of the anchor baby loophole.
6. THEN AND ONLY THEN, re-instate immigration.

Imagine our “representatives” had the interest of American citizens at heart, and not their own political power / hatred of the USA?

ex_machina on April 23, 2013 at 12:10 PM

The new immigration reform bill contains $4.5 billion to implement border security. A majority of the border security funds go toward actual fence-building or maintaining a physical presence on the border — physical, not “virtual” fencing.

I can guarantee you that the $4.5 billion won’t be spent as stated, but will be finding its way into the pockets of corporate cronies instead, with little or nothing worthwhile done for the transfer of funds.

hawkeye54 on April 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM

The drive for 11 million docile Democrat serfs continues.

profitsbeard on April 23, 2013 at 12:15 PM

In talking about the the relationship between the Boston bombing and comprehensive immigration reform, Ed adds a non sequitur about non sequiturs.

And so on, and there are plenty of other examples. In my column today for The Week, I note that the Tsarnaevs’ immigration status has nothing to do with the processes that the Senate bill addresses, which makes both ends of this argument ridiculous to the point of demagoguery:

The bill is supposed to be comprehensive reform. If the bill does not address the immigration problems found as a result of the Boston Bombing then it won’t be comprehensive. There are several things that may never be agreed on addressing later, if they aren’t included now. It is wise to delay the bill.

Dusty on April 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Has there ever been any “Comprehensive” legislation that did solve the problem as intended or that didn’t cost several orders of magnitude more than promised?

I’ll never trust any comprehensive legislation – it’s always full of unrelated boondoggles.

Curtiss on April 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Imagine our “representatives” had the interest of American citizens at heart, and not their own political power / hatred of the USA?

The energy spent going after law-abiding and gun owning citizens to do what they can to disarm them would be better spent on enforcing our current immigration laws and eliminate anything that attracts illegal invaders and America haters to stay here.

hawkeye54 on April 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM

2. E-verify. Conservatives have long complained about employers hiring illegal immigrants and getting away with it. This bill contains tough e-verify provisions … But conservatives got it into the bill.

Or not:

Sixth, the legislation perversely eliminates the current e-verify system adopted by some states to prevent employers from hiring illegals. According to Kobach, this system is 98 percent effective. Yet, astonishingly, the Gang’s legislation prohibits the use of the current system and replaces it with nothing for several years.

Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

There is almost no overlap between the immigration status of the Tsarnaevs and the comprehensive immigration reform bill under consideration in the Senate,

True. And that is part of the problem. The Senate isn’t considering immigration reform which would, in fact, touch immigrants like the Tsarnaevs. The Senate is working on a comprehensive amnesty bill for the illegals. But amnesty isn’t the only part of immigration that need reform. Why is the rat-eared coward’s illegal aunt still in the country? Why was Tamerlan Tsarnaev allowed to stay as a resident alien after citizenship was denied? Why was the Tsarnaev family granted political asylum and yet they weren’t so dire to prevent the father to move back? Or more locally, why was an illegal facing deportation free from detention and on the road drunk (killing three nuns in the process)?

In short, if the goal is comprehensive immigration reform there is far more to the issue than fast-tracking Democrat voters out of the current population of illegals.

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I like Rand Paul but I will not say that he has transcended demagoguery. That being said, I do not totally agree with you Ed. Our immigration system is very germane to the failures with the older brother, Tamerlin. He could have been shipped back two to four years ago.

mwbri on April 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I’ll never trust any comprehensive legislation – it’s always full of unrelated boondoggles.

I always thought the political definition of “comprehensive legislation” WAS “boodoggle”.

hawkeye54 on April 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

In GovernmentSpeak, Reform is latin for – we’re going to magnify our incompetence and our efforts to lord over you.

