Dafydd:

The only thing I disagree with is the concern about a guest worker program...I think one could be useful and would not create a permanent underclass. Some folks just want to come here and work and they should have that option if they are properly monitored. Canada has an interesting worker program that most people seem content with.

I do think the hardliners are going to push this too far. They won one election down on the border and now they think they run the show. They don't. The moderates will just say that the anti immigration people did not want the fence bad enough to compromise for it. And why would the Democrats help them? They love this rift in the Republican party.

Finding some method of regularizing that portion of the 11 million already here illegally who only resorted to sneaking across the border because of the irrational and unjust nature of our broken immigration system -

I hate hearing the word "regularizing" what you are talking about is giving someone a token penalty for breaking the Law and setting them free, Now you might be correct that is not amnesty, since amnesty would be a total pardon and not even asking them to pay a fine LESS than what they normally pay Coyotes to enter Illegally.

It is NOT regularizing.

"bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage; impose regulations;"

Y

You made an issue in the past about the misuse of the word "Amnesty" you stood on the legitamate definition/

But you insist on coming up with your own definitions as it suits you.

Someone who enters a place ILLEGALLY is NOT a Guest.

Allowing someone to be excused from the regulations required to enter legally is NOT to

"bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage; impose regulations;"

It is saying Shucky DARN it is TOO BLAMED hard to enforce our Immigration and Border Laws so why not just pay US the same amount of money, maybe even less, than what you paid the Coyotes to get here and we will put you at the head of the line before ALL the people who have actually tried to follow our Laws.

I mean we are only talking about 25 years worth of naturalised citizens.

and yet we likewise cannot simply "deport them all," both for practical reasons (it's not physically possible)

You are right there, but we can start putting the employers in prison and confiscate the businesses hiring illegals, cut off ALL welfare for illegal aliens except for travel expenses for voluntary return to their nation of origin.

Also cut off all federal aid to Sanctuary cities

I think that an enforcement-only option to dealing with illegal immigration isn't as fanciful as you make it out to be. As others have said, it would just require coming down hard on the employers of illegals to end the economic incentive that brings a lot of them here.

So it's possible, and that point can't be avoided. Personally, I'd like to see a nice naturalization package for the honest majority that want to become US citizens that includes a serious overhaul of our immigration service.

I'm not sure if forcing the issue by attatching it to a security measure is the right way to go. Because a compromise will probably be involved, that runs the risk of the security measure being watered down. It's also much harder to completely restructure a domestic instution than it is to build a fence, so even if we get our security measure through, we might get stuck with a delay while we wait for the domestic situation to settle.

I'm just not seeing the upside of the compromise from a security standpoint, which should take primacy.

I think what it boils down to is whether you feel the case for naturalization of those illegals already here and the total overhaul of our immigration service is strong enough to stand on its own. I think there's enough wiggle room in the issue to allow the die-hards and the fair-minded to come to a compromise.

nuclear:

The point you are missing is that there are two schools here, one wants the wall only and one wants immigration reform and a wall. Now group number one can lecture group 2 all they want, but unless something gives no one gets anything. That is the bottom line.

In other words they want the wall..but not bad enough to give an inch. Now whose fault is that?

Dan:

Why do people keep capitalizing ILLEGAL when they post on this? Do they think we are deaf?

I waited too long to get plates for my new car. The Branch was closed today when I went in. That means that when I drive to work tomorrow, I will be using an ILLEGAL plate. I will breaking the LAW. Should I be sent directly to jail? Deported? Shot?

Sorry, I do not mean to be so snarky but that damn border has been open for 140 years. It would be nice if people stopped acting like they woke up and found a burglar at the foot of the bed. We need to fix the problem, not demogague it.

Daffyd: "Congress will turn into the enforcement-only mob, and I am 100% convinced that they themselves will do everything in their power to obstruct and disrupt every other element of immigration reform."

You're a quick fellow, Daffyd, and so in this case I wonder about your ulterior motives. However, I will give you the same benefit of the doubt as you have done for Frist.

The political elite, as a class, does not desire immigration reform. Neither party, as an apparatus, desires immigration reform. Just as a prosecutor has discretion about where to focus resources, so it is also with the state in general. And without tension from the opposition party, there will be no enforcement.

The right understands why the U.N. doesn't work. The right understands that the rule of law requires at least the threat of the application of force, whether via police, funding, or loss of political position threatened by an opposition. Many even argue that we are better off when the state is divided between parties across and even within branches. The right understands the importance of tension on the system.

In your scenario, what actor is going to provide that tension? And without the tension, from where is the force required for enforcement to come. It is clear that the enforcement part of the plan is the part that will not, in fact, be enforced. Just like the last two times this issue came up.

