May 25, 2006

Senate Passes Bill... Will Conservatives Play Dog-In-the-Manger?

Hatched by Dafydd

Although the Senate has passed its version of the immigration bill, we really have no idea what the final product will look like. The House bill is so different that the resulting merger will be barely recognizable as the offspring of either.

Some, however, don't want the problem addressed at all. If they can't get everything they want, the prefer everybody gets nothing at all. Sen. Jess Sessions (R-AL), for example, would much prefer there be no border fence at all, if the price is that illegals already here ever get normalized:

“We’ve had some good debate in the Senate,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who is a fierce critic of the measure. “But it’s still not fixed, in my opinion, in a whole number of ways. What really needs to be done is for the bill to be pulled down.”

Here is something for the critics to ponder... if this bill is not enacted this Congress, it will be enacted in the next, which begins in January. But the 110th Congress will be more liberal than the 109th -- and especially so if the 109th fails to enact immigration reform.

Time is not on your side. Negotiate now in strength -- or be prepared to haggle tomorrow from weakness.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 25, 2006, at the time of 3:59 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/785

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

I think one drawback of the internet is that it has allowed a minority of people to live in an echo chamber and imagine themselves more powerful than they are.

I am speaking here of the purists, the my way or the highway folks...they seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that if they fail to pass a compromise bill on immigration the American people will take that as a signal that a Republican majority can not govern. So maybe they will decide it is time for a Democratic majority.

Meanwhile the far more liberal forces in the immigration debate will be out there telling hispanics that conservatives see them as a plague and so they should vote Democrat. After all, when Martin Luther King turned on Barry Goldwater after Goldwater failed to support the Civil Rights Act the result was that the black vote for Goldwater was only 6%...compared to 39% for Eisenhower. So if hardliners do what they usually do and alienate enough people to cost them votes the result could be far worse than anything they are looking at now. But then again if the hardliners are willing to let the border go and do nothing at all about illegal immigration rather than compromise...I guess they really don't care do they?

I think immigration reform and border security are important, enough so that I would compromise...the question is does the other side feel the same way?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 25, 2006 4:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

If you can't pitch your policy as the best solution to America's problems, shouldn't you go back to the drawing board for a while and hammer out one that is the best, in your opinion?

We'll even help you out, by killing this monstrosity, and next year we can vote on immigration reform segment by segment. Yes/No to this or that? and how will it work? and how will it be paid for?

That could have been done this year, if it weren't for the self-imposed, absolutist, uncompromising, my-way-or-the-highway demand that EVERYTHING get passed at once, even though everything proposed would become operational in different years.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 25, 2006 7:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin

I predict the final bill is going to look a lot more like the Senate's than the House's.

The Senate bill is much closer to what the President outlined. (Though I don't recall Bush specifically calling for paying Social Security benefits that were accrued through fraud.)

I don't expect the House to grow a spine and stand up for the bill they passed in opposition to the guy who just let them know that when the FBI comes knocking, he's got their back.

The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 25, 2006 7:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

I linked from House of Lords passes No Illegal Left Behind bill.

First, I have to question your assumption that Congress will be more liberal after the election. With survey after survey showing the American people prefer the House bill over the Senate bill by a wide margin, do you really think they're going to vote a bunch of people out of office for wanting to enforce our borders? Is it pure chance that the House, all of whose members face reelection this fall, passed a stronger bill than the Senate? Could it be that some of our Representatives are simply smart enough to listen to the people back home and vote the way those people want them to?