I despise every political pig in perpetuity.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

The bill requires Republicans to trust Democrats to not gut the enforcement measures later even though liberals know legalization is a political bonanza for them. That is all we really need to know. We should be enforcing existing law, the end. I am aghast at the level of stupidity in Republican ranks both in government and the pundit class.

echosyst on April 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

The real question about the Senate bill is whether it actually fixes the systems it addresses. So far, I’m not convinced:

Status quo ‘R’ pablum…

Gohawgs on April 23, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Has there ever been any “Comprehensive” legislation that did solve the problem as intended or that didn’t cost several orders of magnitude more than promised?

I’ll never trust any comprehensive legislation – it’s always full of unrelated boondoggles.

Curtiss on April 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Comprehensive legislation is right up there with “omnibus budgets.” A little bit of pork for everybody without really solving any single issue. It’s like building a Swiss army knife when what you really need is a hammer.

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM

echosyst on April 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

What are these mythical enforcement measures of which you speak? And no, forming a commission to study the issue in five years does not count.

Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Every senator that has served since 1986 ought to be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty for not enforcing the laws they passed for the last amnesty. At minimum they should be forced from office and have all government benefits confiscated.

I would consider excusing any that actually submitted bills or protested the lack of enforcement as long as its on the record they keep.

DanMan on April 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Matt Lewis is wrong:

2. E-verify. Conservatives have long complained about employers hiring illegal immigrants and getting away with it. This bill contains tough e-verify provisions — potentially the biggest deterrent in the bill to future illegal immigration and illegal immigrants not eligible for legalization remaining in the US. This is significant, considering that many liberals and civil libertarians (for whom immigration reform is an important issue) oppose it. America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group, viewed inclusion of E-verify as a “trade-off.” The ACLU obviously is not enthused about E-verify forming a part of the bill. But conservatives got it into the bill.

From the headline thread:

Sixth, the legislation perversely eliminates the current e-verify system adopted by some states to prevent employers from hiring illegals. According to Kobach, this system is 98 percent effective. Yet, astonishingly, the Gang’s legislation prohibits the use of the current system and replaces it with nothing for several years.

Sorry, not astonished.

Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on April 23, 2013 at 12:25 PM

The bill is supposed to be comprehensive reform. If the bill does not address the immigration problems found as a result of the Boston Bombing then it won’t be comprehensive. There are several things that may never be agreed on addressing later, if they aren’t included now. It is wise to delay the bill.

Dusty on April 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Yeah, this is one of those pieces where Ed really missed the mark.

Panther on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Fenris – You won’t get any argument from me regarding the weakness of the bill. I am only saying what little enforcement it does have will be ignored later. The entire exercise is a scam.

ANYONE who supports this mess should resign from public office or admit they are a Democrat. This would be the biggest gift to the left in a generation and would end the Republic as we know it. The pundits who are supporting this should also be ignored FOREVER.

echosyst on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM

echosyst on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Sorry if I sounded confrontational. We’re on the same page, and by ‘ignored’ you did mean ‘tarred-and-feathered’, right?

Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM

OT (sort of): Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC called me earlier this morning asking for “another generous donation”. I informed the nice lady that all my GOP political donations for this year have been sequestered.

I can’t be the only one who’s adopting a wait and see attitude on Rubio. Maybe he’ll get the message.

Curtiss on April 23, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Yet those liberal asses in Washington think vetting 11 MILLION will be easy.

GarandFan on April 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM

I hate to correct you but that 11 million number has been thrown around for far too long and I sincerely doubt the true number is that low. I bet the 11 million number is about right for just California and Arizona.

Ditkaca on April 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism?”

Those aren’t bad questions, either — but they are irrelevant to border security, visas, and the status of 11 million people already in the U.S., all situations that also demand attention.

“Irrelevant”? Are you serious?

Were the bombers immigrants?

Did they at some point have visas?

Were the already in the US when the bombed Boston?

WTF are you smoking over there, ‘irrelevant’?? ffs.