The "moderates" will get what they want. The business community will get what they want. The welfare state race baiters will get what they want. And the borders WILL NOT BE ENFORCED.

By your own admission, most of the public doesn't want to kick the illegals out. The left wants them normalized and will demand it to good effect if a fence is in place. Same with the moderates. The enforcement only position will not hold after a fence is in place. It would be political suicide.

Your entire scenario is a farse.

So at this point, you have several options:
1) Demonstrate how I'm wrong. Good luck.
2) Argue for porous borders. There are SOME arguments for it.
3) Argue for a merged north american state
4) Argue for the massive increase in immigration your scenario requires - but don't tell the people how we would gain 40,000,000 (forty MILLION) new "citizens" in 20 years. They might not like that.
5) Argue the left's "border are racist" nonsense
6) Continue to be obtuse, and hope we don't notice what is perfectly clear from your body of work: You are certainly capable of understanding the underlying dynamics of this issue, but apparently think we are not.

7) Prove that #6 is wrong and change your position.

I'm betting on six, because I think you are smart and have integrity, but due to some ideological concern you are blocking the reality of this situation. There is only one position that will actually accomplish the will of the people; enforcement first.

Regards

Just to be clear, I intended to say I was betting on Daffyd going with #7. I added a number to my list, and then didn't unpdate.

Kind of detracts from my diatribe :-(

If the wall gets built what will it do?

My guess is that it will

1. Make it harder for criminals to cross the border in built up areas. (Duh!)

2. Allow a record of entry to be made of, and allow screening of entrants. This will also make it harder for criminals to enter the country.

As a result violence along the border should decline significanty and violence throughout the country should decline.

It will not stop people from overstaying visas. There has to be another solution for this. But at least we will have a record of those who overstay their visa.

The fence should also make smuggling more difficult and make it more difficult for known or suspected terrorists to enter the country.

Why do people keep capitalizing illegal when they post on this? Do they think we are deaf?

Yes is seems so but since you managed to actually see the word I put it in non-Caps ;-)

They are not guests,
They are not immigrants
They are not undocumented workers
They are not unregulated aliens.

The are Non-Citizens, aliens who
have entered the country illegally.

None of those touchy feely terms that
try to indicate they have a right to be here
and everything is all our fault.
Yes if I leave my keys in my car
I should not be surprised if it gets
stolen, but no I do not see that as a valid
defence

I have an idea if you ever hear of anyone
getting caught driving without a liscence
just have them tell the Judge they were
not driving illegally, they were just an

Undocumented Driver.

Sorry, I do not mean to be so snarky but that damn border has been open for 140 years. It would be nice if people stopped acting like they woke up and found a burglar at the foot of the bed. We need to fix the problem, not demogague it.

It sure has and the American public was sold a song and a dance what some 20 odd years ago and 3 Million Illegal Aliens were "regualrized" and now we have 12 million to do the same with?

What was doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results the definition of again?

Between 1996 and 2005, over 6.6 million people became naturalized citizens, more than double the three million who naturalized between 1986 and 1995
*************************************************AAre we going to double the number of people put into the citizen track over tha last 10 years which would be quadrupling that of the previous 10 years and THAT (shouting again) would be if we did not allow anyone but the present illegal aliens into the citizenship track.

We reward those who broke the Law and punish those who tried to follow it?

It would be nice if people stopped acting like they woke up and found a burglar at the foot of the bed. We need to fix the problem, not demogague it.

People do need to wake up for instance I find very few people I talk to who realise that the balance of power in Cogress is skewed by at least 20 seatsdue top the Non-Citizen count in the Census, and that means so are Presidential elections.

Well I would say most of these posts are making Dafydd's point for him.

If the wall is so important, and no one [not me or Dafydd is saying it is not] and if dealing with the irregular ILLeGAL bad pepple crossing it is of such immediate importnace...then why are the hardliners apparently prepared to let the wall go by the wayside? Never mind the cost of the wall, or who will watch it and how we will keep people from going over or under it or even the fact that about half the illegals who are here got here some other way...no one is saying don't build it.

The harliners are the ones standing in the way of the wall, not the moderates. They are the ones who are being obtuse, not the moderates. Most Americans want both the wall and some sort of reform..or at least a good faith effort at reform. Instead we have people demanding a wall and then making sure they don't get one.

Right now it is not Frist standing in the way of the wall..it is people like Tancredo.

Terrye: "If the wall is so important [stuff]...then why are the hardliners apparently prepared to let the wall go by the wayside?"

Because the wall will not get built, and if it does get built, the holes that pop up will be ignored, unless the normaliztion process is ties to border security performance. Regardless of whether you are for both a wall and normalization, the party is not. Neither party is. They are for selling normalization through the PROMISE of a wall. As soon as the normalization occurs, the "wall" will disappear from the political radar.

"Most Americans want both the wall and some sort of reform..or at least a good faith effort at reform."

If the normalization occurs first, the people will not get the wall.

Tomorrow a Police Officer named Rodney Johnson will be buried in Houston Texas. Many officers will be there (he was a veteran officer, well liked). His family will be there, to say goodbye to a good husband and father. Leaders of the black community of Houston will be there, because this officer was an outstanding role model to young black men. Officer Johnson will be missed.
He was shot by a two-time border jumper. The man had crossed illegally, been caught and deported, and crossed again. Caught in a routine traffic stop, he had no driver's licence or other identification. What he did have was a pistol he stole from his wife, who is (was? I bet she gets fired) a security guard. So this illegal alien killed a cop. Now we the people of the state of Texas will try him and convict him and execute him, and that will be another death directly attributible to the lack of security at the southern United States border.
Dafydd, you've written before on this subject, and I agreed then that the United States desperately needs to reform the immigration laws. I still agree. We want and need good people to come to this country. What was right then does not change because of the death of one good man. Unfortunately, I'm afraid LiveFree is right. If we spend months writing a good law with the reforms we both believe are needed, another million or so illegals will cross the border, hoping to jump ahead of the people who are waiting to do it right. Finally the bill will pass, but somehow congress will forget to pass the appropriations measures to fund the construction of the fence, just as they have forgotten to fund all those increases in Border Patrol people and equipment. We in the border states will loose more good officers, and citizens too, and people like me will not leave home without a loaded gun. Dafydd, I don't want to live like that. I want that fence NOW.

I beg to differ with you of sulferous breath one.

Imagine one of those shower-tub affairs. You have several problems. Both the shower and the tub faucet are running. The drain isn't working right. Something needs to be done. This is a reasonable analogy for the immigration problem. The shower head represents legal immigration. The tub faucet illegal immigration. The drain represents how fast we can assimilate immigrants of both stripes.

What you are arguing is that the regulation of the shower head needs to be fixed. And that the drain needs to be fixed. You are further arguing that we will always have a certain amount of water flowing in, so the enforcement first approach is wrong because while you might reduce the tub faucet amount, you can never stop it entirely, that letting more through the shower will take pressure off the faucet and that those who want to stop the flow through the faucet won't bargin in good faith when we come to figuring out the drain and shower problems later. You are right though I disagree in part on the last. While those who want an enforcement first approach will have a chip already on their side, that doesn't speak to other issues (like national identification database, employer sanctions, etc) that they are likely to also want. What you are arguing for is lets play a game of chicken to see if how much you can get that you think is right vs how much enforcement you have to give up. If no deal is struck, you can live with that easier than a future bargaining position that might be worse.

You will note that in my analogy I haven't mentioned if the water level is rising (it is) and if it is overflowing (i.e. crisis or problem). I personally think that we are far from overflowing, but I can recognize that people's opinions differ. Just as Reagan opined that a recession is where someone else loses their job, a depression is where you lose your job and a recovery is where Jimmy Carter loses his job, the definition of crisis can certainly have a personal aspect.

In the 80's we tried the "comprehensive" approach. Since the problem is worse now than then, I would argue that approach failed. Just as you advocate not putting the chip on the table for "free", is it so hard for you to understand those who feel that they put a chip on the table in the 80's and got nothing for it. That they think the chip isn't "free" but is just settling old debts.

Imagine the fence is put in and a few years later the water level is seen to be falling (i.e. we are seeing a decline or at least constant level of illegal immigrants). Now discussing how to unclog the drain or how much to let through the shower head makes sense. You have some control on the situation. If you can't control the border, you can't control the amount that comes in. Unless you are going to advocate that all can come in in whatever numbers they want (and immediately), then there will always be pressure for illegal immigration. And just like speeding, as a society we can actually afford a certain amount of law breaking, especially since we wouldn't want to live in a world that was so regulated you couldn't exceed the speed limit.

The first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. We are in a hole with immigration. The flood of illegal immigration is digging us deeper in the hole. Saying we shouldn't stop digging (i.e. try to reduce the illegal immigration flow) until we have a better handle on all the other questions is the same as saying we shouldn't acknowledge the hole, just keep digging.

We have proven that as a country we can accomodate the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) we have now. The proof is we have done it and are still here. The current number is creating some problems, but we can handle it. Realistically, we could probably add a bunch more before the wheels really started to come off. And also realistically, the more we have the worse the problems are likely to be.

We don't have to deport every illegal alien to deal with the problems. Just as with speeding, we can tolerate a certain level. Its illegal to speed, but we manage to survive as a society. If you have ever driven in some third world countries, you would also recognize that much greater amounts of "illegal" traffic actions are possible than our speeding, but that doesn't mean you want to live that way. One solution to those here already illegally is to reduce the flow of new illegal immigrants and then ignore the problem. It will take care of itself for the most part within 50 years. Not the kindess way, but it would work. It is certainly a preferable method than "round them all up" to me.

I agree that our legal immigration needs reform. I think we should be targeting skills and not "reuniting family" as the primary goals of legal immigration. From a purely machavelian view of the world, conducting a brain drain on other countries is a good way of staying ahead of the game. A company I used to work for was able to hire engineers for $5K/year in another country. The value of an engineering degree and the number of 'American' engineers would decrease if we threw the door open to bring in all the engineers that could possibly want to come in.

I would also suggest that besides useful skills (or willingness to work at the less pleasant jobs) we should also include some of the citizenship requirements up front for entry. A working knowledge of english and some idea/agreement on our cultural norms/heritage makes sense to me. I really think that if the pressure of the rising tide of illegal immigrants was relieved, that the "enforcement first" people would be willing to negotiate on changing the rules on legal immigration. I think the main discussion is how do we get the best water in (aka best immigrants and what does best mean) and making sure that we can handle the water flow (from both legal and illegal sources). I have no doubt that we will still have illegal alien problem if we built a 100' high fence along both the southern and northern borders. To continue the analogy, we could see a leak spring up elsewhere if we increase the pressure on the pipes by blocking the faucet. But that is for the future negotiations on the shower head and drain, it shouldn't stop us from pluggint the large and known leak.

Live Free or die:

You do not know that. To say that if we talk about a guest worker progrma tne wall willnot get built is just pure paranoia.

Great post. The hardliners on this issue are going to be the long term undoing of the Republican party if this goes on. Most hispanics want border security and want illegal immigration stopped. However they favor a comprehensive approach that is just. Whenever I mention this I get the response of quit Hispandering. God how arrogant.

One other note. We have been told by the hardliners that their approach is a formula to GOP success. In fact the obly one. Well I would like to see where this is panning out. It doesnt seem to be helping in the Santorum race and the Graf(former minuteman) vs Gifford(d) that is the kolbe seat is turning into a disaster. It doesnt even look like we get dort term gain off this. Well at least Tancredo gets to sell books

LiveFreeOrDie:

If the normalization occurs first, the people will not get the wall.

LFOD, I completely agree: if normalization occurs before the wall is budgeted, then the Democrats will play the same game to prevent the security fence that the Tencredoistas would play to prevent normalization if they got their blessed wall first. Both sides are equally untrustworthy -- and doesn't that give you a sick feeling in your gut, that the Republicans have proven as much a pack of liars as the Democrats, at least on this issue?

But there is a well-understood solution that has been used in negotiations for years when the negotiating partners don't trust each other: there's probably some technical term for it, but the solution itself is easily understood by laymen as a modified "escrow account" tied to a specific series of steps by each side.

In an ordinary escrow, you're buying a house: you put your money into the account, so you've already paid; you can't just change your mind. But the other guy doesn't get the money until he vacates the house and hands over the deed. Both parties are committed to carrying through their part of the deal, but neither gets what it wants until it fully complies. This is a self-enforcing agreement.

Now to the immigration solution:

Rationalization of the system can be done first, because neither side objects to it -- but neither side cares much about it, either; neither would be satisfied with just rationalization, so neither is tempted to quit after getting it!

Now, as part of the same bill, you enact both funding (and authorization) for the security fence and also a series of steps to reform immigration law to make it more rational, predictable, and just and a series of steps to bring the 11 million illegal aliens into compliance with the law over the space of some number of years.

The funds appropriated go into an escrow account. They cannot simply be spent in advance without a vote by Congress -- which requires a majority in the House and a supermajority of 60 in the Senate, since such a vote could be filibustered. (Let's call this a "congressional supermajority.")

But the law itself sets up a payment schedule:

You divide the funding into discrete lumps for each phase of building the fence; and you divide regularization into discrete phases leading to legalization for some, deportation for others, and limbo for a group that gets smaller with each phase until it disappears entirely at the end, every illegal immigrant eventually either being here legally or deported.

Phase 1 of regularization happens only after phase 1 of building the fence... say, agreeing upon the exact route (or whatever milestone Congress has decided).

But phase 2 of building the security fence happens only after phase 1 of regularization occurs.

Then phase 2 of regularization happens only after phase 2 of building the fence; phase 3 of the fence only after phase 2 of regularization, and so on until both finish simultaneously.

If these phases and the order in which they're carried out are written into the law, along with the method of certification that each phase is complete, then at any point, the only way to break the sequence is to get a congressional supermajority to go along with ending the deal prematurely.

But assuming neither camp ever gets a congressional supermajority, you're guaranteed that both the pro-security and the pro-reform aspects of the bill are carried out.

(Alternatively, you can sunset the deal at certain key points, requiring Congress to act affirmatively to continue it; that way, you require continued acceptance, rather than progressing automatically in the absence of a congressional supermajority against.)

The cause of the failure in 1986 was that Reagan and the Republicans (sounds like a rock group) made the mistake of trusting the Democrats' word: they said "give us amnesty now" -- and that one really was amnesty -- "and we promise to greatly tighten the border later." They got their amnesty but never delivered on the border.

That's exactly the deal the security-only people offer now: "give us the wall, and we promise someday in the future to reform the system and regularize those already here." It's as stupid a deal now as it was twenty years ago.

Phase-by-phase enactment is the only workable method when neither side trusts the other.

Dafydd

It is the "moderates" who prefer nothing, the "moderates" who want their entire platform adopted at once. And guess what, High Priests of Practical Politics? You don't have the votes.

The "wall first" approach represents the Lowest Common Denominator. The one aspect common to all camps. There's got to be a wall. If it can't get enacted simply because it is the least that everybody can agree to--that tells us you're not serious about negotiation--you want dictation.

Dafydd, six months ago you were demanding that we get behind the Senate proposal as the best comprehensive plan. Well guess what it said about reforming legal immigration?

Nothing.

Nothing about legal immigration reform in the so-called comprehensive plan...you were left out with us so-called fanatics, urging something done now and a follow-up later.

But what guarantees do we have that our proposals will even be considered later? None. That is life. If they have real merit and popular appreciation, they cannot be suppressed. If they lack those things...why should they be enacted?

It is precisely because you lack a mass following and political momentum that you howl about the rotunda horsetrading going against you. Such manuevers represent your only chance to make policy.

So far we have been talking about which comes first a Wall, or "regualization(making illegal aliens legal residents)and immigration reform

One side seems to want the Wall first, the other side wants their non-amnesty/regularization first.

How about this?

Make aiding an Illegal Alien by employment, etc a FELONY and start putting people in Prison.
Oh and for employers of illegal aliens confiscate their busnesses and auction them off to pay for the cost of immigration enforcement.

You want to save money by hiring illegals, Cool, when we get to you, we get the money you get a prison sentence.

No illegal employment NO illegal aliens or less, another few provisos.

No Drivers Liscences. No Welfare except for transportation costs to go home.

Oh and as for sanctuary cities? No Federal Aid.

Gee most of this does not require a masssive appropriation.

Dan Kauffman:

How about this?

Make aiding an Illegal Alien by employment, etc a FELONY and start putting people in Prison.
Oh and for employers of illegal aliens confiscate their busnesses and auction them off to pay for the cost of immigration enforcement.

Dan, what state do you live in?

Dafydd

Dafydd, I appreciate the thoughtful response, not that I expected less.

If a bill is proposed containing the sort of structural incentives that you have mentioned, then I will get behind it, assuming it doesn't open the legal immigration route to absurd levels.

Dafydd: "give us the wall, and we promise someday in the future to reform the system and regularize those already here." It's as stupid a deal now as it was twenty years ago."

Its not as stupid as the previous agreement, because a passive wall will do some good. Quite a bit, in my estimation. Additionally, as I have stated, I don't think "enforcement first" is capable of transforming into "enforcement only". With the spigot slowed down, all the elite incentives for immigration reform are only magnified. So high power has to make higher quality arguments to get it done. Good. They could use the practice, frankly.

However, again, I agree that a structurally phased implementation would yield the most robust border security. But the best way to get it is to jump up and down yelling "enforcement first".

In your view, if I'm getting it right, you're saying that a comprehensive block of legislation must come out of congress with phasing built in. All I'm doing - and as far as I can tell, most of the "enforcement first" people on this thread are the same - is seeing the structural dynamics of congressional action as the first phase. Put in the wall, with funding, and quality immigration reform legislation will write itself.

You've made arguments that that will not happen. Some of the points are good, but presently I remain, on balance, unconvinced. The attempt to implement "enforcement first" will
yield the best outcome.

Regards

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