It's not too late for a workable compromise yet, and I hope one can be reached, but compromise means both sides giving ground, not just a bunch of House members listening to their "betters" in the Senate. A compromise amendment was offered in the Senate, and rejected unfortunately, that would have required a working "dam" be in place before the "spillways" were opened. If the Senate can come to its senses and give ground on that then there's still hope for a bill acceptable to both houses to be passed this summer. If the Senate refuses to give ground to get a bill passed then it may take another election cycle or two to get some smarter Senators in place. A lot of us, more than you realize apparently, would rather take that approach than simply give in just to see "something, anything" pass this year.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 25, 2006 8:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

This issue causes splits on both sides, after all.
Cheap illegal labor which can't fight back weakens unions and there is evidence that not all unions are in lockstep with the "comprehensive" solution. Illegals soak up entry-level jobs, this catches the attention of Black leaders who want to see rungs on the ladder for their community to climb.
If an enforcement-only bill came out of conference that included a fence, more agents, penalties against employers it is hard to imagine that Dems would get find opposition a winning strategy.
But as one blog put it (I paraphrase) "It's hard to see how the Republican leadership can have any more feet left to shoot itself in". Looks like they are determined to find a way to give Congress to the Dems.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 25, 2006 9:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Congress won't be more liberal? Well folks after boters give up on Republicans who are too busy acting like bad children to get the job done... they will vote for the Democrat running against them. Right now proimmigration forces are on voter registration drives to sign up at least a million voters to vote for more liberal policies.

And you know what else? If a handful of people in Congress had not voted to make illegal entry a felony in the first damn place a lot of the proimmigration forces would not have gotten together to begin with. So far the hardline appproach has done nothing but create opposition and alienate supporters. I know I am getting fed up with some of these whiners myself. After all it was the hardliners who said that we had to deal with all this right now, who said the country was doomed if we did not pass an immigration law immediately and now all of a sudden they are saying "What's the hurry?"

It kind of makes me wonder what some of these people want, really. Do they want a solution or do they just like to bitch?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 3:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

Can you name some of the hardliners who won't be back? If they do come back after opposing the bil, won't they have a mandate to oppose it in the 110th?

It would be nice to begin building a fence right now, which is about all anybody agrees on at this time. It's the uncompromising insistence on ALL-OR-NOTHING that's controversial.

BTW when they sign up new voters...are they taking the matricula card as ID?

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 3:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Yell:

Yesterday I turned on Fox news and there were prominent Conservative Congressmen bragging about no immigration bill this year if they do not get what they want. No bill is better than a bad bill, they said. So much for the wall.

I am saying that there should be a compromise that both sides can live with so that immigration reform and border security does not turn into ANWR. And it would be helpful if some folks realized that finding, apprehending and instituting legal proceedings to deport 11 or 12 million would be if not impossible, extremely difficult, time consuming, expensive and a boon to lawyers and Democrats everywhere. Let us imagine someone rounding up hundreds of thousands of migrant workers in the fields and just leaving the produce to rot. How does that help anyone? I realize that there are people doing a lot of things other than ag work...but the point is once we start sending them all back irrespective of who they are or what they are doing there will be repercussions people have not thought about. God knows the lawyers will love it.

That is where guest workers come in and so on and so forth...

So yeah, don't threaten to take your football and go home and then be surprised if someone else tells you to not bother coming back.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 4:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

Can you name some of the hardliners who won't be back?

No, you misunderstand the mechanism. It won't be the hardliners like Tancredo or Sessions or Kyl who won't be coming back; if no bill is passed, the toll will be taken among Democratic moderates.

But before you begin clapping your hands in glee, they won't be replaced by conservative Republicans... they'll be replaced by liberal Democrats.

So moderates who are willing to vote for the wall if they can get a guest worker program and some form of legalization will lose and be replaced by liberals who wouldn't vote for a wall under any circumstances at all. Why do you think that's good for you?

Moderates who support the war on terrorism, though they want a little more oversight, will be replaced by a bunch of Russell Feingold clones who would rather see America attacked than see her defend herself.

Moderates who are willing to cut taxes if they can get a slight rise in the minimum wage will be replaced by shadows of Nancy Pelosi who think if you double the tax rate you'll double the tax income.

This is what you will have, in spades and doubled, if you continue down this path. Like Sampson, you will pull the whole temple down atop everyone, friend and foe alike and yourself included, just to vent your rage at not getting everything you want.

Pssst... here's a secret, never before revealed: the moderates ain't getting everything they want, either. That is the essence of a bargain: every Republican is getting two-thirds of the loaf he wants.