How many of the 11 million (half the real number, likely) are like the bombers in terms of temperament and intent? And you simply want to make them citizens. Great f*cking idea.

Midas on April 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM

People pushing the myth that what the Senate is considering are doing the same thing that was done about gun-grabbing legislation following the Newtown shooting. Doing “something” is the only criteria.

There is a large population of illegals in this country and they are becoming more and more brazen. One illegal even went before a Congressional hearing and whined that he wasn’t being treated with respect by society. An illegal who doesn’t even bother to hide the fact that he has no status in this nation and that he hates America! So, the Dems see an opening to get more voters on the rolls (even though most of them already vote illegally) so they push this amnesty scheme. And traitors like McCain and Graham want to be liked by the left so they push amnesty. But it will be interesting to see what happens to this legislation when it gets to the house because Boehner cannot be trusted to hold the line against citizenship for the illegals

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM

But Grassley actually had:

Grassley last week urged caution in proceeding on immigration reform, arguing that lawmakers should take more time to understand the flaws of the current system and to read the bill itself.

“Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system,” he said. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”

oh come on ed, how could you read that and come away thinking grassley called for a delay?? he’s calling for caution, same as he was doing before the bombing. are you shilling for “comprehensive reform” or just trying to appear even handed?

chasdal on April 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM

we can discuss just how effective these solutions are, and how much teeth those triggers will have,

Ok, lets look at the triggers.

http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=adefad85-7f5c-4f3e-a4dc-366a1b71ad38

1) create, fund, and initiate a plan… that’s one down. the plan doesn’t have to work, I just have to have one after all.

2) create, fund, and initiate another plan… that’s two down.

3) Not actually required, skip and go to #4 which is the backup when 3 fails (and it will).

4) Create a committee to create and initiate a new plan… again. 4 down, 2 to go.

And all I’ve done so far is some paperwork, with no actual security required… anyone impressed

5) E-verify implemented… if it happens this is the only part that makes any changes.

6) Check visa on entry/exit (we don’t do this now?) nothing to affect Visa overstays…

And we’re done. In exchange for e-verify and some paperwork we’ll allow 11+ million new citizens.

And that assumes you believe they’ll hold things up for e-verify. The rest of it is “someone did some paperwork, trigger achieved”.

gekkobear on April 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I hate to correct you but that 11 million number has been thrown around for far too long and I sincerely doubt the true number is that low. I bet the 11 million number is about right for just California and Arizona.

Ditkaca on April 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM

If it isn’t now, it will be once the provisions for amnesty are established and there is a rush for our unprotected borders.

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Yeah, because Democrats never use unfair argumentation to get what they want. We’re “better than that”….

HB3 on April 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM

This bill is reportedly loaded with more pork than a hog farm. Of course so many of them want this disaster rushed through, for their slice of the Treasury pie.

A lunatic goes nuts with guns at a CT grade school, and we need to ‘rethink’ the Second amendment.

Bloomberg says that, as a result of Boston, we need to ‘reinterpret’ the Constitution.

But taking a pause about this allowance-for-illegals idea is totally out of the question, it’s playing politics. And if they think this will be the last bill for god, they’re either liars are delusional. When this thing is proven to be a failure — and it will be long before the five-year window to see — we’ll be hearing the same song and dance. But with another 12 million illegal invaders.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM

I’m starting to think that the GOP Establishment Strategy is to let the Senate Democrats write their own bill and help them push it through the Senate as quickly as possible. Then once in the House there will be some modifications that will be acceptable to the Democrats.

The GOP establishment is desperate for amnesty because they think it will make the issue go away so they get more votes. If they negotiate a truly bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate then over in the House it would get watered down perhaps beyond what Democrats would accept or it would leave some unresolved aspects of immigration that Democrats would continue to pound Republicans on during campaigns.

