1. Didn't read the ISG Report?
2. Didn't read recent articles by Baker and Hamilton?, or
3. Cannot comprehend what what they read?

Tomy

Let's try this again (Sorry)

Another amazingly uniformed article by the MSM. Even when two of these highly capable writers collaborate they can't get it right. Can we not assume that they

1. Didn't read the ISG Report?
2. Didn't read recent articles by Baker and Hamilton?, or
3. Cannot comprehend what what they read?

Tomy

I would think that in areas impacted the most by illegal aliens, the result of question 61 in California, Arizona and Texas would find a significant increase in the number of people who would respond "Deport them". Forget numbers, stats, etc, life was better 35 years ago without the 12 million criminals.

Until two days ago I really didn't care about the immigration bill. My apathy stemmed from the fact that I live in Hawaii and it is just too damned far for people to go to try and sneak in.

But now, as I draw close to Navy retirement and prospecting for jobs in Northern California, I have read the bill in its entirety and have formulated an honest opinion on it.

I just don't know what the right answer is. There are some things of the bill that I like and some things that I don't- using historical stats from an election, Dafydd, to show the accuracy of a current poll about the immigration bill doesn't exactly convince me of the bill's popularity.

I think local polls in targeted areas where illegal immigration is a problem would yield substantially different numbers, of course, because I think places where it isn't a problem the people have a "Why not?" attitude. Sort of like I did living here in Hawaii.

The provisions for future kickbacks, ie. fines for illegals to pay to become citizens, looks good on paper but I don't see it being neither enforced nor being a viable long term source of petty cash.

Unfortunately, this is the best piece of paper we can come up with and no one seems to have any a better solution sans: 1) deport them all (which isn't possible), or 2) just give them status (which doesn't seem fair to me).

Dafydd

A few practical considerations among the philosophizing.

The $5,000 fine is simply more than most illegals have, and they will not therefore be able to pay it. 12,000,000 x $5,000 = $60,000,000,000 (with a B).

They retain the option to continue to 'live in the shadows' (well, in broad daylight actually), and continue to be illegal. We don't know where they are now, we will continue to not know where they are. Their illegality does not concern them - if it did they wouldn't be here.

And on and on. It's such a silly bill I'm surprised anybody can support it - and people do not.

The reason they support the provisions polled seperately is that many are good ideas. In isolation.

What they are not asked, (but I can tell you how they'd respond), is "Before we do any of this, should the border be sealed"?

The overwhelming reason why people oppose the bill, which isn't that everybody is too dumb to understand it, is that they've heard it all before, and seen the reality in the ensuing years.

On of the reasons people don't like the bill is they remember what a bill of goods the last Immigration Reform Act was. And with the existing laws being so poorly enforced, to all appearances deliberately, the promises implicit in the bill simply aren't credible. Especially since this bill was concocted in back rooms, outside the proper procedure, and they tried to railroad it passage. The stench is quite strong.

In short: we don't trust them. Any of them. Not Congress, and not the Administration.

So, prove to us serious intent first, by actually enforcing the laws we already have. And build the #@&& fence!

Ah More inconvient facts. I guess the billions of spam email going out weekly ffrom the various groups are not helping.

I notice that Mickey Kaus(that hates the Senate Bill) is getting worried. He has a contest that many might want to get in on. It ismuch better than having to deal with the fact that most Americans do not find legalization as a deal breaker.

Killer Amendment Contest:

The goal of course is not to make this legislation better but well he explains here

A "killer amendment" would have to be appealing enough to draw a majority vote, yet so unappealing that a larger bill including it would be voted down (even though the killer amendment might always be reversed in conference). ... Maybe it makes more sense if you look at the Kabuki, and at the cumulative effect of alienating small blocs of senators: A killer amendment, in this theory, is an amendment that it's hard for a majority of politicians to go on record against (even if they hate it) but that gives a large group of other politicians who'd secretly like to vote against the bill a defensible excuse for doing so.** ...

So for those thats purpose is oppose regularization at all cost this is a good use of energy.

Even I submitted a Entry that is here

THE LETS SHARE THE BLAME AND PUNISHIMENT AMENDMENT

THE IRS, the DOJ, and various agencies will be increased considerably to perform one purpose. Exhaustive examnination and prosecution of any one that hired an illegal Alien. All small business would have to open their records to exhaustive question. Everyone including people that hired Housekeepers that were illegal will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law pursuant to Statue of Limitations. All those found guilty will have to have to drive around with a vehicle plate that says "illegal". All Tax revenues that were given by illegals or revenues that were paid into Social Security are ill gotten gains. This includes Sales Tax revenues. The various govt agencies shall refund that money to fund the Mark Krikorian Institute For Fair and Unbiased Immigration Studies. As a part of this funding,a statue to John Tanton shall be be built in every village,town, and City with a population of over 3000.