But some understand that's a lot better than nothing -- and a solid steppingstone to getting more; while others are outraged that they're not getting two loaves... and not now, dude -- yesterday!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 4:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

When you start off by saying that you can't enforce a law with 11 million violators, and then propose a plan to deal with them whereby all 11 million step up and pay a few grand in fines...what will you do if only 10% refuse? What will you do if a third refuse? Or half? Or if, like in 1986, less than 20% step forward to cooperate?

Why won't tying a human being to one modern American employer by threat of deportation, be any less exploitative than sharecropping, indentured servitude, the company store, or the bracero program?

Chief Justice John Roberts made a speech this week where he talked about seeking as large a majority on legal points as possible, by narrowing the points under discussion to the lowest common denominator. If I recall my early American history courses, that's the approach taken in the first Continental Congresses and the Convention of 1787. Establish easy agreement whenever possible, derive principles of action from those common points, apply them to proposed solutions, do as much or as little as possible and STAND PREPARED TO AGREE THAT FURTHER RESOLUTION IS REQUIRED AT A LATER TIME.

It's not that I want two loaves and won't settle for 1 and a half.

It's more like I want a stack of blueberry waffles, but if I must compromise by eating them with tartar sauce, I'd rather skip it altogether.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 5:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

I come here for sanity and a breath of fresh air and I always get it. Terrye and dafydd, both are on the mark again.

I am a republican conservative and I thought that also meant being a pragmatist, but I am learning that is not always the case especially with the vast majority of conservative blogs showing their ideology more than their pragmatism on this issue.

I call it the "punishment" crowd. There is a certain segment of the republican/conservative segment that seems to think that they are the "real base" and that Bush is alienating them because of his "amnesty" stance. I have gone back and forth with a few people on some blogs pointing out that if they were indeed the "real base" then why is it that after Bush's speech on immigration his poll number shot up among republicans? It appears that the base is indeed split on this issue with half of the base agreeing with the practicalities of enforcement of immigration control and the other half prefering to steep themselves in ideology, which in this case is punishment. 'they are law breakers and thus, they need to be punished' This issue is far too complex to approach with such a narrow vision. We MUST compromise and look at the realities. We need a secure border, we need to find a way to account for the immigrants we have within our borders illegally, we need to control for the future flow of immigration, and we need to be able to better identify the real criminal's, and deport them or house them.

Big Lizards, thank god I found you.

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 6:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Harold C. Hutchison

It seems that the conservative movement and I are probably parting ways soon.

The above hissed in response by: Harold C. Hutchison [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 6:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: Papa Ray

Jeez, caught between the Devil and the Deep Blue.

What's a person to do?

Let us send them all to Iraq or the Afgan.

Leave them there, till they love this Great Land.

In the meantime, let the Minutemen build the fence.

And let them help the Border Patrol until our congressvarmits get some sense.

Also..not to be forgot,

we have to get rid of those who won't cooperate,

Lets raise a cry to do something about the EOIR.

The EOIR is a little-known federal agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, It comprises the nationwide U.S. Immigration Court system and its appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Falls Church, Virginia. The EOIR is the centerpiece of a largely unknown de facto stealth permanent amnesty and non-deportation program for illegal aliens and criminal alien residents.

Papa Ray

The above hissed in response by: Papa Ray [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 8:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: Marine Infantryman (In Repose)

I'd be interested to see how many of the Angry Right "no compromise" types were hyperventilating about this issue in 2000. Or 2004. Someone with NexisLexis capability oughta do a search on folks like immigrant John Derbyshire & most of the NRO ideologues (and a host of others) who are crying "fire" now but weren't even commenting on illegal immigration in 2004. Ideological conservatives are spoiling for disaster in the Fall and in 2008. Those Sunshine Republicans determined to throw the bums out in 2006 and 2008 over their own sense of pique deserve to return to the political wilderness. For my part, I will hold my nose -- but I WILL vote straight ticket. Anything to keep the Left from taking over again!

The above hissed in response by: Marine Infantryman (In Repose) [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 9:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nightsapper

Myself, I wanted a fence, stronger security and internal enforcement of both the employers and the workers. Add to that a fair guest worker program that would a) let us know just who the heck is here, where they are, and what they are doing, and b) if they want to stay and become a citizen, give them a a clear and fair path to do so.

The bill as it was passed does very little of that because of the gaping errors and exceptions - some of which I note below and for which I await your attempts of explanation.

Sorry this post is so long, but you guys have not address the truck-sized holes in the bill, so I had to bring a truckload of the mess here to you. The primary problem I have is that the Senate bill is so flawed as to be un-workable in its current form. To wit:

There are exemptions for employers of the illegals - they basically are not to be held liable for breaking the law by hiring and paying illegals.

Why do you support an amnesty for US citizens that have committed criminal acts and avoided taxes?

There is also an issue of the illegal aliens' back taxes - they choose which 3 of the past 5 years to report and pay on. Can you or I go over our last 5 years of income and then be able to pick and choose which years you pay and you only pay 3 out of your last 5 years? Is allowing them to do so not an amnesty - i.e. excusing them form the law - and is that fair?

Please explain why that is OK and how you support it becoming law.

There are studies that show that this allows in not 10 million who are already here, but more along the lines of 66 million over the next decade. Furthermore, most of them will do so with very little assimilation thanks to the Salazar amendment that watered down the English language requirements from Imhofe.

Please explain your support for a bill that allows as much as 1/3 of the current population to immigrate in an un-assimilated way, in such a relatively short time.

And what about the amendment that repeats the slaughter of high-tech salaries int he US by flooding the market with H1-B's? "By increasing the annual cap of 65,000 to 115,000, automatically increasing the new cap by 20 percent each year the cap is hit". This makes an easy and uncapped growth to immigrants in the tech field - and a visa whose type was massively abused in the dot-com boom.

Do you believe its is a good idea to allow the cap to increase without bound? If not, then why do you support this law?

Did you supporters overlook the extension and expansion of the Davis-Bacon act's prevailing-wage laws into ALL occupations in the private sector? Senator Obama's approved amendment applies Davis-Bacon not only to federal contracts, but inserts itself into the individual and small businesses and their labor, and expands the jobs into which Davis-Bacon reaches. This will necessitate a huge increase in governmental intrusion into the labor-wage calculations of many areas. Furthermore, it provides Davis-Bacon only for guest workers, not for citizens! Essentially it mandates government calculated and controlled wages for guest workers, and eliminates the free market for those wages and workers in a huge swath that was previously completely outside the control of federal law.

How do you explain your support for a law that massively expands government control over labor and huge intrusion into the free market?

And if you are concerned about security - and we all are - the fence provisions are good. On that we all agree. But, what about background checks? The DHS is required to complete them within 90 days. even the most cockeyed optimist agrees that this is impossible, and the bill basically allows those who were not checked to get a presumption of "You're OK and you can stay". Do you agree that this places an extreme security risk into the center of a bill that is supposed to promote security?

If not, then explain why you support the "90 days and you're home free" policy that is in the current bill.

The bill bars federal agents and prosecutors from using information in the application to pursue criminal investigation of crimes committed in the US. And it prescribes a fine for any federal agent that violates this provision. So, for example, of a piece of information was inadvertently given on an application that would linking a person to MS-13 or Al Qaeda, the DHS or FBI agent could not use it to go further and investigate.

Please explain why you support this exemption from criminal investigation when given evidence of a crime.

The most recent is Sen Dodd's amendment to Sen Specter's "management" package: S.Amdt.4188 - Specter: Managers' amendment, a collection of amendments, including Dodd's S.Amdt.4089 that requires local, state and federal governments to consult with Mexican counterpart authorities before commencing new construction.

Let me repeat that again: "requires local, state and federal governments to consult with Mexican counterpart authorities before commencing new construction". That means they will have standing to sue and get an injunction based on "inadequate consultation" at any of several layers of government.