Wigglesworth on April 23, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Thx for reminding me of another weasel and his political BS,Paul Ryan. It is beginning to look like he and Rubio share the same staff! These two are not principled conservatives, no matter what they say…..watch what they do!

tomshup on April 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM

“…The real question about the Senate bill is whether it actually fixes the systems it addresses…”

When do these mega-bills ever “fix” anything?
All they seem to do is to introduce more complexities into everyday life, making one more and more dependent upon the ministrations of the Apparat.

Another Drew on April 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM

This bill is reportedly loaded with more pork than a hog farm.
Liam on April 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM

there’s some money in there for cruise lines in florida. hmmm,wonder whch senator would want that in there.

chasdal on April 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM

its going to be a boondoggle no matter how you slice it

obamacare 2.0

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM

I like Rand Paul but I will not say that he has transcended demagoguery. That being said, I do not totally agree with you Ed. Our immigration system is very germane to the failures with the older brother, Tamerlin. He could have been shipped back two to four years ago.

mwbri on April 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

The problem is not that there are no deportation provisions in our current legislation, the problem is this bastard administration is not enforcing them and is not deporting criminals, regardless of their crimes, and this beats me. Don’t know much about the previous admins, and how/if they enforced deportations of non-citizens who broke the law here or not , but this laxity has to stop. Problem is it just doesn’t require new laws (this particular aspect pertaining to deportations) but enforcing the existing ones.

jimver on April 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM

When this thing is proven to be a failure — and it will be long before the five-year window to see — we’ll be hearing the same song and dance. But with another 12 million illegal invaders.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Thats part of the bill that makes me angry. The Dems want opponents to trust them and that would be the most stupid thing to do. They’ll make some half-hearted attempt at pretending to beef up border security then, after the mid-terms (after the 2016 election at the latest) when they’ll decide that all that waiting time for the illegals is just wrong and fast track amnesty so that overnight a bunch of criminals are signing up for welfare, social security, and Obamaphones. Not that it would matter much by that point because we are essentially giving them amnesty when we “normalize” their status at the very onset of the proposed legislation.

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM

[Panther on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM]

I don’t think it’s sloppiness or that he’s got a lot on his plate and can’t assess it more than superficially, I think Ed has an agenda on this issue and I say that more because of his characterizations of the debate. They are harsher than normal for him and particularly one-sided, the latter being quite out of character for him. He may not see it but it’s there.

I think he reads too much of the MSM viewpoint and not enough opposing views. You can see that in the links he’s providing. I don’t think he read Mickey Kaus, who not only knows this issue backwards and forwards, but has a great knack for gaming the the intents and consequences on this issue.

But even those aside, if your ultimate goal is to have good government, you would wade deeply into the side of delaying this bill so that the public would have the opportunity to fully understand what their representatives are asking them to accept, before they have to accept it. Having seen how pols, on both sides, manipulate issues, and having spent four + years having a the greatest manipulator in American history as President, I can’t believe any True Scotsman American would find rushing this bill through Congress acceptable.

Dusty on April 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM

This is absolutely germane Ed. It is a ‘comprehensive’ bill which means it includes most if not all aspects of immigration. It is much more than just “What are we going to do with 11 million illegal aliens?” The terrorists were immigrants. One became a naturalized citizen, the other hadn’t quite made it. The older brother was convicted of a crime in 2009, but was not deported. He also had associations with radical clerics and militants, but was still not deported. You realize that he would never have been approved to come here in the 1st place if he had a criminal conviction so why would you let an immigrant stay if he becomes a criminal. Bringing it back to immigration reform, there is nothing in this bill that will mandate enforcement to protect Americans from criminals.

