Good to see you valiantly hanging on. Maybe you could form a club with MichaelBarone and TamarJacoby. Oh, wait, you're already a member.

As for the poll, I quoted the "comprehensive" part, but I highlighted this: "would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country." In actual fact, Americans are smarter than you give them credit for: they realize that a massive amnesty will encourage even more illegal immigration. And, many of them no doubt realize that the current amnesty would give even more race-based power to the far-left racial power groups, who would then use that to push for yet more amnesties.

The solution to your conundrum lies in the fine print:

Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise..[if it]..
“would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.”...

The triggers are beaurcractic markers based on process and not results. Path-to-citizenship/Amnesty/Rewarding the illegals is counterproductive when the goal is controlling the inflow.

Former DOJ/AG adviser on immigration law Kris Kobach sheds light on three more details

5)"The bill effectively shuts down our immigration-court system. If an alien in the removal process is eligible for the Z visa, the immigration judge must close the proceedings and offer the alien the chance to apply for the amnesty. The wheels of justice won't just turn slowly, they'll go in reverse."

6) "The bill transforms the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law-enforcement agency into an amnesty-distribution center. If ICE officials apprehend an alien who appears eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), they can't detain him. Instead, ICE must help him apply for the Z visa. Rather than initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. It's like turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network."

7) "The bill even lets gang members get the amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs have brought mayhem to our cities. More than 30,000 gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. This bill would end that: Under it, a gang member qualifies for the Z-visa privileges as long as he simply signs a "renunciation of gang affiliation." He can keep his tattoos.

In Sen. Kennedy's America, "immigration enforcement" will become an oxymoron. And - just like the last time we offered an amnesty, in 1986 - millions of new illegal aliens will flood the country to apply for the amnesty fraudulently.

This bill isn't a "compromise" in any meaningful sense. It is a surrender.

I sent a letter to the editor giving no position on the immigration bill but informing the public of some blogs’ links that they could use to fact check the bill. My letter was printed, but they deleted the links. My paper has not done the kind of job that you, Mr. Hewitt and others have done to help get through the language/format of the bill. Which brings to mind the Reagan requirement that bills be readable by normal people? What happened to that requirement? Anyway, it would appear it is not easy to try to educate the American people. I guess ignorance is bliss works for the media and politicians. I have a major problem that my government will do what is required to "trigger" the path to citizenship

I sent a letter to the editor giving no position on the immigration bill but informing the public of some blogs’ links that they could use to fact check the bill. My letter was printed, but they deleted the links. My paper has not done the kind of job that you, Mr. Hewitt and others have done to help get through the language/format of the bill. Which brings to mind the Reagan requirement that bills be readable by normal people? What happened to that requirement? Anyway, it would appear it is not easy to try to educate the American people. I guess ignorance is bliss works for the media and politicians. But I have a major problem trusting that my government will do what is required to "trigger" the path to citizenship. I would give a no confidence vote on this bill for that reason.

Dafydd, if you weren't too close-minded to consider the possibility that the Michelle Malkins and Hugh Hewitts   and Andy McCarthys of this world might have valid points now and then you might find it easier to understand why some of us are so opposed to the bill in question. Yeah, yeah, I know, if we'll all just quit picking on the poor mistweated widdle illegals today we really will get started on that fence next year, or the year after that at the latest, and we really, really will actually start enforcing the laws of this country eventually. Well, you know what? I've heard the wind blow before. It doesn't matter what Congress puts in the bill about enforcement, as long as Jorge Bush is in La Casa Blanca the enforcement provisions are in no danger of actually being implemented.  I still stand by what I wrote on my blog about 3 days ago:

[T]he best we can hope for under the current administration is no action of any sort on immigration. I realize that's a gamble. The bill currently under consideration is a wonderful bill compared to what we can expect under an Clinton or Obama administration, but if either of them ends up in the White House immigration is going to be a minor issue compared to the other problems we'll have anyway. As long as we keep the 12 or 20 or 30 million people who are in this country illegally illegal there's at least hope that under a Thompson administration an actual reasonable compromise can be worked out and actually implemented. Stall for time, people, stall for time.

We aren't talking about 12 or 20 or 30 million Sachis who'd have their papers by now if some government bureaucrat would just get off his butt and do his job. We're talking about people who've already demonstrated their lack of respect for our laws just by entering the country illegally or overstaying their visas. After I see real border enforcement enacted and someone in the White House who can be trusted to implement it, then I'll be ready to talk about "normalization," not before.

OMG, did I just (gasp!) insult our exalted President? Why yes, it looks like I did. I voted for him on '04, after doing everything a poor little blogger with a few dozen readers on a good day could do to get other people to vote for him, but I was never under the impression the boy was none too bright. Considering the alternative, what choice did I have? If it comes to that I'll vote for Rudy or Mitt, or (bite my tongue) McCain in '08, but it sure would be loverly to be able to vote for someone I actually believe will be a good President. Since there's not much chance of Congressman Hunter getting the nomination and even less that Senator Sessions will, that leaves me hoping that Fred's going to jump in the race before it's too late.

btw, back when they used to believe in Stanford-Binet tests I consistently scored in the 130s. I realize my IQ's probably gone down some as my health has deteriorated but I still consider that ignoramus line way over the top. How much traffic does your site get every day compared to Hugh's or Michelle's. Could it possibly be that they aren't ignoramuses either?

Bill Faith:

Stop winding your mainspring; I think it's about to break!

Bill, you have been opposed to comprehensive immigration reform from the very beginning; you have always been an "enforcement first" guy. There is nothing inconsistent about your position.

Same for Michelle Malkin; and Hugh has been and still is consistent in favor of comprehensive reform, at least now that he's climbed down a bit and is offering somewhat plausible amendments instead of throwing bricks.

The "ignoramus" line clearly refers to people who support a comprehensive bill, so long as it has a fence, employer sanctions, and tougher enforcement policies... but are opposed to this bill, evidently unaware that it includes a fence, employer sanctions, and tougher enforcement policy.

I find that sort of opinion-from-ignorance appalling, and so do you -- on other subjects. In this case, you seem willing to take anybody you can get. But do you really want "allies" who are only on your side because they don't know what's in the bill... and who would switch if anybody ever told them?

I have no problem with people like you, who have a consistent, respectable position with which I happen to vehemently disagree. I do have a problem with people who have inconsistent, impossible to reconcile positions and refuse to educate themselves or even recognize the inconsistency.

Dafydd, if you weren't too close-minded to consider the possibility that the Michelle Malkins and Hugh Hewitts and Andy McCarthys of this world might have valid points now and then...

Not only do the first two have valid points now and then, I think they're both treasures who are right far more often than they are wrong. (I don't read Andy McCarthy much, so I have no opinion of him.)

But they both have huge blind spots. (I'm sure I must have blind spots too, but I can't see them for some reason.) Michelle's include not only immigration reform but also the World War II internment of Americans who happened to be of Japanese dissent.

Do you agree with her that this was a perfectly proper thing to do? If not, does that make you her enemy? I wouldn't think so. So don't presume that I consider her an enemy, either. I don't think Michelle would have invited me to guest-host on her blog if she thought I were some truculent troll.

Yeah, yeah, I know, if we'll all just quit picking on the poor mistweated widdle illegals today we really will get started on that fence next year, or the year after that at the latest, and we really, really will actually start enforcing the laws of this country eventually.

Good heavens, just listen to yourself. We have been building the fence for a year now; but it's a huge project. It's probably one of the biggest things human beings have ever tried to build.

Could it go faster? I have no idea; I'm not a civil engineer. Are you? Have you studied the plans and the project management enough to offer an informed opinion whether it could be built quicker with the same level of reliability?

And we have been "enforcing the laws of this country" all along... or would you like to tell Border Patrol members that they're incompetent? Bill, we are the only country on the planet that has the problem of millions upon millions of people desperate to get in; the only comparable situation was the old Soviet Union -- where millions upon millions were desperate to get out. And they more or less solved their problem by shooting them to death.

It's hardly shocking that we can't keep them all out. I wrote about this over and over again on this blog, and earlier on Captain's Quarters and possibly even on Patterico's Pontifications: We don't even have a wall yet; how are we to keep them out?

I think we're doing a damned fine job, given our terrible handicaps: a free country, no internal passports, rule of law, the posse comitatus law, a Constitution with actual teeth, our strange reluctance to machine-gun women and children, and a Congress that has never fully funded border enforcement since Ellis Island days.

So stop jumping on me. Be part of the solution: Suggest something that can actually pass Congress that will help the situation.

That's all I'm trying to do.

Dafydd

JLS:

I have already responded to the Heritage Foundation paper in the comments section of this post. Even a cursory reading found two egregious "mistakes"... though I'm not sure they were accidental.

Heritage has become the La Raza of the Right on this issue.

Dafydd

Dafydd,
Its not about what is in the bill or what Congress will pass, or even what will work. I believe the problem is much deeper than that. Simply, I do not think the American people trust their hallowed millionaire representatives to actually implement the law fully if it passes. Congressmen and Senators are not going to punish their campaign donors for hiring illegals and I suspect most of the security part of the bill would languish because of the lack of will to enforce it. Case in point is the much vaunted border fence bill. If memory serves, the funding was mysteriously lacking and if there is 700 new miles of border fencing, I would love to see pictures of it. Thats why I think the prevailing attitude is, "show us you're serious about border security by stopping a few people and we'll be a bit more amienable to the other provisions".

One issue is always excluded from this debate each time it comes up.

The prime objective is the illegals should be somehow transformed as now authorized persons on the way to citizenship.

I have yet to see good data that the vast majority of the illegals even want to be citizens.

The known data is that illegals tend to live in group housing arrangements to minimize per capita cost and send as much as possible to their home country.

Many have expressed no desire to be citizens, only to earn higher wages to feather their nest for the day when they get back home.

To suggest they want to submit to a program that will eliminate some portion of their income through taking on taxation, hospital costs , education cost burdens is exactly contrary to their observable plan of behavior.

If they wanted to be citizens, they would not be sending maximum amounts home far beyond life support requirements of funding in the home country.

They would be hoarding money to make possible the earliest transport of their loved ones across the border and setting up a separate residence for the family to grow in.

The make them citizens mantra is more for the objectives of some who support it.

That is why a guest worker program, that is only that is the way to go.

But even that has not been well examined as to how it impacts less than full employment by all citizens here if the guest workers over flood the job market requirements.

Dayfdd,

Jumping off the dock and into the fog... Lurking no more...

My Mom was born in China to an American mother and a British father. Back in the 50s, the INS considered my mom part of the white Chinese quota. It took a considerable effort and time to get a green card.

I understand the hassles and unfairness of the system. But by design the system was made to control the flow of immigrants and allow for the Nation to Borg the newbies into becoming Americans.

Politically, why we are where we are:

There is about as much trust in Congress as Presidant Reagan had in the USSR. So Reagan’s old line “Trust but verify” comes into play.

The big rush to pass the immigration reform bill further raises suspicions, as this issue has been around forever.

Pass the law, but don’t fund the enforcement, has been an old trick used to many times. Is there any trust? What are the motivations to get the deal done fast? Any chance in some voter validation rules while we are at it? A snowballs chance in…

The real process hazard, and where the devil and the details come to play, is in the conference committee where again, the deals are done behind the same closed doors where this bill was first made. And post conference, the bill will again be rushed to completion before anyone has a really good look at what was crafted. The light of day makes the bill smoke and the politicians squirm.

Now to the wishful thinking:

One thought on this matter is in line with the Keep It Simple Solution principal. Maybe it is already there… no time to read the “draft” in detail… Thank Dayfdd for doing the heavy lifting.

Since employer sanctions require enforcement who better than the fearsome IRS to hit this nail with. Don’t make them penalties… Hit the employer where it really hurts, the bottom line.

Remove the tax deduction if any of the following conditions indicate a problem:

1) Make all tax deductions for employee or 1099 expenses require that the name, DOB, place of birth and SSID match. (If you have renewed you drivers license in the last year or two, you have already had this check make.)

2) When you move you then have to update your address with Social Security. (This is already required to do this with DMV if you move.)

3) If a person has more than one job make sure that all the addresses match up.

If an employer wants keep the non-conforming employee and forgo the tax deduction, the cost of the “low cost labor” just went up. The employer must still deduct and pay all payroll taxes only they could not be deducted. This is pressure in a language that is readily understood by business.

Wow.. a tax increase that I can get behind.

If people are here illegally, I think there should be an amnesty program, for some period of time, which allows them to exit the country without causing any negative impact on any future immigration petitions. This would encourage legalization and forever disallow future law breakers from obtaining a green card. (I think some form of this is already present in this “bill.”)

There will still need some form of guest working program which should be initiated from the home country. If a prospective guest worker already has a working relationship with an employer, then obtaining a guest working permit should be made easier. (Again, I think some form of this is already present in this “bill.”)

Regards,
-Ian
PS... Now back I go to twiddling bits.

Ian,

We'd get along.

Dafydd,

You know I've been following your blog practically since the day it went online and I've read most or all of your arguments about immigration and dams and spillways, etc. I think the fact we'll never agree on the matter has two underlying reasons:

1) When you hear the word "immigrant" you think of Sachi. When I hear the word immigrant, I think Mohammed, a Pakistani, and Farid, an Algerian, both of whom overstayed student visas, and Marlon, a Salvadoran who swam the Rio Grande. Mohammed wasn't a bad sort, all things considered; at least he was decent enough to look pretty rattled when he heard about the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. would be a much better place with Farid and Marlon and a few hundred thousand like them.

2) As some of your other commenters have mentioned, a lot of us simply don't trust the current administration to implement enforcement later in return for "normalization" now. I understand fences take time to build but I also know the current administration is dragging it's feet all the way. If I could wave my magic wand and put Fred Thompson in the White House with Duncan Hunter running Homeland Security tomorrow, then I'd be ready to trade Z-visas now for a fence in a few months. Since I can't do that I'll continue to be opposed to passing any sort of immigration bill before the '08 elections.

I happen to think Dafydd is right on this. There are peopleout there who do not want to see a solution to this and a lot of them are on the right. I have been voting center right for years. I am not some whining little liberal and I am tired of the fact that all people want to do about this problem is bitch.

The talk show hosts do not want this fixed, the love the ratings they get when people rant. The political oppurtunists will never be satisified with any compromise that might take this issue out of the limelight.

The hardliners act as if you can wave a magic freaking wand and something akin to the Great Wall of China will appear at our southern border. They say all these people are criminals, but they don't actually want to arrest them or anything. Just whine about the fact that they are here.

It seems anymore that when people attach themselves to a cause they immediately beging to get nasty. The antiglobalization people riot. The anti global warming people say the planet is not going to survive and we must completely change the way we live or we all going to die.

And now the hardliners are telling the American people that they can not trust their government to do what it says it will do, they are all liars and frauds to put your faith in conservative talk show hosts fighting for market shares instead.

I hope they can save this bill, because if they can not we will be stuck with the status quo and all the demagoguery and hysteria that goes with it.

Bill:

When I hear the word immigrant I think of the guy picking lettuce. I also think that if people do not compromise on this bill and come up with some way to track people those terrorists are going to mix right into that illegal immigrant community. And that wall will not even slow these guys down. Do you honestly believe that someone like Atta would give up his plans to attack America because we constructed a wall at our southern border?

And as far as the current administration is concerned, they did not invent or create this problem. It has been building for decades, would Gore or Kerry have done a better job? I seriously doubt that.

Pyrran:

Case in point is the much vaunted border fence bill. If memory serves, the funding was mysteriously lacking and if there is 700 new miles of border fencing, I would love to see pictures of it.

Could be it takes longer than eight or nine months to build 750 miles of double fencing across unimproved land.

The funding was allocated, the money appropriated, and the first 75 miles of fence are currently under construction and have been for a while, according to Sen. John Kyl. It is a monumental construction project, bigger than the Panama Canal, bigger than the World Trade Centers (which haven't even been started yet -- five years and eight months later... and that's a private construction project).

See, this is why I don't take this argument of yours (and others) seriously: I don't think you've made much of a move to find out how much money was appropriated, who got the contract, whether there was a bidding process, how long that took from RFP to successful bid to groundbreaking... or even what the legislative process is and how a project goes from a budget vote to actually being built.

It all takes longer than you can possibly imagine; but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

So why do you make it plain that you're 100% convinced that, post-vote, nothing whatsoever was done? Where did you get that idea?

SlimGuy -- I hate you already! <g>

I have yet to see good data that the vast majority of the illegals even want to be citizens.

I doubt that they will; most will be content to get a Z visa, I reckon, and probably more than a few will go no farther than a Parole Card (that's evidently the name they're now using for the provisional/probationary Z visa).

But that's fine. It's a temporary problem at worst, unless illegal immigrants have discovered the secret to immortality. Their kids or grandkids will be citizens by birth, whether or not this bill passes.

There is no particular downside for us if they decide not to become citizens; so long as they Americanize and assimilate, which by and large they do.

If they choose not to go even as far as the Parole Card, well, we're no worse off than we are now. In fact, we're better off, because we'll have a wall and a bunch more Border Patrol personnel. And it will become increasingly hard, heading towards an asymptote of impossible, for those choosing to remain illegal to get jobs.

They'll have to become entrepeneurs... and that, too, is good for America.

IanM:

There is about as much trust in Congress as Presidant Reagan had in the USSR. So Reagan’s old line “Trust but verify” comes into play.

The big rush to pass the immigration reform bill further raises suspicions, as this issue has been around forever.

Pass the law, but don’t fund the enforcement, has been an old trick used to many times.

You're absolutely right; and believe me, I understand all of this. Honestly, I could not care less whether the current illegals do or don't get to regularize. I only care about the Y visa guest workers sufficiently to worry about them and wish they didn't exist.

For me, there are two critical elements to this bill that are worth buying off the Democrats with the former and the slave-labor corporations with the latter:

1. Reforming the legal immigration system to make it fair, rational, and predictable; this is the most critical factor of all, and the only thing that can really reduce the level of illegal immigration down to a manageable level -- and free us to use much more aggressive techniques to control them (since honest immigrants will just use the legal system, if it's predictable).
2. Beefing up border security: building a fence, hiring more Border Patrol, dropping heavy penalties on companies that hire illegals, and creating a tamper-resistant high-tech system for keeping track of the great majority of people who enter the United States.

The point is that we live in a country that has a political government, not a military dictatorship; we cannot get 1 and 2 above without allowing the Democrats to get 3 (regularization) and businesses to get 4 (guest workers).

The deal is worth it; all else is just trimming the ragged edges to maximize our return while minimizing our investment.

Bill Faith:

Bill, I don't think any the less of you for opposing this bill. I think you're wrong, but I know you are following your principles and you are consistent.

I am furious with John McCain for the way he has tried to bully senators into voting for a pig in a poke. I'm especially outraged because it makes the bill look like a fraud, when I don't believe it is. Sen. Shifty strikes again, just like with the Gang of 14, the BCRA, voting against the Bush tax cuts, and all the rest of it.

But I'm also outraged by some conservative pundits who say that there are "no border security provisions" in the bill, or that "this is just amnesty, plain and simple."

It's not plain. And it's not simple. And that isn't what the word amnesty means. It annoys me the same way it annoys me to hear Michael Medved talk about the "Islamo-Nazi terrorists," or to hear him say there is overwhelming scientific evidence for Bigfoot -- but none for evolution. I don't like paralogia.

If you were to say, "I acknowledge that there are border-security provisions in the bill, but they're not strong enough nor certain enough to persuade me to accept regularization," that's a perfectly reasonable and logical argument, for all that I disagree with it. (That is, in fact, the argument I believe you make.)

I hope you can see the difference. I dislike paralogical arguments even when -- no, especially when they support my position!

And Terrye's got a good point: What is the alternative? If not this bill, then what?

If we don't get it done now, and if the worst happens and a Democrat is elected president... do you think that the Democrats in Congress will throw away the golden opportunity to stick it to us so good and hard, we won't be sitting down for a fortnight?

That's what I'm worried about. It is impossible in the forseeable future to get an enforcement-only bill enacted into law. But it is very possible indeed to get a no-enforcement, all amnesty bill through (and I literally mean amnesty in its correct definition)... and if we blow this and then lose the election, that's the most likely outcome.

I'm unwilling to accept that; I will work for both passage of this very good compromise and also for the Republicans to win in 2008.

Dafydd

First-Great blog.But I have to disagree about this bill.This isn't because I'm not willing to support any compromise ever but because I just don't believe any of the secure border provisions will ever be enforced.Sorry, but I can't believe that the provision of a 5k fine per illegal will stick.Last year a 700 mile fence was to be built-now it's 371 miles? WTF? And from the Hugh Hewitt site I gather that the bill is still getting amended in the Senate-so who knows what will come out of the eventual conference committee.But I can't believe that a bill from a Democratic congress will actually cut off the flow of new Democratic voters, especially when a GOP president gives them political cover.Why would Harry Reid do that? Or Pelosi? Sorry, but I may be hazy on the details of an incomplete bill but I can see what picture they want to paint-and it doesn't involve a closed border.No thanks.

Xennady:

All right, this is kind of what I'm talking about. You seem like a nice enough person; but you're saying a bunch of things that just don't make sense.

Last year a 700 mile fence was to be built-now it's 371 miles?

No; the 700+ mile fence is still law, still being constructed. This bill does not change that.

The "371 mile" figure is how much of the fence must be built before any Z visas are issued; not the total amount of fence, but the "down payment" as a sign of trust.

It's the same as when you buy a house: The house costs $150,000, but the down payment is $50,000. That doesn't mean you don't have to pay the remaining $100,000; it just means you can move in after paying $50,000, then pay off the rest as per your mortgage agreement.

I can't believe that the provision of a 5k fine per illegal will stick.

Why wouldn't you believe it? If it's passed into law, why would it not "stick"? Do you think fines levied by OSHA, the EPA, the FDA, and the IRS are routinely waived?

It's the easiest and most natural thing in the world for a federal regulatory agency to aggressively collect fines mandated by law. In fact, if there is any problem at all, it's much more likely to be DHS going after a company for a fine that wasn't even properly levied... like when the IRS attaches the bank account of some poor schmuck taxpayer when he doesn't really owe them any money.

I can't believe that a bill from a Democratic congress will actually cut off the flow of new Democratic voters, especially when a GOP president gives them political cover.

New Democratic voters? First, it's impossible under this bill for any illegal to become a citizen (hence a potential voter) until at least thirteen years later! And more likely a lot longer.

Second, the vast majority of these illegals are Hispanics; and Hispanics are historically much more "up for grabs" than, say, blacks, single women, and secular Jews -- who are nearly all Democrats -- or evangelicals, NASCAR fans, and married churchgoers, who are much more likley to be Republicans.

I may be hazy on the details of an incomplete bill but I can see what picture they want to paint-and it doesn't involve a closed border.

Xennady, virtually every security measure on the GOP wish list is in this bill. How closed do you think a 2000-mile border can ever be?

And what is your realistic alternative?

Dafydd

It is really simple.

We do not trust politicians. People that pay attention see a lot of selective enforcement and thus don't believe that any loophole will be left unexercised, and that loopholes are the primary purpose of this rush to railroad an incomplete bill onto the calendar. If this bill is going to be so good, it should be clear enough to be self-evident and it isn't.

RRRoark:

It is really simple.

We do not trust politicians.

So your realistic alternative is...?

Dafydd

Since we live in a country that has a political government, not a military dictatorship, how can we simply ignore the majority in Congress -- which overwhelmingly wants regularization?

How can we ignore the majority in Congress? Wait one damned minute. Isn't there something very, very wrong with that statement? I could care less what the majority of Congressional representatives want, that is not serving the will of the people. That is serving the will of our 'betters' - our new Mandarin's. Bull-pucky!

That's our problem in a nutshell and it's not a problem confined to immigration!

How about we un-comprehensive it? No probationary anything until the triggers are met. Equal protection under the law. Any get-out-of-jail-free provisions apply equally, such as any tax cheat can get their record straight in the same manner as foreign national can.

Dafydd you want a solution? How about:

Kick in the brakes, force our elected officials to reconcile this obviously large difference of opinion amongst their constituents; increase current enforcement inside the US and along the borders; then - and only then - return to the issue this year or better yet, next. When the stakes will obviously be much higher.

I think the people who distrust our government to enforce border security and existing law are exactly right, and we have the evidence. There are supposedly 600,000 people still living here who have orders of deportation against them. There are 100,000 people or more who have overstayed legitimate visas. There are almost a million who the SSA KNOWS are working with invalid SS numbers, but no one has ever gone after any of these employers or employees. We have tens of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals in our jails and prisons. We have whole enterprises built upon providing illegal aliens to people looking for cheap labor, operating openly in our cities.

It's a nice fence, but how about we start by enforcing the laws on those millions who are already here, that we know about and have ignored?

"Rasmussen Discovers: Many Americans Are Ignoramuses!"

yup, keep putting lipstick on this pig now through name calling. while this bill has many things, it lacks like all the prior bills, firm border enforcement. in this bill everything is subject to a person's opinion or defunding etc.

here's a bill a majority of americans want. build a fence--not electronic. while the fence is being built spend those two years or more working out a compromise that the majority supports. when the fence is completed enact the new law. in the interim stop with all the invective, threats, name calling that the current bill supporters use to try to ram rod this pig through congress.

To be honest, I have been torn about the immigration bill. I have listened to you Dafydd, Sen. Kyle, Michael Medved, and Tony Snow and I think all make very good arguments for passage of some version of this bill. I almost hope it passes just to get a system in place that would at least have some decent controls in place. However, there are the basic questions that for quite strong arguments against passage of the bill: For one thing, do you really think this law will be enforced any more than past laws -- If enforcement of existing laws is already so anathema to so many in the US Liberal elite, why would we expect that any of the tough enforcement provisions would actually be enforced before someone brings out the sob stories of illegals who suffered because they had to return to their country of origin? Also, do you think that someone who enters the country illegally will really ever, ever, leave this country to apply for citizenship? Really? So they go back home to poverty and wait like little angels knowing they are following faithfully the laws of the country they want to gain citizenship from.

Finally, on Bill Bennett's morning show, a farmer pointed out that most of the really capable, young, strong Mexican laborers are already here and that giving any kind of legal legitimacy to them would encourage them to get government jobs with good benefits and to bring their lesser able-bodied relatives here. By being illegal, these workers have to take the lower jobs on the economic field and by legitimizing them, they then would have to be replaced. Just an invitation to a lot more people not ready to integrate into American society. Now that would be an awful mess and perhaps the best argument against this semi-legitimation of those who entered illegally. Maybe this is the best argument against the bill as it could cause a flood of immigrants into our country -- many of whom will need social services but be less able to reciprocate with productive labor. That's a powerful argument against this reform in my mind. I say prove enforcement first; then talk about the way to ensure our farm labor needs are fulfilled.

I think the bigger issue here is that nobody in congress wants illegal immigration to end. Too many people make too much money off of it.

Until people get really mad and start to do more than complain, we'll never get any sort of immigration reform or border control or anything else out of congress -- because they simply don't want it.

The only "rational" changes you're going to see are going to be put to law by towns and states via referendum, and then promptly struck down by federal courts as being uncostitutional.

Dafydd, your wishing for the federal immigration system to be "rational, predictable, and fair" is beyond naiive. When has ANYTHING our government done followed those guidelines (besides taxation, and only follows the first two)?

You can count on this: only when the voices and votes of angry constituents call louder than the dollars of lobbyists and campaign contributors will ANY "real" immigration reform happen...because our government IS rational and predictable -- predictably self-serving. Until then, the status quo will reign no matter what laws pass because nobody on capitol hill wants illegal immigration to end.

Dafydd,

I read your blog daily and usually appreciate your insight, but I think you are wrong on this. Also let me add that my own wife is an immigrant from Taiwan, so I am by no means "anti-immigrant". Here's my analogy:

In 1986 we wanted to buy a car. The used car salesman took our $3,000 (3 million illegals) and promised to deliver the car (border contol) later. The car never showed up and we have been mad about it ever since.

Now it's 2007 and he's back. This time he's offering his car for $12,000 but really really promises he'll deliver the car. To show he is honest, he'll even give us the front left tire today. (border fence built so far)

This doesn't sound like such a good deal, since the same guy has fleeced us before. But our good friend Dafydd is there telling us that this is our best chance to get a car, so we might as well take it. My reply is that I'd rather keep my $12,000 and just walk to work (i.e.: keep the status quo.).

If your primary concern is that we regularize the illegals we already have, or if it is to encourage more to try to come in, then this deal is good. If it is anything else, then it has a solid, concrete bad side and a nebulous, whispy promise of a good side.

Yes, there is a $5,000 fine. But suppose some future executive order or amendment to a farm bill waives this if the applicant is enrolled in "Citizenship Classes". And these classes are offered by accredited private schools. And most of these private schools might just require a $50 tuition fee and never actually take attendance. The Immigration Service might claim to be too understaffed to actually investigate them, though. Presto, $5000 just became $50, and the whole thing sounds reasonable and official.

If you trust the government to never screw anything up then you can go ahead and support this bill.

Thank God for this Blog.

This is all 2006 again. The politcal dynamics will repeat. Bush will make a speech after this passess in Prime Time. Explain what is in the bill and things will calm down. HE then will ask the House to act

PEople that oppose this bill better start looking at the Strive act in the HOuse. Its is far more liberal. If the Senate Bill goes away it is not like House will do nothing. IF that passess many of the conservative measures our GOP Senators are trying to get in will not be in it

ATTENTION- This is not like last year when the Tancredo Bots had control of committies and could bottle up. THe GOP is not in control of the HOUSE and Senate and Will not be in control of the Conference committee. Hardliners are yet again betting a Royal Flush when it is all probale they will be lucky to get a pair of twos.

When are people that have valid concerns going to be start thinking in a stragetic sense? Why do you think Senator Kyl who opposed the bill last year is a major force in it this year? BEcause he sees the writing on the wall if he doesn't act

JH
LOuisiana

To oppose the Senate Bill is a return to the Status Quo. If people distrust of the Govt is so much then please pull your kids out of Civics Class and tell them it is all a shame.

Tell them not to get involved in the political process because it does not matter. I mean whats the point. If they get there they are the enemy right?

To oppose the Senate Bill is a return to the Status Quo. If people distrust of the Govt is so much then please pull your kids out of Civics Class and tell them it is all a shame.

Tell them not to get involved in the political process because it does not matter. I mean whats the point. If they get there they are the enemy right?

What civics classes? Most elections are run like American Karaoke (Idol), appealing to the lowest common denominator in the name of "democracy." It's been recently proven that nobooby seems to understand the purpose of the electoral college. Hint: It's kind of related to the 10th and 17th amendments.

Expand and really teach civics and with that sort of educated voter base maybe "How can we fool 'em today?" might fall into disuse among the beltway denizens.

Well, there's the rub.You believe that all the words written down on paper will matter next year or next administration, and I don't.There's nothing in this bill that will prevent those provisions that I like from being repealed the day after Bush signs it,or just plain ignored like many present laws are, or declared unconstitutional.Because you know the National Council for La Raza (why doesn't the media translate those last two words?) will be in court suing right away.About that 5k fine-the first word I heard of this bill was a brief news update on XM.It included a short interview with an illegal declaring that he wouldn't pay it and shouldn't have to.So I expect this fine will never collect a dollar.No, the IRS generally doesn't waive fines-but these folks aren't US citizens.US law doesn't apply to them! Again, great writing but experience has taught me that these politicians CANNOT be trusted to follow the law they write when it comes to illegal aliens.My solution, if I have one, is to replace them.

Don't trust the government????

People just amaze me. The other day I was with someone who was building a house, we started talking about this and he went ballistic and then just like it was planned out or something, the crew showed up. And they were not gringo. Well, he was on a deadline and golly gee how was he supposed to know...etc.

It is not just a question of the government not doing the job, it is all of us.

I can not believe that people can be so oblivious to this. In her last years my grandmother had a yard man named Raoul. He was raising a family on the money he made mowing lawns and cleaning out gutters. He was so proud of his son who was going to go to college. I have no idea of that man was legal or not. I don't think it ever even occured to the family to ask. He had good references and he was a nice man. That was all we knew.

The mayor of Los Angeles is not even interested in seeing people arrested. The mayor of a major city right here in the US. He was elected to that office by the people of that city and he does not work for George Bush or the United States Congress.

The truth is that so many people have been so uninterested in obeying these laws that enforcing them has been just about as possible as enforcing Prohibition.

I am with Dafyyd. I think we need some workers and I think we need border security and we need to reform the immigration system and while it would be ok fine with me if they did away with lots of stuff in that bill, it is not all bad.

So, you don't trust the government? Well then what do you care what is in the bill?

Terrye

So true. People are going to go ballastic on what I am about to say but just try to see the connection.

NOTE I AM NOT SAYING SUPPORTING SLAVERY AND BEING OPPOsSED TO THIS BILL Is THE SAME THING or has in any way on the the moral plan

Back in the Civil war, there were serious discussions about lets send the slaves and the blacks back to Africa. Problem solved and we will not have to deal with this messiness. Yes I know we built this Country off your labors but out of place out of mind. Childen that were products of Master/Slave relations? Even better gone out of here. Well Guess what? They didn't want to go back and the plan never got off the ground. Fredrick Douglass said you got to be kidding me Mr Lincoln

Fast Forward, 140 years. Many of us(it is not just evil big business) have set here for 30 years benefitting off illegal labor. It helped fuel the economy because the workers were needed. We have used them as nannies and in our small businesses. Well along the way something predictable happend. They fell in Love , had Children(AMericans by the way) and took up roots. Now we want to ship them all back to MExico and Asia. Thank you for the labor, for helping us out but you are now evil. Didn't you know when you signed up for this that you would have a big scarlet I on you forever? You are forever bad. But thanks anyway and no we are not responsible in the least. Oh your kids that are AMericans? Take them too.

The point is that we set this up by not having a rational system of migration. We used to have a circular migration force. However once the coyotees starting charging 5000 dollars a time across the border they stayed We have ignored this for too long and now this is the consequence.

The best opart of this bill is the employment verification and ID card. That is what has been missing. If we had that in 86 we would not have this problem. We might have set up a reasonable guest worker program. However we didn't

This is the rub. There will be no magic bill that does everything. It will depend on us. Depending where we live we will be called to help assimilate thee folks. I have already signed up at my Church to help teach them Civics and English under a program we are cooking up. It measn we have to get involved in the schools and make sure real education is happening etc. BUiness/Govt/Community organizations are going to have to work together.

Maybe in the end we just don't want to be bothered

RRRoark:

How about we un-comprehensive it?

I said "realistic" alternative; your idea cannot pass Congress. If it could have, it would have in the 109th, when House Republicans passed pretty much just what you ask for... but it died in the Senate, because a handful of Republicans and all of the Democrats opposed it.

And even without the Republicans, the Democrats alone had that power, via the filibuster.

Now, of course, it's even worse; the Democrats actually have an organizing majority in both chambers.

This is the problem with the "enforcement first" people: You guys don't seem to understand that you cannot simply command us to do this or that; to become law, a proposal must actually be introduced as a bill in the House and Senate, and it must pass in both bodies.

The Democratic leadership is unalterably opposed to enforcement only or enforcement first. Don't you understand what that means? They control the committees that will write any bill; they control the agenda of what bills are even allowed to be debated and voted upon.

And they will not do what you want done.

So I ask again, given the political reality in Congress in 2007, what is your politically realistic alternative to this bill? (This goes as well for Eg.)

Snochasr:

It's a nice fence, but how about we start by enforcing the laws on those millions who are already here, that we know about and have ignored?

Enforce how? By doing what specifically that we're not doing? This is Phil Donahue logic... when he was interviewed by (I think) David Letterman, he said he was against the Afghanistan war. "Well," asked Dave, "what would you do?"

"I would just go right in there and get Osama bin Laden."

"How would you go in there?"

"I'd just go right in there and get him."

"But how exactly? Do you mean with the Army?"

"No, I'm against war... I mean I would just go right in there and get him."

"Get bin Laden?"

"Yup."

"You'd just go right in there and get him."

"Exactly!"

Sno, this is you. You're basically saying we should just go right in there and get those 600,000 absconders and deport them. All right... where exactly are they? Perhaps a few are out in the open, but I suspect the great majority are moving around, staying underground.

So how do we find them? Which particular agency should drop everything else to focus full time on finding them? And how, exactly, are they to do it?

So we know there are a bunch of companies employing people who are using illicit SSNs. We should crack down on these illegals; but of course, we do -- USCIS raids these companies all the time. We catch the illegals, we deport them... and they sneak back across the border.

Well, maybe we should crack down on the employers. But crack down how? What law do we use? The only law covering the offense requires (a) that you prove the employer knew or should reasonably have known the employee was illegal -- which is very hard to prove if he showed them a fake Social Security card... how does the employer know it's fake? And (b) even if you prove this, the penalties are laughably slight. It's just an operating expense.

Well, why don't we just fine them more? Snochasr, that requires changing the law. Which itself requires an act of Congress, and we're right back where we started.

Our laws are inadequate. We need to change them... but that means, by definition, we need to pass a bill through Congress.

And here you are, vigorously opposing with all your might the only bill before the Congress that would make those penalties truly painful to the companies and create a tamper-resistant card that would allow employers to verify legal status.

And why are you fighting it? Because you can't get everything you want while denying the majority party in Congress anything it wants.

So once more -- I really grow weary of asking without getting an answer -- what is your politically sophisticated and realistic alternative to this bill? An alternative that can actually make it past the Democratic leadership, onto the floor, can avoid a filibuster by the hard-core Democratic left in the Senate, and can get a majority?

Don't just give me a wish list of everything you hope happens. Tell me exactly how you're going to get the Democrats to go for it as well.

Michael Babbitt:

If enforcement of existing laws is already so anathema to so many in the US Liberal elite, why would we expect that any of the tough enforcement provisions would actually be enforced before someone brings out the sob stories of illegals who suffered because they had to return to their country of origin?

Once the bill is passed and becomes law, enforcement is handled by the Executive, not the Legislature. This bill also includes appropriations, so the money would be shifted to the agencies... who have the greatest incentive in the world to hire more agents and crack down to the maximum extent of their authority (that's what policing agencies do).

It doesn't matter how much the liberals in Congress wring their hands; enforcement will be out of those hands.

Now, if a Democrat is elected president, he or she could certainly bring enforcement to a screeching halt. It would still take a new act of Congress to start Parole Card holders on the path to citizenship without fulfilling all the triggers; and so long as Republicans could maintain a filibuster in the Senate, they could prevent any such new law passing.

But any of the Republicans running for president -- yes, even Rudy Giuliani -- would enforce the law vigorously... because that's what Republicans do. Just as, believe it or not, George W. Bush has enforced the immigration laws more vigorously than Bill Clinton did; in fact, more vigorously than George H.W. Bush or even Ronald Reagan did.

Bush has enforced our immigration laws and cracked down harder on illegals than any previous president in our history.

Maybe this is the best argument against the bill as it could cause a flood of immigrants into our country...

Michael Babbitt, I know this is a very popular mantra among the anti-illegal-immigration Right; but there is not a shred of evidence that the rate of illegals crossing our borders has anything at all to do with whether or not we enact an amnesty.

They point to the 1986 amnesty and say, "See? We passed this, and lo! even more illegals flooded across. Obviously, the one caused the other."

But that's like saying that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.

In addition, there is a huge difference between the 1986 amnesty and the 2007 reform: In 1986, Congress agreed to a plan where amnesty -- actual amnesty, not what we propose today -- was enacted first... and the Democrats promised to enact border security afterwards.

They didn't. They broke their promises. That is exactly why today's Republicans insisted upon "trigger" provisions in the current bill: The "path to citizenship" cannot even start until the triggers are fulfilled... not just started, not about to start, but completed.

The only thing that happens before the triggers is that the illegals can get a Parole Card: they can stay here, and they can work -- but it won't count towards Social Security; or to put it more accurately, they must work, because if they stop working, they will be deported.

And with biometrics associated with each illegal for the very first time, and with heavy penalties for employers who hire deportees (also for the very first time), being deported will have real-world consequences: No work.

This is the absolute strongest bill that could ever pass Congress, now or in the forseeable future. It's not everything you would like to see; all right, you don't have to love it. But can you live with it?

Can you live with a fence, huge employer sanctions, a highly tamper-resistant card with fingerprints and a digitized photograph, hugely increased Border Patrol -- increasing it from about 11,000 to 29,000 (!) -- and streamlined procedures for deporting aliens and keeping them out?

If you can't, then -- here I go again -- what is your realistic alternative?

McnMan:

If your primary concern is that we regularize the illegals we already have, or if it is to encourage more to try to come in, then this deal is good. If it is anything else, then it has a solid, concrete bad side and a nebulous, whispy promise of a good side.

My primary concern, as I have said repeatedly, is that we reform our legal immigration system to make it as rational, predictable, and fair as possible... and this bill actually takes a very long stride towards doing that.

For that alone it's worth it.

The problem of illegal aliens already here is at worst temporary; unless, as I said, they have discovered the secret of immortality.

As to your last point, if your argument is to be that you don't want to enact any legislation if there is a possibility that a future Congress might upend it, or that a future president might refuse to enforce it... well, that's a perfect argument never to do anything ever again.

Xennady:

My solution, if I have one, is to replace them.

If you have one? You mean, you might not have a solution and don't particularly care if you do? I reckon that's the final answer to my repeated question, "what is your realistic alternative?" Answer: I don't have one and I don't care.

Oh.

All right, you'll just "replace" every politician who doesn't agree with you. Then after you "replace them," will you also "just go right in there and get Osama bin Laden?"

Dafydd

Isusportsfan:

Indiana State? I saw your handle and wondered.

yes, I agree with you. Just like Fred Thompson, I would vote for the man if he were running against Hillary, but back when he was in the Senate he was not out on the floor demanding a border fence. Nooo, not way back in the 90's. No, no one seemed to care all that damn much.

I was a farmer in the 80's and I can remember the farm crisis. It was awful for us on the farm. Worked all the time, lived in fear of losing everthing. But for the rest of America...it was morning in America.

I knew a man who hanged himself from a barn rafter rather than face foreclosure. And most people just blamed the farmers. They said we were bad managers, parasites, jack legged farmers.

I felt betrayed. People let the family farms and the rural communities they sustained die and they called it progress. Talked about the high price of subsidies. So I know how it feels to lose trust. And now the same society that let that family farm go the way of the horse and buggy are complaining about big farms, agribusiness etc. Well, who did they think would be feeding them?

And I think that is a lot of the reaction we see from some people on the right, they don't trust the government. Well you know what? Someday when we pass from this world we will enter the realm of angels, but for now we are stuck with the United States Congress. This is what there is. And if the whiney hardliners can not trust the government with this bill, then what difference would a different bill make? It would be the same thing.

BOHICA
Deja (1986 promises) vu, all over again.

am·nes·ty /ˈæmnəsti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[am-nuh-stee]

1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.

3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amnesty

And what is proposed doesn't qualify how? A fine (fee) for citizenship, but you can stay (forever), work (forever), and drive emergency rooms broke and never pay for citizenship. Some politicos have already said they should be able to vote. (But then, we can get the government to step in and run healthcare, and it will be free, just like Cuba. Maybe that will cause a few to go back home.)

Au contraire.I care quite a bit, thank you.My realistic solution is to secure the border and enforce existing law.It's not hard, really, and it doesn't require a thousand page bill either.Since polls indicate that my option is overwhelmingly popular with the American people I really don't see why this can't get done.In fact, I don't see why Bush didn't take this course last year.If he had enthusiastically backed law enforcement and fence building last year he probably could have gotten any amnesty provision he wanted this year.But no-he chose to stab the base of his party right in the back.Now if conservatives can't get all politicians we don't like "replaced" we can surely "replace" some.If that results in more Democrats in congress, at least the ignorant American public will know who to blame for the amnesty bill that results.Bottom line:I don't trust George Bush,and I don't trust Republicans in the Senate either.You do.Good luck with that.

Au contraire.I care quite a bit, thank you.My realistic solution is to secure the border and enforce existing law.It's not hard, really, and it doesn't require a thousand page bill either.Since polls indicate that my option is overwhelmingly popular with the American people I really don't see why this can't get done.In fact, I don't see why Bush didn't take this course last year.If he had enthusiastically backed law enforcement and fence building last year he probably could have gotten any amnesty provision he wanted this year.But no-he chose to stab the base of his party right in the back.Now if conservatives can't get all politicians we don't like "replaced" we can surely "replace" some.If that results in more Democrats in congress, at least the ignorant American public will know who to blame for the amnesty bill that results.Bottom line:I don't trust George Bush,and I don't trust Republicans in the Senate either.You do.Good luck with that.

Sorry about the double post-my browser told me my comment failed because I wasn't logged in.

RRRoark:

Amnesty:

A general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

So an amnesty is a pardon; did you look up pardon in that same dictionary source, RRRoark?

Here it is...

Pardon:

A release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor.

This bill doesn't grant anything to anybody without penalty. That is the whole point. You (and Michelle Malkin, who coincidentally linked that exact dictionary search on her blog last year) skip entirely over the fact that for this "forgiveness" to be an amnesty, it must be without penalty.

Yet there is a substantial penalty. Ergo, not amnesty.

Words have meanings, RRRoark (and you too, Ms. Malkin). You cannot simply wave them away, misuse the word -- yet still rely upon the frisson produced by the original meaning of that word.

I run into this all the time from the Left; they rely upon misusing words to create emotional impressions that transcend the mere logic of their opponents' points:

• The "civil war" in Iraq;
• The "terrorism" of bombing an al-Qaeda safehouse;
• Israel's "genocide" in Jenin;
• The way Clarence Thomas "essentially raped" Anita Hill;
• The "homophobia" of opposing same-sex marriage;
• The "racism" of opposing affirmative action;
• And of course, the "severe cut" of increasing a welfare program more slowly than the lefty prefers.

I have no intention of letting those on the Right get away with the same adolescent prank. The word "amnesty" does not mean what you think it means; find the correct word and use it, for God's sake.

If you want to call it a plea bargain, go ahead; that's reasonably accurate. In a plea bargain, the defendant (usually) admits he committed a crime, pleads guilty, but is given a lighter sentence than he would receive if he fought it out in the courts and lost.

So is this a plea bargain? Yes; that's about the closest term for it. Do you angrily reject all plea bargains? Our courts could not function without them; they would be inundated.

For the same reason, we would be absolutely overwhelmed trying to catch, try, and deport all 12,000,000 illegal aliens here (assuming there are not more than that number). So instead, we offer to let them plead out, take a fine that would be quite significant to a gardener or a part-time construction worker, admit their guilt, and submit biometric information to a database.

In exchange, we do not seek the harsher punishment -- just as in every other plea bargain... that is what makes it a plea "bargain."

Xennady:

Since polls indicate that my option is overwhelmingly popular with the American people I really don't see why this can't get done.

X, I don't think you're getting the point of this exercise. You're still in Phil Donahue-land. I want you to describe step by step what you mean to do.

If he had enthusiastically backed law enforcement and fence building last year he probably could have gotten any amnesty provision he wanted this year.

Congress passed the fence and Bush signed it. He has pushed harder than any previous president to beef up border security, law enforcement, and to expand both the numbers and the authority of the USBP. Next?

Now if conservatives can't get all politicians we don't like "replaced" we can surely "replace" some.

Which one; which district? And which candidate will you run against the incumbent? Has that candidate agreed to run? What makes you think he can unseat the incumbent? Can he raise enough money? Has he ever succeeded before?

Tell me exactly -- and exactly how this would affect this congressional debate, considering that the Republicans are in the minority anyway?

If that results in more Democrats in congress, at least the ignorant American public will know who to blame for the amnesty bill that results.

Oh, that will be a jolly relief. Much better than trying to find a solution... we'll know who to blame for failure!

Bottom line:I don't trust George Bush,and I don't trust Republicans in the Senate either.You do.Good luck with that.

Bottom line: You live in a country whose federal laws are made by Congress. You don't trust the majority; you don't trust the minority; and you don't trust the president, neither.

I think you need the luck a lot more than I.

Dafydd

Terrye

On no LSU. LOuisiana State University

xennady

My realistic solution is to secure the border and enforce existing law.It's not hard, really, and it doesn't require a thousand page bill either.Since polls indicate that my option is overwhelmingly popular with the American people I really don't see why this can't get done.In fact, I don't see why Bush didn't take this course last year.If he had enthusiastically backed law enforcement and fence building last year he probably could have gotten any amnesty provision he wanted this year.But no-he chose to stab the base of his party right in the back.Now if conservatives can't get all politicians we don't like "replaced" we can surely "replace" some.If that results in more Democrats in congress, at least the ignorant American public will know who to blame for the amnesty bill that results.Bottom line:I don't trust George Bush,and I don't trust Republicans in the Senate either.You do.Good luck with that.

I am going to be blunt. I don't trust some of the hardliners on this. This is much more than about"amnesty". FAIR, CIS, and NUMBERS USA and assorted John Tanton Groups are anti immigration period. They are anti trade. While we have all been fighting and talking about the Illegals they are lobbying to cut down on High Tech HB1 visas. Something we got to increase to get all the smart folks from India. Why is that? Because they believe in radical population control.

My email is asaulted daily with the worst conspiracy stuff. I mean the North American Union stuff is just crazed but it is used and promoted by these folks to whip the far right into a frenzy. If I hear about the Amero one more time I think I will scream

Maybe if the anti comprehensive reform people for the past two years had not called us traitors, Quilsings, RINOS, and every other name in the book I would feel better. There is a plain anti immigration and anti trade movement that is a part of this. So no I don't particually trust those elements to say ok we will regularize when we have a fence built in 5 years. This issue about the illegals is a side show. While we are discussing this again they are attempting to do everything to bring immigration to a halt. If you notice the tone has changed. Last year at this time it was "we are just against illegal immigration". Now I am hearing more and more about stopping legal immigration. It is no secret it is just many don't go to their web sites.

As for Republicans leaving the party. Oh well. It doesnt make sense to me. I keep hearing all these threats all the time. I heard if the GOP didnt kill the Dubai Lease deal they would leave. It seems that many more issues are becoming "deal breakers"/ What is next?

At the end of the day the people that took the hardline position last year lost.

Cannon/Jacobs Republican Primary

That was the huge showdown. Cannon was booed and all that. Well he went out campaigned and he trounced the anti immigration guy by 11 points

Randy Graff- Former Minutemen(more on that in a sec) ran in Arizona to replace Kolbe. Ran against a pro comprehensive Dem - HE lost

Hayworth a House GOP LEader and immigration hardliner- Ran against Democrat Mitchel who was for comprehensive reform. Hayworth lost

Rep Flake from Arizona. Not a Hardliner. He won

Sen Santorum embraced the hardline approach because everyone told him it was a winner- HE lost

Our Movie Star Governor out in California was moderate on the issue. HE won

I could go on and on.

By the way as to Trust. THe Minutemen that so many conservatives trusted(the Simcox Faction) and was on Hannity, Lou Dobbs etc appear to about convincely exposed as a money making scam for so called conservative groups thats main purpose is to make money. These are same people that have partly amped up "the Govt is corrupt you cant trust them" rethoric etc. I think many people years from now are going to be embarrased when they see that so much of the heat on this issue was manufactured by people that own caging companies, direct mail, and political marketing firms for a profit.

I am not saying illegal immigration is not a problem. But the tension and the uncivil conduct that has occured on this never had to get to this level

Look, all this debate is well and good but I really think y'all are blowing a lot of hot air around for nothing.

I recall reading an article where a gung-ho INS boss raided a large plant that employed many illegals (ie, enforced the current laws) and arrested a goodly amount of them, too - I believe it was in the hundreds. Did he get an award? Did everyone cheer and applaud? No! The senators from that state made a few phone calls and he was told in no uncertain terms (and by that I mean he was fired so fast it made his head spin) that you don't do that sort of thing in these senator's states! No sir, bub, because that costs our constituents money! Who did the fool think he was, anyway?

When will folks learn that the only reason this is even being debated at the moment is because the public clamor has grown too loud for congress to sit tight in their chambers? They don't care one whit about enforcing our laws, keeping illegals out, the plight of the middle class worker, the drain of illegals on our economies, or any other sort of nonsense you can come up with. All they care about is votes and dollars.

This bill will fall flat on its foolish face as soon as it gets passed. Giving an ID card to an immigrant? When? When they get arrested? Sort of like how they get arrested now? Those cards will work just as well as deportations work now - isn't that what the law says we're supposed to do to 'em when we catch 'em? And yet how often does that happen?

Cheer the bill, boo the bill, call your senator or congressman; it doesn't matter one hill of beans. Democrats think they can paint Republicans as mean ol' immigrant haters and by waving the citizenship wand in these people's faces and thus gain votes. Republicans are drooling over the "outrage" of the average American over this issue and hope to hang one on the Democrats, and score a few points in '08 to boot. And both parties love the money that pours into social security from employers taxing people with fake SSN's, right along with the property and sales tax many illegals pay. Give me a break -- this is is a treasure trove of (you guessed it) money and votes. What politician or bureaucrat in his right mind would want it to end?

But actually keeping illegals out? Hah! Contrary to common opinion, politicians are rational -- rational enough to be predictable, and in this case they just don't want illegal immigration to stop. If they did, it would. Its not that hard to figure out.

Look here a new Poll -NYT CBS poll. They went through the provisons of the bill and guess what they(The american Public) support the provisions in the bill by large margins. You will also notice that there are not huge differences between republican and democrats on this issue that were sampled
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/politics/25cnd-poll.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I want the hard right to consider something. I really don't think the far left is mentally deranged. I think they are so wrapped up in their version of reality they fail to see reality. We laugh at it an go how silly

But is it possible that many on the far right are suffering this also on this issue. For the LEft it is Iraq and on the Right immigration?

I think what we are seeing is the drawbacks of the internet and talk radio that now is segemented even more on satellite.

That is people see blogs and chat on forums and go they just think like me. There must be millions that think that way and soon the echo chamber effect makes you think that everyone that is sane thinks like me.

It is very seductive but again ,what for the 3rd year, we see the percentages exactly the same on peoples thoughts on this issue.

Let us put this issue to bed. The GOP has got many of those concerns in that bill.We are doing our job. LEt us not blow it

I don't think you're getting the point of what I'm saying.The current crop of politicians do not want to stop illegal immigration-period.They are taking a relatively simple problem and claiming it is a Gordian knot of complexity.And now you want me to conjure up a complete border security plan and solution to illegal immigration that will satisfy everyone in a blog comment-when the pro-amnesty folks can't do it even though they run the entire government! Sorry, but I no longer believe such a thing can be done.Mainly, Bush blew it.All it would've taken last year to put this issue on the road to the "comprehensive" happy-days-are-here-again solution that he wanted would have been for him to do his job.When the huge Mexican flag waving marches took place he should have sent the army and/or national guard to the southern border and kept them there until a fence was built and complete.To get the fence built he should have used that illegal immigration speech he gave last year to propose such-and also enable local law enforcement to arrest illegals who are clumsy enough to get caught.I have no doubt he could have gotten this, if he proposed it to congress.Conservatives like me would have been thrilled.Now the most serious problem conservatives have with the new bill isn't with the amnesty provisions-it's that we don't believe that the enforcement provisions will ever get enforced or the fence finished.If border security had been taken care of last year-as I suggest-any amnesty provision proposed now would be much easier for conservatives to swallow.Now-too late.You state that GWB has been the toughest president ever on border security.Hogwash.I remind you that Eisenhower actually rounded up and deported illegal aliens-operation "wetback".Several million illegals have come to this country since Bush was president.In other words,Bush failed.Next! I must have been unclear about what I meant regarding the replacement of politicians.All the tedious and labor intensive steps you list to get pro-amnesty Republicans replaced have already been done-by the Democrats! I literally don't have to do a thing-especially not vote-and-poof!-they'll be gone.No, this isn't a solution to the border problem-but I don't believe such a solution is possible now.It will, however, lead to clarity when disaster inevitably strikes, and I think that that is both important and lacking right now.And if you trust Bush,the Democratic party,and senate Republicans after the last few years-God help you.Luck won't be enough

Terrye-I hear you but no one I read wants to stop immigration.Hell, I'm an immigrant.I feel personally betrayed by George Bush and I believe that he and the pro-comprehensive reform supporters are both lying to me and about the anti-amnesty position that I support.If conspiracy talk thrives it is because the persistent refusal to secure the border is so plainly stupid that people suspect that there must be some hidden, nefarious purpose in keeping it open.Bluntly, sometimes I wonder myself.

LSUsportsfan:

Huh, I just saw that poll linked at Drudge. I've been writing a post about it, and I'll probably post it late, late, late tonight (like 04 or 05).

Also another really cool one that isn't being talked about by anybody yet -- you'll all love it! I predict the second post will get universal praise from all readers of BL.

And no, it has nothing to do with immigration.

Dafydd

Xennady:

I don't see this conversation as serving any useful purpose.

Dafydd

Xennady:

You feel p[ersonally betrayed by Bush? You know this is crap. George Bush has been promoting the idea of a guest worker program et al since he was the Governor of Texas. He never pretended to be Pat Buchnan. If that is the guy you wanted for President, the Republicans should have nominated. Of course they would have gotten their butts kicked, but at least the hardliners would not have to be all betrayed today.

I said I was a farmer. I was, and I can remember thinking that if if they replace all the family farms with big outfits they will have to hire more migrants because Americans will not do that kind of work unless they own the place or are sitting on a machine. Well, here we are.

Dafydd: Yep.I have to agree.

Terrye:

Yes, I'm familiar with what George Bush has said on the issue.Before the million Mexican marches I didn't really care much about illegal immigration either.The sight of all those Mexican flags waving on American soil changed my attitude.I feel betrayed because Bush failed to respond to changed circumstances, and he should have.Yes, that's only my opinion-but most of the country seems to share it.As that guy from the Colbert show said-Bush has the same position on Wednesday that he had on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday.For me, those marches were a Tuesday moment.

As to your belief that Americans won't do farm labor-I don't buy it.They will if they're paid American wages. And if corporate farms can't get cheap illegal labor they WILL pay American wages-or go bankrupt.This logic is fine for American manufacturing firms-I don't see why it can't apply to these corporate farms as well.Maybe then family farms would be more viable-but I won't hold my breath.

If they choose not to be citizens. I don't see a penalty, not even full restitution for tax fraud.

Restitution does not equal penalty

I don't know who taught you to use a dictionary, but the way it works is that if it lists three meanings, it means that there are THREE meanings. So if pardon floats your boat fine, but it also means:

an act of forgiveness for past offenses, or a forgetting or overlooking

This "plea bargain" (for illegal entry, tax avoidance, identity theft, and others) not only carries a minuscule price, but confers some very special rights not available to the citizens and legal aliens. Tax forgiveness and in-state tuition guarantees. It also invalidates laws that states have passed to address the problem.

The so-called "fine" is less than what legal aliens pay in fees to wind their way through the system, so how is that punishment? Will the legals be able to pay that amount and transfer their processing? Will legals now be able to apply for subsidized student loans? Will resident tax cheats be able to wait until they are caught and then make everything right by only paying two of the last three years, if they've been cheating for eighteen? Somehow I don't think so.

It waddles, swims, flys and quacks like a duck, and you want to tell me it's a bicycle. To me there is plenty of forgiveness, forgetting, and overlooking "goin' on round hear".

Also most "plea bargains" in financial cases involve restitution which isn't actually considered "punishment." Illegal immigrants' bad debts have caused serious increases to medical premiums which are going to lead to "Hillarycare." Ask the people of Tennessee how well that has turned out so far.

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