Do you think its a good idea to give the Mexican local and state and federal government the ability to slow down or stop our fence? If not, then why do you support this bill?


I agree with the original intent of the bill, but as it was finally amended, it is so laden with horrible exceptions, exemptions and extensions that it deserved to be gutted and started over.

Hopefully the House will scrap 90% of what the senate put in there. And many of you will come to your senses and pressure the joint committee to clean the bill up there.

To quote Sen Sessions, whom many of you seem to have irrationally attacked:

"When you get into the meat of the provisions and get into the bill and study it, tucked away here and there are laws that eviscerate and eliminate the real effectiveness of those [tough enforcement] provisions. . . . This is a bill that should not become law."

This brings to mind a series of penultimate questions for the supporters here, namely the owner of this blog and others who meekly accede to this bill: have you blinded yourself to the absolute insanity of many of the provisions that were tacked on? Have you really READ the bill and seen the provisions I noted above - and thought through to consequences?

Please address your support for the law that contains so many bad provisions. Why do you believe it is OK for such bad law to become the law of the land?

And the ultimate point for me is: What would it take for you to oppose any law of this sort? You haven't indicated any depth at all to your support nor your opposition. Remember your Burke - how much evil in the form of bad law can you stomach - at what point do YOU stand and say STOP? What would it take?

As far as I an many others are concerned, anyone that supports this mess of a bill has a LOT of explaining to do, starting with the items listed above.

The above hissed in response by: Nightsapper [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 9:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

I marvel at the confidence shown by Dafydd and Terrye that the anti-amnesty position is unpopular and sure to lose. Do either of you feel even the slightest apprehension knowing that your views are popular amongst Sen Kennedy, former Pres Carter, the NY and LA Times?
While I personally have no idea which side will prevail, here are two interesting data points. First, the votes of GOP Senators on the Senate bill as reported by Mickey Kaus (kausfiles.com) and then an AMAZING snip from a WashTimes article cited over at polipundit.com about liberal House Repubs.
First, Mickey Kaus:
[the Senate bill] "lost among all Republicans by a non-trivial 32-23 margin. And it lost, 10-5, among Republicans up for reelection."
Next, WashTimes reports on Repubs in the House:
Liberal House Republicans are taking an increasingly tough stance on immigration reform and are more determined than ever to delete the portions of the Senate bill that grant citizenship rights to more than 10 million illegal aliens.

“I don’t want to see a bill come to the floor of the House that gives them a path to citizenship,” said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress.

This is a change from three weeks ago [yikes!!], before Mr. Shays attended 18 community meetings in his district, where the questions invariably turned to immigration. At the first meeting, he told a group of constituents that he supported providing a path to citizenship to illegals. Not anymore.

“There were real questions about that,” Mr. Shays said yesterday. “There is not much tolerance for allowing people to become citizens who came here illegally.”

It’s the same reaction many House Republicans in moderate and liberal districts have had after hearing from angry constituents in recent weeks, said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, the former chairman of the House Republican Campaign Committee who can cite encyclopedic knowledge of congressional districts off the top of his head.

“It is the hottest issue out there,” he said, referring to public reaction nationwide, including his own moderate district in Northern Virginia. “Everywhere I go, even the ethnic groups, everybody is talking about this.”

It was with much uneasiness, Mr. Davis said, that he voted for the House’s tough border-security bill last year. But since then, he said, he has been stunned by the overwhelming public support for the House approach to immigration reform.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 9:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

Terrye makes this interesting point:
"If a handful of people in Congress had not voted to make illegal entry a felony in the first damn place a lot of the proimmigration forces would not have gotten together to begin with."

In an older thread I asked this question which was not answered. Do any readers know the answer? I haven't been able to find out on my own--
I've heard reference in many MSM articles to mean-spirited Repubs in the House who wanted to make illegals subject to felony prosecution. In one article (which I can't find) it was stated that the felony part was much more understandable. It said that currently the penalty for coming into the country illegally was not at all aligned with the penalty for staying here illegally after coming in with permission (for example, overstaying a visa). The article said the House bill brought the penalty for these offenses into alignment. Anyone know if this is true or not?

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 9:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nightsapper

Actually, I don't see what use "who stood where in 2000" has on any of this. We can get to fingerpointing and schadenfruede later, or leave that to the MSM and the left since they seem to like that sort of thing instead of effective action (Katrina, etc).

The here and now is what is important, and the defects of the current bill are the issues at hand. What we need is a good law now. How to get suh a law should be item #1 for all politiicans, especially Republicans whose majority is at risk.

That means: secure the border (fence + patrols), enforce laws (interior enforcement against illegal workers and thier employers), put into place solid controls on, and census of, guest workers, and provide those that genuinely want to immigrate and assimilate a clear, fair and consistent path to do so, while preserving our ability to keep out people we do not want in here.

The sentate bill as passed is a travesty that guts security and has a huge economic mess in it (see my post above), and the house bill lacks the "fair clear and consistent" immigration policy that we need to make it truly effective.

We need both sides of the coin. We have to have a fair policy to get people in this country legally, but we also cannot do it in a manner thats unfair to citizens, nor can it ignore the laws, nor (most importatnly) can we do it in a manner that compromises the security of our nation's borders.

I quess what I'm asking is:

When will the politicians stop grandstanding, stripping down a bill like the House did or loading up a bill with crap amendments like the Senate did, and give us the laws that we need?

Were I to have done this poor a job of leadership when I was a soldier, I'd have gotten my troops and myself killed over in the first sandbox. Were I to do my current job as poorly as Congress has done theirs, I'd be fired.

Thats why I havne't volunteered to work my precinct as usual, nor help staff the campaign offices locally, and I still havent sent my usual checks in to the usual political campaign places: I want them to do their damn job, and do it right, and right now they are not.

At the moment, I'm feeling a lot like that song from the Who: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Still the specter (pun) of Speaker Pelosi, Judiciary Chairman Conyers, Armed Forces Chairman Murtha is far too large a risk for the nation, so... In the end I'll probably hold my nose and vote a straight ticket out here in Colorado, but by God, I wish I had an alternative I could vote FOR instead of against.

The above hissed in response by: Nightsapper [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 10:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

Since when has being conservative been pragmatic? It would have pragmatic to sell out long ago. The Contract with America was certainly not a pragmatic thing to attempt without any majorities anywhere in Washington.

Conservatism is about standing up for key principles come hell or high water.

And one of them is our sovereignity, our independence, our total self-control of our own destiny. Bush made a big deal that he, rather than Sen. Kerry, would not bow to foriegn governments when it came to American foriegn policy; we should have nailed down our domestic policy as well.

I have come to infer the difference between a Republican extremist and a Republican moderate. I, an extremist, want to defeat my opponents in a fight; moderates want to win by default. Your arguments, as Nightsapper noted, are long on concession and angst, and short on celebration and passion.

I DID help shout down the President in March 2004, when he last made a push for the guest worker program. He dropped it then, I had hoped forever.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 10:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I think the larger point is that a lot of folks out there have already made up their minds on this without even knowing what the final product will be. I am sure there are a lot of things I will have a problem with, in fact I would not object to the government sundowning some provisions, like they did with the Patriot Act.

As for who I am keeping company with on this issue at least I am not threatening to stay home and let people like Kennedy take over. It is kind of ridiculous for the far right to threaten to turn the election over to the likes of Russ Feingold if the rest of us do not give into their demands and then judge us for supporting a bill that Kennedy voted for.

BTW, if you guys had not noticed bills do get passed every now and then on a bipartisan basis. It is called cooperation. The majority of the American people prefer it to gridlock and useless hysteria.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 1:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

When you start off by saying that you can't enforce a law with 11 million violators, and then propose a plan to deal with them whereby all 11 million step up and pay a few grand in fines...what will you do if only 10% refuse? What will you do if a third refuse? Or half? Or if, like in 1986, less than 20% step forward to cooperate?