Wigglesworth on April 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM

its going to be a boondoggle no matter how you slice it

obamacare 2.0

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM

I can picture the following scene in my mind: an illegal sitting on the border fence and getting a tan while perusing through 500 pages of the immigration law, trying to figure out how to navigate between quazillionths of provisions :) all under the protective and caring eye of our smiley PC border patrols :)

jimver on April 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM

A bunch of lying ba sta rds…
We don’t have a “broken immigration system”.
We have a corrupt government that refuses to enforce the current immigration laws and refuses to consider repairing the immigration laws that need it.
How about we just do this…If the Senate passes this crap sammich, the Hoiuse should strip the bill (remember how they did Obamacare) and insert this:
All current immigration laws shall be fully enforced. No exceptions.
The Border security fence shall be completed in 12 months. No extensions.
All Visa overstayers shall be immediately deported. No exceptions.
All undocumented persons shall be immediately deported. No exceptions.
Future work permits will be granted only for skills deemed necessary. They will expire annually
Maybe 2 pages to do the job.

III

dirtengineer on April 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Putting together a photoshop on illegal immigration. This is what I have thus far. Please make suggestions on what can be added symbolically that says illegal immigration. I would really appreciate your input. ; )

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Yes, you do have to wonder how accurate that “11MM” number is when the BP is apprehending illegals in TX who ask first thing:
Where do I go for my amnesty?

A more accurate number is probably twice that, and has been for some years (there have been a spate of self-deportations with the collapse of the housing industry and related jobs).

Another Drew on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Why the Rs will destroy the land more than the Ds – they enable the latter.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Putting together a photoshop on illegal immigration. This is what I have thus far. Please make suggestions on what can be added symbolically that says illegal immigration. I would really appreciate your input. ; )

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Analyzing and will suggest, if any thoughts come to mind.

First – it is NOT immigration. All who use the term, may they spontaneusly combust.

It is amnesty.

They are not immigrants. They are illegal aliens.

To use these terms is incredibly insulting to the legal immigrants.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Bmore, for starters:

1. Make the Mexican flag bigger than the USA flag. The order is correct, Mexican on top.

2. Add, to each end, the two Boston bombers. It’s no longer the gang of ochos. It’s now the gang of 10.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM

It needs a “my little pony unicorn” in the corner saying something approving.

Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Putting together a photoshop on illegal immigration. This is what I have thus far. Please make suggestions on what can be added symbolically that says illegal immigration. I would really appreciate your input. ; )

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM

That’s funny. I think an illegal alien climbing over the fence would be a nice touch.

Wigglesworth on April 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Bmore, not Miriachi ocho – Diez Mariachis, after you add the 2 from Boston.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Point taken. I thought you might enjoy that I put Schumer in the girls clothing. ; )

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Point taken. I thought you might enjoy that I put Schumer in the girls clothing. ; )

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM

See new name.

You are the greatest, friend.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Bmore, consider doing a separate one, in the series, with the bombers and the dead one’s wife…they are the new AmeriKa too.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Bmore, if you don’t put Schumer in a girl outfit, the picture is derelict.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Sorry, I meant Ms. Lindsey.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Bmore, must have a “Forward” label, somewhere…

Also one with “Si, se puede”, with Obama’s picture in it…posted on the wall, behind them.

Also, not to miss a marxist hammer/sickle symbol.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

jimver on April 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM

oh yeah…

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM

May all who are for this travesty for the USA spontaneously combust. To Hades with all.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM

But even those aside, if your ultimate goal is to have good government, you would wade deeply into the side of delaying this bill so that the public would have the opportunity to fully understand what their representatives are asking them to accept, before they have to accept it. Having seen how pols, on both sides, manipulate issues, and having spent four + years having a the greatest manipulator in American history as President, I can’t believe any True Scotsman American would find rushing this bill through Congress acceptable.

Dusty on April 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Excellent points. I like to give Ed the benefit of the doubt but this was a bit of a stretch.

Panther on April 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

I can’t believe any True Scotsman American would find rushing this bill through Congress acceptable.

Dusty on April 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM

This bill will destroy the USA and you, for good.

All who are for it, combust, from dereliction.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Bmore, pink skirt for Ms. Lindsey

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Wait, wait…two immigrants did an awful thing, and it’s a non sequitur that this has bearing on a bill that will increase immigration?

So, why don’t we say it, then? “Immigration reform” is all about Mexicans, not immigration.

S. Weasel on April 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM

A couple of the tweaks made. Same place. Here.

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Think you are upset, now?

Be happy that the guys I know in law enforcement are too smart to post here. There are those who speak, however.

A word from the ICE union, anyone?

ICE Union President Chris Crane recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, telling them that the Gang of Eight refused to listen to the opinions of law enforcement while drafting its mass amnesty bill, but they did meet with several special interest groups.

Source: Ice union suggested letter/fax/email for congress.

https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax?id=14645&refer=faxes

IlikedAUH2O on April 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

This immigration bill is a push for one party rule, pure and simple. We are staring into the abyss of communism.

bitsy on April 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM

This.

(I always enjoy your comments, btw)

bitsy on April 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM

If congress actually considers the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill on its merits, it is dead on arrival.

bw222 on April 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

You’re welcome, bitsy :)

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Excellent points. I like to give Ed the benefit of the doubt but this was a bit of a stretch.

Panther

Ed is an amnesty shill, so stretching on this issue isn’t surprising.

xblade on April 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Even if Paul and Grassley insist on addressing other significant issues, that could be accomplished through an amendment process to the central bill under debate.

How does an amendment process that addresses other significant issues resolve these significant issues. Unless they are part of the original bill, there is no guarantee that these “significant” issues get resolved.

Vince on April 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I hate to correct you but that 11 million number has been thrown around for far too long and I sincerely doubt the true number is that low. I bet the 11 million number is about right for just California and Arizona.

Ditkaca

Even if that number is accurate(and it isn’t), it still doesn’t represent the amount of people eligible for amnesty, because not only does it give amnesty to the “11 million” who are here, it also allows those who have been deported to come back and get amnesty, PLUS it allows those “11 million” to bring in family members. After the 1986 amnesty, the average was 5 family members. If it’s only 1 family member this time, using their own bogus 11 million figure bumps the actual number to over 20 million.

The entire sales pitch for this sham is built upon one lie after another, yet they expect us to take them at their word and believe they are really really serious this time.

xblade on April 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM

There is almost no overlap between the immigration status of the Tsarnaevs and the comprehensive immigration reform bill under consideration in the Senate, and yet both sides are insisting that the case should either accelerate the adoption of the bill — or postpone debate indefinitely.

Doesn’t that denote a problem with the current legislation? I don’t see where you are getting this non-sequitur argument from. Immigrants attacked us. This is an immigration bill. I think they are most certainly related and you are seriously mistaken.

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Good on you Ed, at least you put your position on the table for everyone to look at. I don’t agree that stopping it is akin to a BlackHat/WhiteHat red herring. It is more regulation and more law on top of regulations and laws that aren’t enforced. That is the bottom line. BlackHat/WhiteHat should have been on top of the pile for more vetting and investigation. Instead they were lost in the shuffle of a dysfunctional government that now wants more to do to be even more dysfunctional at.

Limerick on April 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM

This immigration bill is a push for one party rule, pure and simple. We are staring into the abyss of communism.

bitsy on April 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Yes it is and with republican approval because what the real goal is is to have one political class that rules. The rubes in flyover country are getting too unruly for them so they will work together to stamp-out any push-back to their agenda.

By the way, a story is just breaking that Romney is hosting a retreat in June and three of the invited guests are: Christie, Ryan and Axelrod. Now, do you think that will be a retreat that has the best interests of conservatives in the fore? I really believe that the RINOs are gearing up for a final battle with conservatives over the midterms.

KickandSwimMom on April 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

of course it doesn’t fix anything. When has anything in the last 6 years made anything better or more efficient? It’s 844 pages that might as well be hung on a toilet stall wall.

kirkill on April 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM

We just had 2 immigrants who passed through our “extensive” immigration process. Now we are going to allow 11million+ people who didn’t follow the normal process in?

At a time like this we should be revamping and enforcing the current laws on the books. The only laws we should be considering is how we make immigration MORE restrictive.

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Schumer argued against delaying immigration reform due to last week’s terrorist attack

I thought Schumer said the Senate was the f-ing “cooling saucer.”

PortlandJon on April 23, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Putting together a photoshop on illegal immigration. This is what I have thus far. Please make suggestions on what can be added symbolically that says illegal immigration. I would really appreciate your input. ; )

Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM

There was a great photoshop during the first time McCain et al tried this, during the administration of President George W. Bush, showing ‘three amigos’ in Mexican outfits and somberos. McCain, Graham, and ?

slickwillie2001 on April 23, 2013 at 3:05 PM

By the way, a story is just breaking that Romney is hosting a retreat in June and three of the invited guests are: Christie, Ryan and Axelrod. Now, do you think that will be a retreat that has the best interests of conservatives in the fore? I really believe that the RINOs are gearing up for a final battle with conservatives over the midterms.

KickandSwimMom on April 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

He’s meeting with AXELROD? Wow.

Doomberg on April 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM

“We have a broken immigration system and, if anything, what we see in Boston is that we have to fix and modernize our immigration system for lots of reasons,” Ryan told a throng of reporters. “National security reasons, economic security reasons. For all those reasons we need to fix our broken immigration system.”

Our immigration system is NOT “broken”. Our enforcement of it is.

I’m sick and tired of this particular narrative. They can’t tell us with any credibility whatsoever that we need some new system when the one we have is IGNORED and has been for decades. I don’t know what the heck Republicans think they’re going to accomplish by joining Democrats in their contempt for the rule of law… but I very much doubt it’s going to pan out like they think it will.

I have defended Republicans for these last four years, arguing with third-party, libertarian types that we need to stick together. But if they do this, if they pass that bill over the objections of the law-abiding citizens of this nation… if they ignore common sense in the face of high unemployment and 17 trillion in debt… then I AM DONE.

The GOP can’t keep both constituencies. They’re at odds. You’ve got the one, which flouts our laws, drains our social resources, and as we see in the Boston bombing, threatens our national security. And you’ve got the other, law-abiding, fiscally responsible, and patriotic. This onslaught of immigrants will vote, as they always have, for the guy who offers them the most pandering from our “BROKEN” public treasury. THAT is what it’s going to take to get their votes.

So… good luck with that Republicans. Your new strategy will be to out-spend Democrats. /sarc
Meanwhile, those of us who have had ENOUGH ALREADY… will be getting behind some third party candidate. So instead of fixing your libertarian problem and getting back all those third-party votes and no-shows this past election… you’ve compounded it.

Murf76 on April 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Well, not so fast.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Conservatives used to believe in the rule of law.Any self-proclaimed conservative who supports this bill,which grants amnesty in the form of future citizenship to these invaders is no conservative!

redware on April 23, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Ed, this is not a non-sequitur. Security was supposed to be a bullwark of this bill, but what did we learn from Boston?

Our current immigration laws, enforcement and security aparatus is helpless in its ability to stop the stated (and hidden) enemies of civilization from wandering freely all over this country.

Unless this is addressed there will be more Boston bombings and it will be little consolotation to all the future grieving relatives that at least undocumented hispanics now have “a path to citizenship”.

Don’t you see how unimportant that is relative to evident national security issue posed by lax immigration and visa screening?

If anything, it is the immigration bill that is the non-sequitur.

virgo on April 24, 2013 at 2:32 AM

This would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Grasley and Schumer between them don’t match the IQ of my cat. Both would knock down their grandmothers if they stood between them and a TV camera. Is it any wonder why Washington can’t pass any legislation except something that lines their own pockets? Really, America, we should be ashamed.

georgeofthedesert on April 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM