The fear of many of us, of course, is that this will be yet another promise of enforcement. In which only the amnesty part of the program gets implemented.
We listened with ears AND heart to see if Pres Bush understood. I am one of those like John of Powerline who did not get a warm feeling.
It is not the end of the world, but I think the American people gave the GOP both branches of Congress plus the White House in order to implement change. To improve things. I don't see it happening.
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amnesty.html

We had our compromise bill in 1986. I'm willing to discuss amnesty. . . errr, "Earned Citizenship" and a guest worker program only after proof that border and employer enforcement is being taken seriously. The President says that will take about two years. Let's have that part of the discussion in 2008.

People are being really really stupid about this. The American people do not and will not support mass deportation. I am sick of the hardliners who refuse to even try to make something work and who complain about being screwed on this when they are apparently quite ready to throw the whole thing to the Democrats knowing full well what that means. I don't think they even give a rat's behind about immigration, they just like to bully everyone else. I am sick of them.

Dafydd- Why are you and I the only ones left that have actually figured this out? The cannibalistic frenzy of, as you say, absolutism which started with the Miers nomination will destroy all that has been accomplished since Reagan took office and the screaming, demanding, threatening, self indulgent loons of our recently defunct party will blame everybody but themselves....I'm just saying...

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

The fear of many of us, of course, is that this will be yet another promise of enforcement. In which only the amnesty part of the program gets implemented.

First of all, Jim, why do you use the word "amnesty?" You know that nobody is proposing an actual amnesty.

When you misuse words like this in order to stir up an emotional, non-thinking reaction, then you are part of the problem.

Second, if you're worried about that, then let's have an amendment saying that the money to implement the guest-worker program and the normalization will be appropriated only after the money for border security is appropriated. That way you know you won't get fooled again.

But you must include both sides of the deal or there will be no deal. Without the carrot, there will be no stick. There wouldn't even be 51 votes for a pure-enforcement bill, let alone the 60 you would actually need to move it over a bipartisan filibuster.

Your enforcement-only bill would not pass. So we will not have a guest-worker program.

And we will not have a fence, either. Or any big crackdown on employers. Or a harder-to-forge immigration card. Or any other increase in border security.

That is your choice, Jim: either you give a little to get a lot... or else you give nothing, and you get nothing.

Nobody rides for free.

Dafydd

TBinSTL:

Why are you and I the only ones left that have actually figured this out?

Gosh, I hope that isn't true. I don't think it's true; I'm sure there are others out there... in fact, I'm sure we're a majority within the Republican Party, albeit normally a silent majority.

Let's start speaking up.

Dafydd

Are those close to the President's message non caring about poor Americans, against upholding the law, desirous in having criminals flood our streets, or not willing to insist Latinos and others be come legal like our own immigrant parents did? Let's consider the others side for a moment:
There is not a person that I know who would not like to see higher wages for lower class Americans. The problem is unless you want to wall off America and make a ‘go of it’ alone, wages will in part be determined by folks in countries outside of our own. Not by immigrants but places where companies can set up production plants with willing low wage, workers. Places where educated people in third world countries will perform services for US companies. If you insist that not happen, sorry, it will happen anyway but with non US companies who will in turn sell their products here and to our current non US customers. Further I might add, each time we make an effort to 'go it alone', the going was brutal and eventually world problems bit us on the hind side, while we were a bit ill on the inside.
We need a fence and a tight boarder 1st above all. We also should increase legal immigration.
Arguments about gangs, criminal illegals, and how 'my' forefathers came in legally, do not relate to today's situation. Things have changed and are not equivalent to today's situation. There is good reason to secure the boarder and regulate immigration, but it should be properly stated. There were criminals with every immigration wave from every country. The percentage now is a little higher for hispanics, probably because of our proximity to the Mexican boarder. In ages past it took a determined, farsighted criminal to save up enough money to purchase a ticket across the ocean. Gang problems are nothing new; remember the recent movie about the gangs of New York with the blond haired Titanic star. So with Hispanic criminals, it is not the DNA, but rather the proximity that is the problem and hence the need for a fence and tight boarder
Every time immigration is discussed, folks always say that my grandparents came in legally and learned english and wanted to become citizens. That is not a legitimate argument. 

1st. They were not required to wait in long lines in their home country, they simply boarded a boat and filled out papers when they got here and began the process. 