Nothing. Let them live in the shadows, if they insist. But don't put a time limit on acceptance... as they see more and more of their compadres bite the bullet and legalize, and see that it's real, many more may go for it.

That was one of Simpson-Mazzoli's problem: because there was a one-year time limit, if illegals were too scared at first but then changed their minds, it was too late.

Why won't tying a human being to one modern American employer by threat of deportation, be any less exploitative than sharecropping, indentured servitude, the company store, or the bracero program?

Of course it would. The solution is to make a work visa a general thing, allowing you to work at any employer who will hire you. Let's allow capitalism to work.

Finally, the problem with saying (as you do) that since "everyone" agrees on the fence, let's just do that... is that what you're saying is "let's compromise by accepting my position; then in a few years, we'll discuss whether you get any of your position."

There is broad agreement on a fence only as part of comprehensive deal. There are not even 51 senators who would vote for a fence absent the rest of it... let alone the 60 you would really need.

So your choice is not between a comprehensive bill or enforcement only; it's between a comprehensive bill and nothing at all, including no fence.

Nightsapper:

Of course there are many things wrong in this bill; we discussed this explicitly in a previous post that I think you may have missed: Plenty of Room for Improvement - Updated.

The joint conference with the House is a perfect place to resolve many of those problems.

That said, several of your problems are simply not true. Employers who hire illegals in the future pay a huge fine -- starting at $20,000 per illegal and going up from there, including prison time for the employer.

In exchange for that, we do not prosecute employers who were spoofed by fake documents. Perhaps you consider that horrific, and we should put people in jail for not taking every Social Security card to a document analyst... but you're in a minority.

Second, that "estimate" of 100 million new immigrants was by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and was already suspect when he made it -- which was before the bill was changed to eliminate the automatic increase in the number of guest workers, which was the basis of Rector's estimate. See The "Cost" of Illegal Immigration - and Rhetorical Dissimulation and Will Robert Rector Recalculate? (answer: no).

And Captain Ed already dealt with the silly idea that "consulting" with the Mexican government gives them a veto over anything.

The important point is that this is not the bill that will eventually be passed. This is the Senate version... which is no more likely to become law than the House version was.

This is the purpose of a joint conference: to reconcile the two very disparate versions. If a final bill emerges at all, it will likely not contain many of those provisions that tick you off so much.

So thanks, but Big Lizards declines to be forced into defending a bill that is still under construction.

The here and now is what is important, and the defects of the current bill are the issues at hand. What we need is a good law now. How to get suh a law should be item #1 for all politiicans, especially Republicans whose majority is at risk.

That means: secure the border (fence + patrols), enforce laws (interior enforcement against illegal workers and thier employers), put into place solid controls on, and census of, guest workers, and provide those that genuinely want to immigrate and assimilate a clear, fair and consistent path to do so, while preserving our ability to keep out people we do not want in here.

I like this post a lot better than your previous one. Yes, this is the point: fix this bill or substitute one that addresses these problems while maintaining the grand compromise. Don't pull the temple down on all our heads!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 3:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

"Consulting" with the Mexican government creates unnecessary delays. If they object to everything we build on our side of the border, tough! IT'S ON OUR SIDE OF THE BORDER. One of the deepest flaws of this "reform" is the insistence that we work with Mexico to reduce illegal immigration. They do everything from spend money on matricula cards and cartoon pamphlets on safe border crossing, to amending their constitution to permit absentee voting, to encourage it.
At that, it is just a facet of the larger error of totally misunderstanding the motivations and goals of the bulk of illegal immigrants. They LIKE the shadows. It's nice and cool and one doesn't pay taxes to a foriegn government for whom one has no affection, loyalty, or sympathy.

Sure, you disavow attachment to this Senate bill as not final, not binding, not your baby, etc. But let us conservatives start swinging at any provision, and you scream like the blow fell on you.

Either our party is nothing more than a professional association for half the career politicians in the United States, or it is a convocation of like-minded individuals in pursuit of policy goals. If it is to be the latter, we're going to have to argue about what those goals are.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 26, 2006 6:12 PM

Post a comment

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!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved