I'm fum (sic) South Dakota and I's with Ole Byrum on this une. I don't hold with them foreigners. They didn't want to be Americans so they should just stay where they came from!

I'm for a consistent policy - immigration for US citizens only! What do we do with illegal people? Fricasee them, I say!

So what is the hurry on figuring out the status of illegals? They've been here, in some cases, for years. Is there some deadline to come up with a policy on their status? Why not take time and get it right? Is this such a pressing problem?
In the meantime, border security is by comparison simple and part of the constitutional duties of the gov't. Why not iron out any technical kinks on that issue and get it in place and under steam?
Because of course, if illegals are given amnesty, and the border is treated with a band-aid, we'll be back to this same topic again in another year or five.
Secure the border--something all of us can agree on. Then talk about illegals, which is a difficult and complicated topic indeed.

Mexico has indicated that it will sue in US courts if we secure our border.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_us_immigration_6
Perhaps this approach would make the situation more
palatable to our southern neighbors?
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2258

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

Again, the word "amnesty" does not mean what you think it means. Please look it up in the dictionary.

Second, suppose I were to suggest to you that we should first enact the provisions erecting a path to citizenship and a guest worker program; and only after those are in place should we tackle the problem of building a fence and other border-security provisions. Would you go for it?

Of course you wouldn't. And the reason you would reject it is that you would not trust the Democrats to allow the border-security vote later if they already had what they wanted. They might filibuster it, then laugh like loons at the mess they had wrought.

And you would be absolutely right; I sure as shootin' wouldn't trust 'em farther than I could chuck 'em.

Now, take a step backwards, so that you're outside your own body, viewing the tableau as if you were a spirit moving upon the deep. Look at that Democrat over there... why should he trust you any more than you trust him?

He may think, sure, today we allow a vote on border security alone... and then later, when that's settled, those Republicans will betray us, break their word, and not allow a vote on the normalization or the guest worker program!

The reason we cannot just give the border-security people everything they want and the Democrats absolutely nothing is that we need Democratic support, or at least tolerance, to enact anything at all.

There are 45 Democrats (counting Jeffords) in the Senate; they need only 41 to stop the border-security bill in its tracks. Too, there are a number of liberal to moderate Republican senators, of whom at least four or five would definitely vote against a pure border-security bill like the House enacted.

Do the math: without the Democrats, you do not have the votes to enact anything.

Finally, let me take your suggestion to a new context. You're trying to buy a car, and you're still dickering with the dealer over the exact price. You make the following suggestion:

Mr. Dealer, I know we're kind of far apart on the money thing: you want $40,000 and I'm offering $25,000. But we both agree that under the deal, when we finally make it, I'll end up with the car.

So how about this: let's do the part we all agree on right now. You hand me the car keys and sign the pink slip over to me.

Then after that's all settled and I have the car, we'll return to this negotiation about how much I should pay you. That's fair, isn't it?

Do you think the friendly dealer will go for that deal? No... and for the very same reason the Dems won't go for the one you propose!

Dafydd

Dafydd said: Again, the word "amnesty" does not mean what you think it means. Please look it up in the dictionary.
I see that no less an authority than Mark Steyn also weighs in saying it is not amnesty. so I guess I have to concede this one. Here is the quote, referring to the Social Security compromise in which illegals will be eligible for benefits after using identity fraud pay into SS:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060521-102939-3655r.htm
Sen. John McCain...angrily denied the Senate legislation was an "amnesty." ...He has a point. Technically, an "amnesty" only involves pardoning a person for a crime rather than...pardoning him for a crime and also giving him a cash bonus for committing it.
Me again: I read some commentators who claim that the Senate bill will also [not amnesty, perhaps "excuse"?] employers for past violations of hiring illegals. At least this non-amnesty will not be narrowly restricted to foreigners!

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

Jim, if fifty thousand Mark Steyns abuse the word "amnesty," then fifty thousand Mark Steyns are still wrong.

The word does not mean what you (and Steyn) think it does. The phrase you are groping for is "plea bargain."

Dafydd

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

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)