2nd There were no limits as to how many could come, until just before the last great depression. Along with protectionism, the country also demanded a limit to immigration applicants. This was part of the worldwide revolt that pitted country against country, shutting down imports and exports. The resulting adjustment was very damaging to the flow of capital and goods. The depression took a long time to realign production, capital flows, skilled laborers, and societies attitudes (depression has more to do with attitude and emotion than depressed markets).
3rd The INS process of becoming a citizen, is next to impossible, and the limits are untenable. Talk to someone who is diligently trying to go through the process. You think the DMV and IRS give you the runaround? Try the INS. Feel resentment toward the Government for the high rate of taxes and the infuriating rules of the IRS. Multiply the infuriation and picture the resentment those trying to get LEGAL immigration papers, have toward the government.
Our own elite not only use illegal immigrants as lower class citizens worthy of only minimal wage labor, they pander to them insisting on dual languages in government documents, thus insuring no upward mobility and integration. Someone must dig the latrines they say, Americans won’t do it. An amazingly degraded view of fellow humans and a strange view of the value of hard work.
Many, many, INS workers have a jaded view of Latinos and certain Asians and treat them poorly. This is result of the increasing size of the bureaucracy, mixed with unfortunate human tendencies. It is the natural evolution of governments to empower massive bureaucracies. The 21st century applicants, who run into this horribly long, drawn out, process and biases, (especially those who are poor immigrants with little established family here) naturally feel oppressed by the “United States”. This is radically different from the days our families immigrated here. Our forefathers wanted to come, so they came. They kissed the ground for the freedom and most importantly to poor immigrants, the opportunity to excel. After a short time in New York, they were off to explore this country and it’s opportunities. They had little time to build resentments; indeed the “United States” welcomed them, though not necessarily it’s citizens. 
Their entry bared little resemblance to 21st century immigrants, legal or illegal.
It is the welfare society that causes the huge friction between people. Everyone pays such a huge amount into the government coffers; they get furious when someone newly arrived, draws from the kitty. This is a new condition/environment our forefathers did not experience.
These comparisons have no place in arguments, pro or con. Now for the belligerent’s, they set up straw men to vent anger at and garner votes. You can listen to their speeches on Spanish radio and TV. Rally, after rally, they actually begin to believe their own deception. It is Racism they decry yet Caucasians in general, have no problem with hispanics who integrate legally and abide the laws of the land. They could care less, the country of origin, but insist on an understanding of America’s history, language, and law.
After all is said and done, US citizens bare a good share of the blame for the mess. They have fallen far in moral clarity, political vision, and distanced themselves from the founding principles of this promised land. They have allowed the political class to bribe them into submission. Newly integrated citizens are an asset, as they bring appreciation for freedom, liberty, and opportunity that most Americans have taken for granted and lost the ability to comprehend it’s origins. Many bring a faith in God that is sorely lacking in many liberal, but gratitude deficient Americans.

Do not misinterpret what I am saying, wide open boarders is a nightmare in so many ways, but shutting down boarders so only a very few can immigrate is not going to solve our problems either. Elitists and liberals are not recent immigrants. Socialists, race baiters, Castro lovers, and anti-Americans are mainly bred in the University and select blue city upper echelons. They have worked their way up the prominence ladders to big city newspapers, top Hollywood circles, Educational organizations, and political careers. They are so far removed from the origins of freedom and liberty that historical context always eludes them. Freedom and liberty means the right to be supported while saying the crude, the vulgar, and anti-American tripe. It means to them, printing the crude, the vulgar, and anti-American tripe and not even be criticized. It means sexual freedom to what ever you can imagine, in public or private and not ever be criticized. All other liberties are of small importance or unproductive. Small communities will punish their beloved freedom and liberties so they fight to move all power to the central authorities (the Federal Government).
Most (not all) new immigrants do not share these beliefs; to the contrary, those who were able to legally join us, came from socialisms dregs and failures, and provide welcome gratitude for the real freedoms and liberties the country was founded upon. Increasing legal immigration while closing down illegal immigration will provide a leavening to those masses from previous immigrations that have begun or completely forgotten the greatness of the founding principles.

Frankly I'm suprised at the reaction of the Powerline guys.

Let's look at where the President WAS on this issue, and where he IS. He WAS ignoring the problem; a Prime Time speech is acknowledging that there is a BIG problem, and he has started to address it. He WAS against a wall and for an amnesty program; tonight he not only mentioned a Wall but advocated one... along with more technology and sending the Guard down to improve roads and other access to the invaders. He WAS in effect working with Mexico to facilitate an invasion of our Country; he has committed to ending that kind of activity.

Bush moved a long ways towards what Tom Tancredo and the other Border Security supporters want. He has completely rejected the demands of Mecha and the Int'l ANSWER types. He has moved the debate towards security much further than the House could have done by itself.

Now, I agree, the devil is in the details. It would be nice to hear a Top Level official say that we had indeed been telling Mexican authorities where the Minutemen were observing the invasion, and that we will no longer report the activities of American Citizens to foreign powers. It would be bad to hear that the Presidents proposed fence is white pickett... but I give him credit for coming a long ways in a short time. I think a little encouragement would help him come along a bit further, but sharp mindless uncompromising criticism will just not sway that man.

It's a new position for the guy. Give him and his administration a chance to get used to it; support his new initiatives, and bargain for more... for in the end, this is just a bargaining position and it's a far sight better than his old one!

I linked from Could have been a little worse, could have been a damned site better. You and a lot of other people seem to be missing two important points:

1 -- Just because people like Mr Hinderaker and myself are upset with George Bush doesn't mean we're going to go out and vote for  a bunch of Democrats this fall. Most of us are still smart enough not to jump from the frying pan into the fire, we just want a third alternative.

2 -- No one in their right mind is talking about a bunch of jack-booted troopers "kicking in doors and dragging off women and babies" like Bill O'Reilly accused us of wanting to a few hours ago. There's a difference between that and cracking down on employers and cutting off welfare benefits, non-emergency medical care, etc to make living in this country illegally so unpleasant that people leave on their own. Bush paid lip service to an employer crackdown but there are a lot of us that just don't trust him any more.

Sessions/Tancredo '08

Bill Faith

I am glad to hear you say that.

Mr. Michael:

I think a little encouragement would help him come along a bit further, but sharp mindless uncompromising criticism will just not sway that man.

It's a new position for the guy. Give him and his administration a chance to get used to it; support his new initiatives, and bargain for more... for in the end, this is just a bargaining position and it's a far sight better than his old one!

Now there's the right approach! That's how you negotiate:

Let's say the president moved 1/3 of the way towards you. So you move 1/3 of the way towards him. Then he moves a little, you move a little, and eventually you meet more or less in the middle.

You get much of what you want; he gets much of what he wants; and the only people left out in the cold are the Democrats.

Good post, MM!

Dafydd

I stopped believing any politician on the subject enforcement when I started meeting and talking to clients (tax prep business) who worked for the Border Patrol. I do a bunch of them now through referrals. To a man (and woman) they think it's all a big joke. They know they're not supposed to catch illegals.

A senior agent with twenty years on the job told me that when they go to check out the workers on a farm or ag company here in Arizona, they have to give the owner three days advance notice! Guess how many they find?

The problem I have with the President isn't (just) that he fails to do what him to do on this issue, it's that I don't believe he means all the things he says that sound like meeting in the middle. His actions give lie to his words. I don't see any real willingness to get serious about the things that would actually improve the situation.

Woodrow Wilson also had a little list that he demanded be voted up or down; he got nothing.
We can all agree on the enforcement provisions; since the whole project is going to take years to complete, why not vote on what everybody agrees on, make the election 5 1/2 months from now a referendum on the balance, and then argue a mandate has been granted to enact the whole thing?

Having read your posts on immigration, don't you see ANYTHING wrong with this plan? The family that got here six months ago, whose son just joined the Marine Corps, get trucked back to Jalisco; the joker with the Aztlan banner who's been here since 2000 can stay, he's got roots. For a $2500 fine, he can get at the end of the line, behind the programmer from Singapore who's been waiting six years for "normalization"--and no, Chen, you don't get citizenship any sooner for any amount of money! Shame on you for asking!

Let's figure out what we want, hash out the details, and fight like hell to make the Senate enact it for the sake of their Presidential ambitions. If you start with "What does the Senate feel like doing?" it's BOUND to stink.

Dafydd, I don't understand your amazement at Hinderaker's position. Your position is based on your belief that Bush's proposals are principled and sincere, that his proposals address the situation sufficiently, and that his proposals will actually be implemented. Hinderaker doesn't believe any of these, and has previously articulated his position very clearly. So why the amazement?

Only time will tell who is correct. Based on my observations of the last 6 years, I'm in Hinderaker's camp. Bush's prosecution of the GWOT and his tax cuts are pretty much the only issues which I admire him for. On most everything else, and most especially on social issues, he's been as squishy and unprincipled as Clinton. Thus my pessimism regarding immigration reform.

You say Bush supported the fence, crackdowns, enforcing laws, etc. The devil's in the details, wouldn't you say? Did you catch Hugh Hewitt's interview with Julie Myers of ICE? If Congress approves a fence, you won't be able to credit Bush. The only hope for the fence is if both sides of the aisle put their finger in the wind and decide they can benefit by distancing themselves from Bush's bowl-of-mush proposals.

Bush has had conservatives screaming about a fence, increased border staff, and actual law enforcement for years. After 9/11, he would arguably have had a mandate and bipartisan support for such action; all he had to do was open his mouth. Yet when he did, nothing came out except a reference to Minutemen as "vigilantes." So maybe -- just maybe? -- his current proposal isn't based on principle? Y' think?

I'm grateful that under Bush, the USA hasn't degenerated as far as it would have under (gag) Gore or (gag) Kerry, but that's as much as I'll give him.

Oh -- it's remarkably disingenuous for you to imply that Hinderaker supports mass deportation. I know you follow Powerline religiously, so you must know Hinderaker supports no such thing. He obviously was using Bush's mention of the issue as a clue to where the speech was headed -- toward the squishy center. I think you got all worked up over nothing.

And I'm quite amused by your extended rant on the certain demise of the GOP due solely to the disappointment of principled conservatives. Amused, but not swayed. If I (and Hinderaker) can't find any principled conservatives to vote for in November, then I'll vote for the candidates who stink least, and most likely that will mean the (R) column.

Take the rope off your neck. It's going to be a nice day.

The Yell:

Let's figure out what we want, hash out the details, and fight like hell to make the Senate enact it for the sake of their Presidential ambitions.

Nice sounding words, Yell, but what exactly does "fight like hell" mean? I mean literally: tell me step by step how you would make five Democrats and five or six liberal Republicans (liberal on this issue or in general) vote against their constituents' desires and their own instincts to enact an "enforcement only" immigration bill.

The Democrats wouldn't even need to filibuster: they would maintain party discipline; and out of the list of Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Mike DeWine, Lindsay Graham, and Arlen Specter, at least six would vote against it.

If you start with "What does the Senate feel like doing?" it's BOUND to stink.

How about if we start with "what is the Senate at least willing to consider, and what would it dismiss without a second thought?" I don't think I'm getting through here: Yell, you are not in the majority. Not among the American people, certainly not in the Senate.

You cannot force this on the country, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

The people do want some sort of comprehensive bill: some folks just want enforcement only; others just want the guest worker and normalization only.

Some literally want amnesty -- not now, yesterday! Others literally think we can magically round up millions of people, stash them in internment camps while we run through deportation hearings for all of them, and force their native countries to take them back at swordpoint.

But most folks want some combination of the above. And when you average it all together, there simply is not a majority in favor of "enforcement only."

This is a reality you will have to come to grips with sooner or later. Let's hope it's not after November.

Dafydd

I don't read this blog too much, but I seem to be following quite a few links to here, so maybe I should be. :)

Dafydd, I think you make a lot of sense here. At the very least, calling for reason instead of visceral emotionalism is something most conservatives have asked of liberals for years, now we find ourselves asking it of our own.

I get emotional over this issue, and I have generally been an enforcement type. On the other hand, a few minutes of thought brings up the following gigantic problems when it comes to a pure enforcement approach:

1. Even assuming we can round up the 8, 9, 10, or whatever million illegal aliens in this country for deportation, it is unlikely Mexico (or any other country) will take them. Such a sudden influx of unemployed people would create a cataclysm there, both economically and socially.

2. America could not support the consequences of such an effort, even if Mexico and other countries would agree to take back the illegals. Hundreds of thousands would likely be killed or maimed trying to resist being deported or trying to return.

Ultimately, some kind of compromise between enforcement and "amnesty" is the only viable option. The President's approach is not totally unworkable, but it is a bit long on compassion and short on action.

First, we need a workable barrier at the border. I don't care if it is a wall, a fence, a force field, an electronic barrier, a human friggin' chain or some combination of all those things. That should be priority number one. The President could have been a little more firm on that point.

Second, we need a plan to deal with our illegal alien problem. The President hasn't really proposed anything specific - he prefers to speak in generalities about what we cannot do. They must be accounted for and either deported or converted to legal expatriate employees (see below).

Finally, let's loose the term "guest worker", and let's call them what they are - expatriate employees. Let the companies who hire them sponsor them. Sponsorship may be transferred, but if an employee looses sponsorship, they must return home till they find another. Families are tied to employees' sponsorship unless they have a separate sponsor. Conviction of a felony or serious misdemeanor (i.e. drunken driving) is automatic permanent deportation unless the conviction is overturned, and the expatriate must return home until that happens. No expatriate employee may apply for citizenship. They may of course return home and apply for citizenship, but not while they are a sponsored employee.

The President's speech fell flat because it was not a proposal, it was an outline. The time for outlines is past.

Where oh where have all the rational conservatives that I used to know gone?

I can't stand it, every single blog I go to is railing against President Bush's plan. Do people get it? ROUNDING UP AT LEAST 11 MILLION PEOPLE IS NOT POSSIBLE! Not only that, but it most certainly WOULD be a drain on the economy. The conservatives that support this are really more interested in punishment then being rational I have come to realize.
Bush is right when he says that there are a large portion of workers that are here to work. If you give them some HOPE of becoming citizens in a system that is ridiculously HARD to become a citizen in, they are more likely to come out and be counted. They aren't getting off scott free either. Thousands in fines and back of the line for naturalization means that it would be 2013 by the time the FIRST of this group could be eligible. Secondly, there are a large number of REAL CRIMINAL immigrants and the guest worker program is the best way we have to find them, because they certainly won't be counted and we can put our resources into finding THEM and not the help at the car wash! Conservatives rail against all the pork and the pet social projects of the democrats, yet they don't see how trying to round up 11-20 million illegal immigrants, many of whom have children or other family here might end up being a huge fruitless waste of money?

Meanwhile we strenghten our borders, and isn't that what everybody wants?

Have people forgotten the reason why we want enforced borders in the first place? Terrorism, not Punish illegal aliens. and THAT is where many conservatives have lost their way.

I never thought I would see the day where so many smart conservatives could become so...so... UNHINGED.

JGUNS, only the fringe right is proposing mass deportation, so cool it with the strawmen. The solution set is not limited to (a) POTUS plan, and (b) mass deportation.

One of the things that sets America apart is our respect for the rule of law. If you want to push for revocation of our immigration laws, feel free. In the meantime, please refrain from using the term "we" when asserting the reason for border enforcement. Perhaps "you" believe *the* reason is terrorism, but for most conservatives, including me, *the* reason is that we have laws, and the laws were enacted for reasons that had little or nothing to do with terrorism. A nation that does not control its borders is not a nation.

Wow... there's sure a lot of gullible people blindly believing a pack of lies. (What is not a lie? All criminal invaders now here will be absolved of all crime, forthwith... no going to the back of the entry line - they go straight to the head of the citizenship line... just sign here, you can keep your dual citizenship, no problem.)

All we have to do is wait, until the next 20 million criminal invaders have come over the southern border (in perhaps 12 to 18 months.) Then we'll see how effective this proposal (and any signed legislation that comes of it) has been.

One credible prediction is that we'll see up to 100 million new 'illegals' in the next two years.

The good news is that the absolutists almost certainly don't mean it. Hell, if the IRAQIS have more sense than to engage in civil war, I've got to assume that conservatives do. They're just venting now; let them vent. And when they DO show up at the polls in November to vote Republican like they'll have to unless they ARE insane, let's try to keep the "I told you so's" down to a dull roar.

JGUNS
I don't know anybody who expects 12 million deportations; it's about raiding the underground economy until nowhere near 12 million illegal residents can expect to work 40-hours a week, 50 weeks a year; at which point they begin to drift back without being sent. Considering we agree that the Feds must stand ready to scrutinize EVERY SINGLE HIRE/FIRE in the USA for prohibited employment discrimination, it doesn't seem too tall an order.
It's also about defeating a separatist movement. See www.aztlan.net for more information on the antithesis of the melting pot--whose advocates, under the current "moderate" proposal, will be grandfathered in because they have 'roots' here.

Dafydd
Remember the Freedom of Choice Act of 1993? The GOP lacked majorities in the House, the Senate, and Clinton had the White House. The amount of shouting, rallying, letter-writing, and advertising the pro-life movement did rendered all that moot. It became clear that despite the clean-sweep of the prochoice party in the 1992 elections, the "political reality" was against a legislative affirmation of Planned Parenthood v Casey. A similar barrage upon Congress in an election year would have effect--things DO get done despite the narrowness of the partisan divide.

I don't pretend the mass of America thinks our immigration system is just dandy. But I think right at the moment enforcement is the Lowest Common Denominator of the majority of America that wants tinkering with the system; that makes a good place to start making law while you drum up support for other aspects.

The "normalization" scheme was invented in a Senate conference last month; President Bush's guest worker plan was quietly withdrawn in early 2004. Neither were planks on the GOP platform, nor did they help elect any President, governor, Senator, or Representative. I doubt there is any fixed "majority" consensus regarding them; and surely if they are great and good ideas, they can be sold on the public rather than proclaimed as physical laws?

Dafydd, from a previous post of yours
"the only thing many of them would ever accept is pure enforcement, mass deportations, and internment camps". From Terrye's comment above "The American people... will not support mass deportation."
Talk about demonizing the other side!
I live in a neighborhood that is probably half illegals. We are also way-left around here politically. One of the few areas to stand in favor of (former) Gov Gray "driver licenses for illegals" Davis. I'm used to being demonized by such people, it is disappointing to get that treatment from you.
We know that dealing with the illegals among us will be hard and they have a lot of sympathy. They are more "sinned against" than "sinners". There are some very sweet people, some kids born in the US who are citizens, and on and on. By the way, IF (and I say IF) we decide to deport these people, one comparitively humane way would be to follow well-know Nazi (joke) Mickey Kaus. Anyone getting a new job is exposed to a thorough investigation while people with jobs are left in place. Over time, illegals will gradually self-deport as they lose positions. But it will be over a considerable period of time. New illegals would be discouraged while in-place illegals would have time to make adjustments. Gosh, no cattle cars or concentration camps, what a concept! Or maybe we would decide to just let the people in. That is a debate that is not pressing. That debate can be argued anytime. But enforcement, the fence, ah, there's the rub. Will there be any enforcement whatsoever?
But of course, you protest. The Pres is sending the Nat'l Guard. There'll be a fence and more Border Patrol officers hired.
Time will tell, and who knows, maybe things WILL work out great. I hope so. Best wishes.

Count me in.

I'm speaking out at my blog. Feel free to check it out.

Jim:

I am not demonizing anyone. It seems that the hardliners spend half their damn time demanding mass deportation and the other half saying they do not support mass deportation.

Maybe the reason you people are not getting what you want is that you are not making any sense to the rest of us.

Bush did not say that no one would be deported, he did not say that people can come and go as they please and no one will do anything about it.

Bush is at least trying to deal with the issue. All the hardliners do is rant.

This problem was decades in the making, and will take years to fix.

The government is hearing us, and we are now making some progress on this issue. Punishing the Republicans by allowing Democrats to be elected would be disastrous for the country.

Dafydd, you have long been the voice of reason. Thank you for that.

Splashman, RonC

Illegal immigrants are criminals only because there isn't an easy way for them to be legal. Although I had never been illegal, the path to the citizenship was long and hard.

If you ever have to wait in the line of the INS office, you will know why some were forced to be criminals.

Some of the folks on the blogs, like powerline, might be overestimating their importance. They are a click away from oblivion. It is not as if people like me get paid to check out their blogs and I for one am getting tired of the tone on the blogs.

"Is George Bush Over"? Illustrated, graphically. (Guidance suggested for minors.)

I read about an interesting study once. They gave young women a number of men's dirty undershirts to sniff. The women were remarkably good at identifying the shirt that was worn by their fathers which they also uniformly identified as the worst smelling. This was seen as suggesting that women use scent cues to prefer men who are genetically dissimilar to themselves.

Along the same line, there is no way that President Bush could give a speech that would appeal to the ardently-restrictionist right -- it simply wouldn't "smell" right because President Bush lacks the Mr. Furious gene. He could have read Hinderaker's Suggestions -- word . for . word -- and it still wouldn't have satisfied the anti-immigration types. As a matter of fact, his speech was pretty close to the PowerLine suggestions. But it didn't smell right to his critics because he wasn't angry enough.

Bush was making an effort to meet his right-wing critics half way but he couldn't get past the Krikorianian sign -- the one with the red arrow and the words "You must be THIS angry to agree with me about immigration policy." If you don't have the Mr Furious gene, they can smell it a mile away.

gringoman:

What you need to be asking yourself is if the Republican party is over because certain members of its base are determined to commit political suicide.

Would not be the first time.

Good discussion all, but it amounts to little. The problem we have is that we have a politically weak president and we will until the fall elections are over.

All of these important domestic issues that the Bush administration has screwed up, immigration/the border, tax system reform, earmarks and spending, and especially judges confirmations are all going to remain unsolved until after the elections. The Democrats are politically strong enough right now hold these things up, and so they will.

Intramural fighting among those of us on the the center/right isn't a surprise, and goodness knows the President deserves his smackdowns, but the overall impact is ONLY to strengthen the Democrats hand. It's the only card they hold, but it's a good one: the Republicans have failed to govern, so give us a chance.

Republicans and sympathizers of all stripes have to realize Dafydd is right on this one. Any solution is better than no solution (and this proposal is more than just "any solution" btw), because you won't get even this much of a hearing from a new Democratic congress. Get over it. Don't weaken the President further-- all the damage the NYT, Reuters and the AP has tried to do amounts to nothing compared to the effects of this schism. How serious a threat is a Democratic Congress in wartime? We might just find out if the "absolutists" have their way on this one.

When's the last time the BASE brought down the party, Terrye?

I have 10 concrete problems with this immigration proposal:

1. At some point in the process of matching worker with employer, the American employer must commit to holding the job open for a foriegn laborer. How is it constitutional for the federal government and a private employer to collude to discriminate on the basis of national origin?

2. What is the difference between a job that no American will do, and a cheap employer who is trying to pay too little for too onerous duties? How will you tell the difference before you just import Mexican labor to make good on the gap?

3. Why would foriegn laborers who are not allowed legal entry and employment in the USA without a guest worker program, but sneak in anyhow, suddenly bow their heads and resign themselves to Third World income when the guest worker program is in place, but completely filled?
If they continue to attempt to violate the border, in what way does the guest worker program "reduce pressure"?

4. If assimilated immigration is the key, why waive deportation without regard to command of English, commitment to US allegiance exclusively, or other factors deemed necessary for assimilation?

5. Why call on the Mexican government to help reduce illegal immigration, when it actively encourages the practice and lobbies for full legalization? Why call on states and cities to help restrict illegal immigration when they are spending tax dollars to encourage the black market economy? To what degree is the Bush plan relying on such aid for success? How will the Bush plan make good the shortfall, should the cooperation fail to materialize?

6. Why insist that citizenship and full assimilation is the goal of all immigrants here, when a strong number of them assert exactly the opposite?

7. Why insist that citizenship be made available to all illegal immigrants of a certain tenure, and then stress the extreme hardship they must endure in the attempt to achieve it, and the total lack of any guarantee that it will not, after years of effort, actually be denied them and their families?

8. Why declare time in-country creates a right in equity to extended residence? What right in equity do legal visa holders have towards automatic extensions of their visas? If none, why not any?

9. At what point does illegal activity on the part of American citizens become so unalterable that the law proscribing it must be rewritten rather than enforced? Or does the principle not cross over to American citizens? Why or why not?

10. If full implementation of the border security portion of the plan will require two years, by what year will we be prepared to adequately study the implementation of the Bush plan? What's the first goalpost to be reached after 2008?

Do all those issues add up to a "rant"?

Dafydd - you take a rational, common-sense approach to this one. Keep it up - the middle ground is where this is going to get solved, not over on some edge.

When was the last time the base brought down the party?

1924 was one time. The anitimmigration forces passed a bill that was popular for about a day and a half and alienated so many Catholics and Jews they were a minority party for a generation.

Then of course there was 1964. House Republicans actually voted for the Civil Rights Act but because the base and Goldwater made a point of attacking the Act and Martin Luther King they lost whatever black vote they had.

1992 the angry white male pitched a fit and made Bill Clinton the President by refusing to support Bush 1.

And that is just for starters.

And as for all your little points you have not even given the plan Bush talked about a chance. Not even a chance.

BTW according to the Corner 79% of the people poll approved of Bush's position and support for his plan went from 42% to 67%.

Yell:

BTW my grandparents were forced to work the camps during the Dust Bowl days. They hated being migrants, being Okies, and as soon as they could they left the fields and they did not go back.

How do you propose that we replace the 80% of the workforce in some of the agricultural sectors? Are you going to do it? Do you know anyone who would?

You can blow off all you want about how all we have to do is pay a little more but to think that Americans are going to work some of these jobs in a tight labor market is stupid.

BTW, all these employers have to do is offer up these jobs to locals first and unless you suggest that we activate the Okie program I don't think there is much chance of guys from the hood falling all over themselves for the oppurtunity to pick lettuce.

"Some of the folks on the blogs, like powerline, might be overestimating their importance."

Amen, Terrye. It's easy to lead the parade when it goes in the direction you want.

1. At some point in the process of matching worker with employer, the American employer must commit to holding the job open for a foriegn laborer. How is it constitutional for the federal government and a private employer to collude to discriminate on the basis of national origin?

An interesting lawyerly point, but one, it seems to me that runs mostly opposite to your argument. The government and private employers collude to discriminate against wetback labor every day. I can see (but do not subscribe to) a libertarian argument that this is a bad thing. It does seem odd, though, to complain of discrimination when exceptions against the general rule of discrimination are made.

2. What is the difference between a job that no American will do, and a cheap employer who is trying to pay too little for too onerous duties? How will you tell the difference before you just import Mexican labor to make good on the gap?

This argument underestimates the elasticity of demand for low cost labor. Many of the jobs that are done now by illegals and would be done by guest workers are jobs that would not exist if they paid better. Azaleas look better with a little pine straw between them -- and it helps to cut down the weeds -- but if all landscapers paid American wages we would see a lot less pine straw. RoundUp is cheap and it will take care of the weeds, too.

3. Why would foriegn laborers who are not allowed legal entry and employment in the USA without a guest worker program, but sneak in anyhow, suddenly bow their heads and resign themselves to Third World income when the guest worker program is in place, but completely filled?
If they continue to attempt to violate the border, in what way does the guest worker program "reduce pressure"?

The trick is to adjust your border enforcement and the guest worker program so that it is easier to enter the US as a guest than to sneak across the border. Most people will follow the path of least resistance.

4. If assimilated immigration is the key, why waive deportation without regard to command of English, commitment to US allegiance exclusively, or other factors deemed necessary for assimilation?

An intersting question, but not an important one. As a practical matter pretty much everyone agrees that mass deportations are not going to happen. In the unlikely event that they did happen I, for one, would welcome an exception that would allow the prospective deportee to stay if he or she merely says in clear English "Please let me stay -- I like it here."

5. Why call on the Mexican government to help reduce illegal immigration, when it actively encourages the practice and lobbies for full legalization? Why call on states and cities to help restrict illegal immigration when they are spending tax dollars to encourage the black market economy? To what degree is the Bush plan relying on such aid for success? How will the Bush plan make good the shortfall, should the cooperation fail to materialize?

Realistically, we can't expect any help until we rebuild our credibility in terms of controlling the border. Once it is clear that the old days are gone we can expect the various parties to be willing to negotiate.

6. Why insist that citizenship and full assimilation is the goal of all immigrants here, when a strong number of them assert exactly the opposite?

Strong numbers? What are those? Not large numbers in my experience. Most of the hispanics I know are quite pro-american as long as "pro-american" is not understood to be a nativist, anti-immigrant position.

7. Why insist that citizenship be made available to all illegal immigrants of a certain tenure, and then stress the extreme hardship they must endure in the attempt to achieve it, and the total lack of any guarantee that it will not, after years of effort, actually be denied them and their families?

Ummmm. Good question. Which side are you arguing again?

8. Why declare time in-country creates a right in equity to extended residence? What right in equity do legal visa holders have towards automatic extensions of their visas? If none, why not any?

Egad, you're right! Why send back those students when their student visas expire? I mean, they're educated, they speak something like English in most cases, are young and healthy and, if they haven't spent too long in the University many of them could be trained to do something useful. By all means, let them stay, too.

9. At what point does illegal activity on the part of American citizens become so unalterable that the law proscribing it must be rewritten rather than enforced? Or does the principle not cross over to American citizens? Why or why not?

I never could drive 55.

10. If full implementation of the border security portion of the plan will require two years, by what year will we be prepared to adequately study the implementation of the Bush plan? What's the first goalpost to be reached after 2008?

Let's control the border first, then we'll talk.

Do all those issues add up to a "rant"?

Why, no. They seemed to be an attempt to start a discussion. Of couse, if your next response is set in all caps I could be wrong.

I'm sure there are others out there... in fact, I'm sure we're a majority within the Republican Party, albeit normally a silent majority.

We are out here, most definitely. And we are PISSED. I'm just going to repeat what I said at the Anchoress' post:

It’s ALWAYS the same segment of the GOP that pulls this crap. I’m still pissed off about 1992–they did it then, and look what it got us REAL conservatives? I hope they liked 8 years of Clinton. I hope they like all the Clintonista judges and the morons in the CIA and State Department that are willfully subverting the war.

THANKS A LOT, “BASE” (not) CONSERVATIVES!

Bush owes the screaming toddlers nothing. They’re not reliable, never have been, and as such are not “the base.” It’s all or nothing to them.

BTW according to the Corner 79% of the people poll approved of Bush's position and support for his plan went from 42% to 67%. (Terrye)

::smirk::
I’m going to assume at least half of the 33% who don’t approve are knee-jerk partisans on the left, which means that group of toddlers is laughably outnumbered. (”But he owes us!” LOL)

BigLeeH

Feh, my italics didn't work. Oh well.

"You must be THIS angry to agree with me about immigration policy." If you don't have the Mr Furious gene, they can smell it a mile away.

See also: Polipundit.

Your "Mr. Furious" point is dead-on.

Beth:

Feh, my italics didn't work.

I can fix that.

In future, it works better if you use <em>text</em> for italics and <strong>text</strong> for boldface.

Also, if you click the Preview button just below the comment text box, you'll see what the post will look like on the blog before you post it.

Dafydd

Terrye
Back when 6-year-olds worked in coal mines, there were jobs ONLY 6-year-olds could do. Nobody else could fit down the little shafts, you see.
Banning child labor didn't break the coal industry. They refitted operations around the ban.
Right now we live in a time of unprecedented commercial credit. As agribusiness, as an industry, is multibillion-dollar business, a joint effort by producers to reform employment opportunities would draw commercial lenders in support, independently of the government. The fact that every prairie state gets the same 2 senators as NY or CA would also mean some government support for the effort.
What wouldn't happen is a hundred million square miles of farmland returning to grassland because the migrants couldn't get up North to work it.

I suppose you could count 1992 as an instance of the "base" bringing down the Party, it certainly was decided by the electorate. But why then blame the candidate for the result of the 1964 election?
In 1992 a moderate candidate, who flat out fibbed on a key political principle--taxation--and dragged his feet on the economy--pledging in September 1991 to offer a plan in January 1992--was declared the heir presumptive of the party. He narrowly lost the last preInternet election to the MSM's choice, a slick operator who flat out fibbed on a key political principle--taxation. Candidate Clinton promised further cuts, if you recall.
Two years later Gingrich gave a 10-point plan of reform and roared into office. Two years after that, the last of the the contemporary opponents to Reagan made a failed bid for the White House, at the same time as the hardline base took more seats in Congress.
Had we lied to ourselves and backed Bush to the hilt, would we have had the Contract with America in 1994? Would Bush I have scuttled baseline budgeting? He stays low-key, but his first term was more about working with what he had, instead of reform.
I agree with you about Clinton's personal qualities, but I don't think you can argue the "base" ever held back hollwering about that to anybody who'd listen.

As for giving Bush a chance--since when aren't we allowed to argue about proposed policy? Perhaps the worst trait of conservatives is that we think we can convert effectively on any issue--but I notice a lot of "centrists" prefer to expound policy and demand the hoi polloi accommodate themselves to "reality".

1. As I understand it, the constitutionally-approved policy is that illegal immigrants can't even be here; the employment restrictions are just shoring up that acceptable premise.
I don't believe that any employer can say that jobs will be open to whites or Jews or Lapps for a "reasonable" time, before all such applicants are politely turned away. I don't think a court would uphold that in the case of imported labor.

2. Ah, but what if some contractor engaged to plant straw on a thousand properties a week? There's plenty examples of that in the services industry, where piecework service would actually be unsustainable for the individual laborer.

3. Since the guest worker plan is envisioned to have a limit--and given the sheer numbers of people trying to get in, it's pretty small--at some point people will be turned away because there are no more slots open--at which point I argue you have the status quo ante.

4. I'm not sure everybody means the same thing when we talk about "mass deportation". I think we can all agree the US govt can't act like the stormtroopers in "Schindler's List". As for enforcement in the workplace...this President doesn't want to have the INS go out and hit the factory where 100 illegals work. That's why it doesn't happen. His successor may not be so forgiving.
If say, the INS hit every Tyson plant in Arkansas, I really doubt there would be a mass national outcry to preserve a mulitnational escaping union labor through the foriegn black market labor pool. From talks I've had with diehard liberals in the family, that's one where conservatives and liberals can shake hands.

4,6,7,8. Well I am the minority: I don't think citizenship should take 10 years. I think we can absorb millions more new citizens than Congress provides for--the Vietnamese influx proves that to my mind--and I think the whole process of application and approval should be reformed and streamlined--to the point that the govt have the burden to show why a preapproved visaholder should NOT be awarded citizenship after say 6 years.

But that's not what the President and Senate want. They think the visa and citizenship process work just fine; we're just gonna take a few million more people and throw them into the mix. Out of respect for the dignity of every human.

That strikes me as cruel to people who really want to become citizens, and pointless for people who don't.

You say you want to let them stay if they ask nicely in English? Well I'd put it differently--if they sign an affidavit stating they are foriegn nationals, and don't want to be foriegn nationals, and reside in the USA with the intent of eventually swearing allegiance solely to the United States-and we then file copies with their respective embassies-I'd say the US govt would have a damned hard time demonstrating that they don't qualify as political refugees.

Thing is, a huge number of them have no such idea in mind. They're just here to work--for whatever cash wages they can get, withholding optional. And that's not even counting the real lunatic fringe that says Los Angeles is already Mexican soil.

A lot of different attitudes and presumptions exist regarding what it means to be a "citizen" anyhow...can't we fight it out if it takes all summer? We'll have to live with the result for many years.

5, 10. That goes back to my first points with Dafydd--why not just "control the border first"? why do we have to immediately agree to things we can't immediately implement?
Stampeding legislation got us McCain-Feingold, the supersize Intelligence bureaucracy. Can't we walk in with both eyes open?

9. Ok so if 280,000,000/280,000,000 violate it, it's done. Anything with a narrower margin? :p

I can't stand it, every single blog I go to is railing against President Bush's plan. Do people get it? ROUNDING UP AT LEAST 11 MILLION PEOPLE IS NOT POSSIBLE!
*************************************************
Sure it is and you Netiquette screaming does not make truth.

They did not all get here at the same time, so we don't have to deport them ALL at the same time.

Just deport more than are coming in,

END illegal alien Employment,

Deny welfare benifits to Non-citizens.

Oh and while I have my wish list

STOP counting Aliens in the Census for
Congressional Apportionment.
and if one of your parents is not a US citizen?

Too bad we don't care where it is you happen
to be born, your citizenship is determined
by the Home State of your parents Laws and is there, not here.

I am not alone in my sentiments.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/04%2006%20State%20by%20State%20Immigration%20Questions.htm

Anyone who says there would have to be a "mass roundup" is obviously ridiculous.

1. If employer sanctions are rigorously enforced they won't have jobs.

2. If they can't receive government benefits, they won't eat.

3. If they commit more crimes, they get arrested and deported.

At that point, it becomes uneconomic to stay. They deport themselves.

BL,

I prefer to read you and other blogs that allow comments. That's why I never visit Powerline. It's a bunch of monologues. I like the spirited conversation you have going here: there is heat and even some light.

Don't you find you learn things from your commenters you might not have considered otherwise?

Lack of comments = hubris, no matter what the excuses are.

BTW, if you haven't read "In From the Cold" on Da Speech, I recommend looking at his brief point about presidential duties under the constitution. Besides, if you haven't seen him (your sidebar is divided so I'm not sure if you already have him) you're in for a treat.

Boots on the Ground

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)