I think that would be a killer one. I mean everyone is for justice and making sure Lawbreakers get no mercy right? But it might run into problems as a pratical manner

Link to Kaus's site is here
http://www.slate.com/id/2166678/

Link to Kaus's site is here
http://www.slate.com/id/2166678/

Larry D

On of the reasons people don't like the bill is they remember what a bill of goods the last Immigration Reform Act was. And with the existing laws being so poorly enforced, to all appearances deliberately, the promises implicit in the bill simply aren't credible. Especially since this bill was concocted in back rooms, outside the proper procedure, and they tried to railroad it passage. The stench is quite strong.

In short: we don't trust them. Any of them. Not Congress, and not the Administration.

So, prove to us serious intent first, by actually enforcing the laws we already have. And build the #@&& fence!

Larry most of the Congress that was there in 86 is not there anymore. As this blogger trys and trys to state the enforcement of the laws is not up to Congress that is up ot he President. For instance let us take my state for example

In Louisnan The Crime fighting illegal Alien deporting Duo of Sen Mary Landrieu and Sen David Vitter do not exist. There is NOT nor will there BE a raid on North Rampart St in New Orleans where Sen. Landrieu bats her eyes and say in a seductive voice to Sen. David Vitter 'book them Dano". Congressman Baker does not moonlight in his night job running the border patrol. Congressman Alexander does not scout the sweet potato fields of his district on the look out for illegals. Congressman Jefferson does none of this because he is too busy guarding his freezer.

What happens is this bill puts in the resources and hires Federal employees to enforce these laws many of these law enforcement. Do people realize how hard it is to fire Federal Employees?

I have another question that I want to ask my conservative and GOP friends that support one the the following :

Huckabee
Brownback
Gulliani
Fred Thompson
Newt
Romney
McCain
Ron Paul

If no politician that you see will not enforce the laws if they become President then why in the heck should I support your guy?

If you think they are spineless, then I might suggest they are not worthy for the office. Also by implication even if they are hardline then I should not be listening to a word they say because it is worthless. I think that is logical.

A few practical considerations among the philosophizing.

The $5,000 fine is simply more than most illegals have

It is not out of line with what the pay coyotes now to enter illegally

Larry:

A couple of things, they are building the fence but believe it or not things like that do not happen overnight. Senator Kyl says that 75 miles is under construction. And if it was so damn important to everyone maybe they should have done it before the EPA and God knows how many other federal agencies came along to keep an eye on everything. I doubt seriously if we could build the Hoover Damn today.

I don't trust a lot of the people who don't trust anyone else either. I think a lot of them are using this issue to position themselves with the base in away that they believe will benefit them. Screw the rest of us.

One of the reasons many of the laws are not enforced the way they should be is a lack of resources and man power. This bill would increase both. It would seem to me that the people complaining the loudest about enforcement would be helpig rather than hindering reform.

lsu:

The thing that amazes me about Kaus is that he supported Kerry in the last election. I wonder just how he thinks Kerry would have handled the situation. Last I heard Cambridge is a sanctuary city.

PC14

I would think that in areas impacted the most by illegal aliens, the result of question 61 in California, Arizona and Texas would find a significant increase in the number of people who would respond "Deport them". Forget numbers, stats, etc, life was better 35 years ago without the 12 million criminals.

Then why last year in Arizona Rep Hayworth who favored the Deport/Starve them back approach lose of a Pro Comprehensive Democrat.

Whyu In the Border State of Arizona did the Republican Graf that was running to retaun that seat after Kolbe retired Lose to a Pro Comprehensive Dem

Why can Rep Flake who is a Republican in Arizona win and he is for even more of a radical Comprehensive Immigration reform

Why In California is Arnold successful with a more moderate Appraoch.

How Come in the Governors Race in Arizona the Republican could make no ground on the DEM that has never favored that approach.

Terrye

I agree. It is strange. He might have though that Bush had a better chance of getting it(immigration reform) through because Bush could work with business interest.

Kaus is obseesed on this. About as much as THE Corner is. It is all FULL STEAM AHEAD WE ARE ON A MISSION FROM GOD Blues brthers type of mentality on this lol.

I find it distressing that many people instead of trying to engage this are trying to kill it all cost. The GOP will not have a chance of getting so many good enforcement and business measures in. THis is it. I have looked ahead to 2008 and to be honest I don't see us getting the Congress back.

This is like the Twilight Zone

lsu:

Well it is like soap opera. The previous Congress decided to make illegal entry a felony and that got the other side all excited and then they had that idiotic demonstration with all those Mexican flags and people flipped. I understand it in a way. Talk about a dumb move.

So then the right went righter and the whole thing just sort of snow balled. My Congressman Hostettler was a very conservative Republican, in fact he was kind of an isolationist really. And he really stressed this. He was slaughtered here in the midterms. I voted for him because I did not want a Democratic Congress, but I was in the minority. In fact all the Republicans who lost in Indiana were conservatives. But then the Democrats who won were mostly blue dogs. Ellsworth who won here in the 8th is not a liberal, in fact he is prolife.

So I think there is a lot of emotion in this issue. If the 109th had just tried for more border security then and left the whole felony issue alone and if all those people had not taken to the streets...I think the attitudes would have been different and maybe even the outcome of the midterms. Maybe.

It's reminiscent of the post-Columbine calls for new anti-gun laws, despite the lunatics having broken 17 existing laws.

Just ONE MORE law, and they wouldn't have done it.

Until people see the politicians serious about the border, they won't support the next installment of 'Coming to America'.

Simple as that, and nor should they. You do know that they built TWO miles of the 700 mile fence that was noisily approved and quietly dropped?

Dafydd, as others here have stated, I general find you insightful. However, you either do not get this, or you don't believe in american liberty and think the idea of forming a North American State is a good idea RIGHT NOW.

It doesn't matter if the poll says that most people are willing to compromise for a bill that would grant a path to citizenship and also ACTUALLY ENFORCE THE BORDERS.

What matter is that this bill WILL NOT ACTUALLY ENFORCE THE BORDERS. The polling is equally clear that if the public understood that this was the case, THEY WOULD NOT BE FOR THIS BILL.

PERIOD. THATS WHAT THE POLL SAYS.

The only way you can win this logically is to convince me that the border will be secured. Good luck. Either you don't get it or don't care.

Do you actually think this bill will enforce the border, Dafydd?

Martin they are already here. THey also have AMerican Childrenthat will be voters. They also have aunts uncles and friends that will be voters.

DId anyone read the Freakin Washington POst this morning on the Future of GOP

At one level, any immigration debate concerns a raw political calculation: Who ends up with more voters? Conservative critics of the Senate bill argue that because most Latinos identify themselves as Democrats, a larger pool of American Latinos will mean that Republicans are voted into irrelevance. Most Republican political strategists respond: That is closer than you think. Given current demographic realities, Republicans cannot rely on their white base alone. If a Republican presidential candidate doesn't get about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide, he or she doesn't stand much of a chance on an electoral map where Florida and the Southwest figure prominently. A nativist party will cease to be a national party.

Breaking 40 percent is possible for Republicans. President Bush did it in 2004. Republican momentum among Hispanic voters has been strong in the past decade -- until Rep. Tom Tancredo and his allies began their conflict with the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

Conceding Latinos to the Democrats in perpetuity is a stunning failure of political confidence. If the Republican Party cannot find ways to appeal to natural entrepreneurs, with strong family values, who are focused on education and social mobility, then the GOP is already dead

THere is much more please read. THis is serious stuff here.

May

What matter is that this bill WILL NOT ACTUALLY ENFORCE THE BORDERS. The polling is equally clear that if the public understood that this was the case, THEY WOULD NOT BE FOR THIS BILL

May What Bill are you looking at? You do realize that a fence doesnt solve all this? Many overstay visas. The bill takes care of that

isusportsfan--So what you're saying is those examples you site are sort of proxy votes against deportation? A stretch, but OK.

But if a direct, deport or no deport vote were to be taken in AZ, CA and TX I'd bet those deport numbers would be higher than the national. And if we were able to zoom in on those of us who have resided in the state for at least the last 35 years, the deport vote would sky rocket. I've seen much better days...and I liked them a whole lot more.

Terrye

I will say this. After seeing how the left reacted Iraq and the extreme right acts on the immigration bill, I shall be more careful when I criticize the Iraq Parliment

PC14

This is my thoughts about those Races

First let us look at the Republican Primary last year in Utah between Cannon and Jacobs. Remember that race. Cannon is the leading advocate of immigratuion reform His District has been affected by illegals. It is one of the most conservative in the nation. THE ISSUE was illegal immigration. Cannon was targeted by Tancredo and every other anti immigration group. THose epople called a million mailers and calls.

Cannon Won by 11 points. Depsite the most negative and horrible campain I an remember

IN the races I mention I tried to keep them in Border areas where the issue is hot

IN the Graff race that guy was a minuteman at one time. He made immigration the marque issue. HE was a deport type person. HE lost. We the GOP lost a seat that was Republican that was Kolbes. There was no rush of new voters to him

Hayworth had other problems but his hardline approach gave him new rush of voters at all.

We have been steadly trneding with more Hispanic voters for years and last year was a disaster. They picked up on all the negative over the top stuff.

We can not just try to repeat the mistakes of last year. IF we do then this party might take longterm damage that we cannot repair.

Trickish Knave:

Unfortunately, this is the best piece of paper we can come up with and no one seems to have any a better solution sans: 1) deport them all (which isn't possible), or 2) just give them status (which doesn't seem fair to me).

That has been my point all along, TK.

This isn't the bill I would have written; but this is a bill I can live with. It's better than the Senate bill under the Republican Congress in 2006; that one didn't include any reform of the legal immigration system, which to me is the most important point of all in the long range. It is that, much more than the fence, that will determine how many illegals enter the country.

My thesis all along has been this: Grant immigration in an arbitrary, unfair, possibly vindictive, and certainly unpredictable way, and you will have enormous numbers of otherwise honest people trying to sneak into the country.

But make the legal immigration policy sane, just, and predictable -- then when those same honest people fail to get in the first time, rather than sneak in, they will find out what they lacked and improve themselves in that area for the next trial.

The fence is only for the criminals, terrorists, and those too stupid to realize they're too stupid to be welcome.

Dafydd

Martin Hague:

They retain the option to continue to 'live in the shadows' (well, in broad daylight actually), and continue to be illegal. We don't know where they are now, we will continue to not know where they are. Their illegality does not concern them - if it did they wouldn't be here.

True, and they also retain the option of starving to death because they cannot get work and they cannot get welfare or food stamps.

LiveFreeOrDie:

The only way you can win this logically is to convince me that the border will be secured.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you cannot logically argue somebody out of a position he was never logically argued into.

Not even with ALL CAPS! <g>

Dafydd

The problem, as I said before, is that this particular bill has been egregiously and deliberately misrepresented by a large number of opponents on both Left and Right.

i’ve pretty much stayed out of the Immigration debate, other than reading your posts about it, and you explained it quite well. Mainly, i had/have noticed a lot of ‘talk’ or replies about “criminals”, and just ignored making my point about “criminals”, since neither ‘side’ thinks of themselves as “criminal”. Even most of the Illegal Immigrant ‘side’ (third 'side') thinks themselves innocent…so to speak of at least FOUR ‘sides’ here, if the true “criminals” are included…so to speak.

Merriam-Webster defines “crime” in roughly FOUR definitions, and refers to “criminal” in one of their “7 entries” for defining “crime”. Then again, Merriam-Webster offers a definition for “duality”, but not one for non-duality. Under “criminal”, Merriam-Webster also has roughly FOUR definitions (three mention “crime”) and “7 entries” again. Merriam-Webster is still working to define “terror”, “terrorist”, and “terrorism”…BTW.

The rules are quite simple, actually, until humans get involved in trying to change them…and/or try to define words, actions, and natural instincts…in my humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit opinion. Basically, when simplicity gets overruled, then human confusion steps in…so to speak Dualistically.

The great majority of the country, however, is actually in agreement on most issues; and every element of the bill gets majority support. Look:

Thus the such, as answers #61 thru #64 whilst you skipped #62. America has failed at stopping alcohol from entering, failed at stopping drugs from entering, and will continue to fail at stopping Illegal Immigrants from entering…even with the tallest fences, the thickest fences, and/or even the deepest fences. America is also at *WAR* with an Enemy that has planned and re-planned for such events as the Immigration issue, because (amongst other reasons, of course) they ‘Know’ us quite well, and want no part of such human laws that the West offers. This Enemy wants to destroy our way of life, and we help them do it, since we are unwilling to kill them, and all around them. Anyway, they have our ‘number’ and at least FOUR ways to defeat the West…Immigration issues or not included.

And here's the biggie:

Really?!? PuuuuuuuuuuuuuuLEEEEEEEASE!!! 51% actually believe that the workers we want will basically *FOREVER* leave their wife and children behind whilst we debate Immigration issues?!? Talk about confused…so to speak Non-Dualistically. Trust me…forget #73, unless ‘we’ want those who are willing to abandon their wives and children permanently or with little hope of ever reuniting.

Dafydd, can you imagine what goes on ‘Back Home’…with these Illegal Immigrants? ‘Someone’ ‘Back Home’ gets stuck with the children, and they may go along with it at first; however, at some point, the children get tossed in again during conversation, and usually the phone or pen is handed to the children at that point. Ignoring the pleas of one’s own children may be ‘Politically Correct’ and/or human rule correct, but it is not natural, humble me suspects.

So I think it fair to say that the hardliners are simply wrong, wrong, wrong to imagine that they represent the majority; and I mean the hardliners of both Left and Right. Americans want every part of this deal.

Yeah…right. The human ego actually thinks that it is amazing. What has any human ego ever actually done, for the human body that it resides in, or for the human race? Did it invent fire? Did it invent the wheel? i seriously doubt it!!! It probably invented “crime”, and made “criminals” of all us humans, but other than that…what has the human ego ever done or did?!? i feel like breaking into Non-Duality at this point, but know it would be useless, so thusly won’t bother.

May the innocent and Enemies of this Nation ‘invade’ it at will, since none here are “criminals”, and have never committed a “crime”.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Trickish knave...

Until two days ago I really didn't care about the immigration bill. My apathy stemmed from the fact that I live in Hawaii and it is just too damned far for people to go to try and sneak in.

But now, as I draw close to Navy retirement and prospecting for jobs in Northern California, I have read the bill in its entirety and have formulated an honest opinion on it.

Please excuse my foolish questionings here, Trickish knave, but apparently i might be missing something. BTW, i have emphasized in 'Bold' my doubts/questions. From two days to retirement seems like a retirement plan that most have missed.

What did or what rank are you retiring at...'swabbie'? If not, perhaps you should manage yore money better, or convert to Islam.

I just don't know what the right answer is.

Starting a job with the Navy, and retiring two days later must present problems, and i am still scratching my skull.

Secondly, you state that you have "read the bill in its entirety and have formulated an honest opinion on it." Followed by "just don't know what the right answer is."

?!?!

What am i missing here?

Martin Hague,

Dafydd

A few practical considerations among the philosophizing.

The $5,000 fine is simply more than most illegals have, and they will not therefore be able to pay it. 12,000,000 x $5,000 = $60,000,000,000 (with a B).

Are you a Socialist? From Individual and Freedom, you shoot to "12,000,000 x $5,000", so i wondered.

Karmicommunist:

The current bill allows spouses and minor children of a visa recipient to also get visas; it's the more distant relatives -- parents, uncles, cousins -- who are not given any guaranteed entry; it's a point in favor, but not as much as advanced education or engineering skills.

Dafydd

The problem with the hardliners is an obvious one, they have decided all is lost in the securing the border wall much as the Democrats have decided all is lost in the Iraq War. Therefor any movement toward success is an insult to their position. Can't have that....so we must say that it is impossible that this bill is anything other than an abomination because by God they said so.

Well if that is the case there is no point in trying to make these people happy. It can not be done, might as well ignore them and move on without them.

Live free or die:

Let me explain something to you, that kind of nonsense just makes me think the critics of this bill are a tad paranoid.

It reminds me of the Dubai business. Chucky Schumer and Hillary Clinton get in front of the cameras and claim that Bush is going to sell our ports to terrorists so that they can kill us all. Well, did the hard right pause to wonder if maybe they were being played by the Democrats? Hell no, they were off to the races.

In this circumstance dealing with a Democrat like Kennedy is a crime, but when that thing broke carrying water for the likes of Chuck and Hill did not bother people on the right at all. Made perfect sense to them. So they did what they do best..... the Republicans went out and ate their own.

Now I consider myself center right, but that does not mean I am a fanatic. If people like Michael Barone and Jonah Goldberg can find somethings positive in this bill I have a hard time believing some of the silly stuff I am hearing from the restrictionists, hard right, hardliners, nativists, xenophobes whatever.

OK.

Dafydd:

1) I don't care if you don't like the caps for emphasis. The entire post was not in caps. I don't feel like using the other formatting buttons provided. Using text formatting options is an accepted way of emphasizing a point online where the amount of time spent properly forming your sentence structure and editing is limited. Caps are a REASONABLE stand-in for other formatting options when used in the same way.

2) There is logic in my post. I will repeat it without emphasizing anything using caps so as to remove your argument point and force you to actually argue. Or not, which is what I suspect.

I will divide the argument into nice little chunks so that your reptile brain can process them. Please choose to discredit an enumerated point so that we can see which of us is applying logic and which is dodging the issue.

Which part do you disagree with, Dafydd?

Terrye:

Which part is nonsense?

1) Michael Barone came out against the bill.

2) Jonah Goldberg came out against the bill.

3) I am not a nativist. I am not a xenophobe. My brother is an adopted Korean. My cousins and uncles have adopted or married hispanics and blacks. I dated a black woman for 4 years.

I am not a a racist or a xenophobe, and from where I sit it appears to me that this line of argumentation is being used to smear an entire line of reasoning with disgusting insinuations.

I am sure that there are nativists and racists and xenophobes who agree with this legislation. If the inclusion of some group into the coalition for or against a piece of legislation was the measure of its value, then there would be no legislation. Ever.

Do you, Terrye, actually believe that this legislation will secure the borders?

Do you believe that it will slow down the influx of illegan aliens across the border - excluding through the means of merely changing the definition of what we call a border crosser?

Terrye:

Let me explain something you, that kind of nonsense just makes me think the proponents of this bill want to shove it down the throats of the american people.

yup. nothing changes. the same people making the same excuses to support this pig of a bill. now they are even twisting all the poll data to support their strawmen.

conveniently left out, as it always is--is border enforcement. the vast majority of the people against this bill and the ones before it are for this simple reason. apologists for other agendas always ignore this by talking about "hard right" and now only lately "hard left". what a bunch of phonies.

the fence is not being built and supporters of this bill openly admit that it will probably not be built as circumstances on the ground change. read all the interviews. homeland security already admits that the previously agreed to 800 miles has now been rescinded down to 300 and change. dems in congress speak openly of defunding it going forward. only the purposely naive believe that it will get built and the border will be secured. you have to be delusional to take at face value the promises of kennedy et al, the same people who made the same promises in 1986, that the border will be secured. It will NEVER be secured if the goodies are handed out first or at the same time.

if you really want the support of the vast majority of americans on this bill or any others, simply build a fence from stem to stern that prevents the millions casually walking across the border and this bill would pass in a landslide. many here and in congress don't want that so they hide behind threats and strawmen about "hard this or hard that". the only "hard" flying around is their brain cells--too rigid to grasp the obvious.

LiveFreeOrDie:

D) This legislation will not actually reduce illegal border crossings (accepting slight of hand changes in the definition).

Which part do you disagree with, Dafydd?

LFOD, this is a logical fallacy called "begging the question," or assuming that which is to be proven. Another name for it is "argument by assertion."

Patrick Neid:

the fence is not being built and supporters of this bill openly admit that it will probably not be built as circumstances on the ground change.

I beg your pardon? When did I "openly admit" that the fence "will probably not be built?"

Here are three fallacies operating in conjunction:

1. Ignoratio Elenchi, or a red herring; whether some proponents of the bill claim the fence won't be built is irrelevant to the question of whether it will be built;
2. Tu quoque, or "and you're another!";
3. The fallacy of wishful thinking; "my opponents have already admitted my case!"

There is little in this post apart from logical fallacies. Here you repeat your previous error:

homeland security already admits that the previously agreed to 800 miles has now been rescinded down to 300 and change.

Same three fallacies. Now you shift to a new one:

only the purposely naive believe that it will get built and the border will be secured. you have to be delusional to take at face value the promises of kennedy et al, the same people who made the same promises in 1986, that the border will be secured.

Argumentum ad hominem, or the simple attack on the other person: Proponents of this bill are "naive" and "delusional."

if you really want the support of the vast majority of americans on this bill or any others, simply build a fence from stem to stern that prevents the millions casually walking across the border and this bill would pass in a landslide.

I don't think this fallacy is even named, but it boils down to this: If we want to win the support of Americans for comprehensive immigration reform, which includes a fence plus regularization plus reform of legal immigration, then we should first enact enforcement-only legislation to build a fence.

Once we've already built a fence, then Americans will support a comprehensive bill to build a fence.

If we remove the obvious absurdity and instead recast this argument as the normal one for bill opponents -- first give us all the enforcement, then afterward, we will support regularization -- this is the Wimpy Fallacy: enforcement-only people will gladly pay us with the other immigration components Tuesday for enforcement today.

The fallacy here is the demand for total trust... particularly from people who have a vested political interest in not justifying that trust.

Structurally, this argument is identical to 1986, when the pro-amnesty people (that actually was an amnesty, unlike this time) said they would gladly pay us with enforcement Tuesday for amnesty today... and we all know how well that worked out.

Dafydd

Then state , Dafydd, that you believe this legislation will lead to border enforcement.

State it.

And then we can argue about why we think it will or will not lead to border enforcement.

Do you, Dafydd, think this legislation will lead to border enforcement?

d,

you are just ************ now.

as a footnote when i used the term "supporters" above i mean it in the sense of the people who write and then vote on the bill. (your support and my opposition are for the most part irrelevant. you will be wrong, just as the folks in 1986 were wrong about the long term results. i was right then and i'll be right now)

in twenty years time we will continue to have open borders and 20 million or more illegals demanding citizenship. once again folks like you will buy the BS and vote for the "new improved" immigration reform. thankfully by then ted kennedy will be in heaven so i won't have to listen to his ******** a third time.

so for the learning impaired, i'll repeat, this bill would would win the approval of the american people in a landslide if a fence--seen to the naked eye--was completed before anything else was put in motion. in fact it would pass the house with total support of the repubs and about 100 of the dems.

but that bill will never make it to the floor because politicians don't want it. your comments and some others here suggest the same. on a positive note watching folks like you play "twister" does have its entertainment value. you all know way, way down deep that, aside from a little superficial enforemnet, nothing meaningful will ever be done. in fact very little of the enforcement issues will ever make it out of court--meanwhile millions will continue to cross the border on a yearly basis. in fact as we speak bus, train, plane and boat tickets are being bought, phony marriage and birth certificates are being printed probably in the millions--none of which will be checked.

only in america...........

live free or die:

I dunno what you ae reading, but I saw the link at Barone's website supporting the bill and I saw the link at The Anchoress discussing Jonh Goldberg's support of the bill. Support of the bill does not mean they are madly in love with everything about it, it means there is something worth saving there.

So unless there has been a change in the last day or so that I don't know about I would have to say you do not know what you are talking about.

patrick:

You do not know any more than anyone else what will be out there in twenty years. That is not an argument.

And this bill has not reduced the fence to 300 miles. That is just a lie. And the fence is being built now as a matter of fact.

The bill calls for 375 miles to be built and certified before the other elements of the bill take effect, but there has been no change in the ultimate length of the wall itself. On Hugh Hewitt Senator Kyl said that 75 miles is under construction right now.

live free or die:

You said Barone did not support the bill. He has three posts up on the subject at his blog and he has quite a bit to say about the subject. The following sentence is just an excerpt, but it is typical of his remarks:

My own response to the Kennedy-Kyl compromise is mostly positive. But I haven't fully digested the details, and, to use congressional lingo, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks. I have long felt that we need to regularize the flow of immigration into our country and to do more to assimilate immigrants. I even went to the trouble of writing a book on the subject. Kyl got concessions from Kennedy that are intended to shift the flow of immigration from family reunification to high skills--a useful course correction, in my view. And I have come to believe, reluctantly, that we need to move to a tamperproof ID, something that Mexico has done successfully with its voter registration card. Failure to pass any immigration law will leave us with a status quo that, in these two respects at least, is less desirable than what Kennedy-Kyl seems to provide. But let's see how things work out. Next week is going to be an interesting time in the Senate.

Live free or die:

You also said that Jonah Goldberg is against this bill. Now I realize that people do change their minds from time to time, but this is what I read at The Anchoress a couple of days ago, she is a very good blogger and no liberal:

Jonah Goldberg has a really terrific analysis of the immigration bill over at the Corner at NRO. You’ll want to read it. Some excerpts:

1. The White House has an enormous political tin ear and was caught very much off-guard about how immigration plays with the base of the party.

2. The chief cause of misunderstanding is the issue of trust…Been there done that” is the de facto official policy of the base when it comes to promises of enforcement, i.e. “No more promises, just enforcement. Then we’ll talk”…

3. I think this is a fair, legitimate or, at minimum, understandable position for a very frustrated constituency to take.

4. That said, I think much of the bill is actually very good. The end to unlimited family unification, the fines, the language requirement, the point system, ID requirements and all of the rest sound good or at least defensible and I think a serious, passable, immigration bill should have many of them.

I urge you to read the rest. I think he has laid out “where we’re at” very nicely, indeed.

LiveFreeOrDie:

Then state , Dafydd, that you believe this legislation will lead to border enforcement.

I believe this legislation will lead to significantly greater border enforcement than we have now, and that it will result in significantly fewer illegal border crossings.

Dafydd

Patrick Neid:

First, I have edited your comment because we do not allow language like that on this board. Please refer to the Reptilian Comment Policy.

In that same policy, you will note that we do not allow personal attacks here, especially not against the proprietors. Please refrain from saying that anybody commenting here is "learning impaired."

Finally, there is this:

you all know way, way down deep that, aside from a little superficial enforemnet, nothing meaningful will ever be done.

You may speak for yourself; please allow me the same courtesy: I "know" no such thing, nor do I believe it for a moment.

There is little else to respond to, as you make no actual argument beyond repeated assertion.

Dafydd

This is interesting. Note Thompson's voting record on immigration. Why was he supporting additional foreign workers coming into the US?

Oh well that was eons ago. Back when a conservative immigrant could have an immigration policy that was not Draconian and still be a conservative. Politics sure can change people. But then again Thompson also worked with Diane Feinstein on an amendment to the McCain/Feingold bill he very much supported.

I like Thompson and I would vote for him against any Democrat out there, but this is the kind of thing that happens when extremes take over a party. We have seen with Democrats like Clinton running away from their votes on Iraq in order to placate the nutroots and now we will see it with certain Republicans who will try to straddle this issue in order to avoid being attacked by the loud people. Good luck on that.

That should be a conservative politician could have have an immigration policy that was not Draconian.

preview is for sissies.

d,

"There is little else to respond to, as you make no actual argument beyond repeated assertion."

I offer the historical record. you and some others offer the opinions--opinions, i might add, that have been offered in the past that all proved to be wrong.

the border will be open in twenty years unless it is closed first. there is absolutely nothing past or present to suggest otherwise.

as to this inane comment by terrye calling me a liar it fits the strawman game that she and other play. her quote:

"And this bill has not reduced the fence to 300 miles. That is just a lie. And the fence is being built now as a matter of fact."

my exact quote was:

"homeland security already admits that the previously agreed to 800 miles has now been rescinded down to 300 and change. dems in congress speak openly of defunding it going forward. only the purposely naive believe that it will get built and the border will be secured."

below is mr Chertoff's own statement in regards to the necessary figure for the trigger--note the word cumulative. for the math challenged it counts all existing currently standing fence built over the years along the border. hence my 300 miles and change comment on how much will actually be new before all legal rights are granted to illegals. the historical record suggests that the rest of the fence will never be built.

here from the interview with h. hewit

MC: We’re going to have 150 miles…first of all, there’s 700 miles, but we’re going to have 150 miles of what we call pedestrian fence, meaning fence that keeps people on foot out, not just vehicles, by the end of September.

HH: Is that all new?

MC: That’s cumulative. That’s everything we have, total.

HH: And how many…

MC: Congress authorized approximately 700 total miles of fence, pedestrian fence.

HH: And how many miles of new fencing since that bill passed have been put up?

MC: We will have 150 miles by the end of September.

HH: I know that, but I’ve been getting different reports.

HH: But of the 150, in September, how many of those will…

MC: What I’m saying to you is we’re underway now doing about 75 miles of “new fence.” But it is being built from the ground up.

HH: Sure.

MC: It’s not being built mile by mile.

HH: Sure. And is any of it finished?

HH: We understand that, but Mr. Secretary, people doubt that the Department is committed to the fence construction. What I hear you saying is that you’ve got 75 miles of new fencing under construction, and that’s all.

MC: Correct. Now…and then after this 75 miles is done, we are on track to get 370 miles of fencing completed by the end of calendar year 2008.

in regards to my expressive terminology that accurately describes whats going on here i will of course respect the rules. however my use of the long form for BS having crossed the line took me by surprise.

in closing, i might add, you and a few others are not fooling anyone with your "hard right" comments. the blog community knows that is short hand for nativist and bigot. that is a whole lot more "reptilian" than c***** j***...........

patrick:

I said that 75 miles is under construction. I have watched highway crews spend an entire summer putting new black top down on 50 miles of state highway. Your assertion is that Senators like Kyl with a long history as trustworthy conservatives are deliberately lying to you just so they can destroy America. You base this on the fact that since last August when the bill was signed a 700 mile was has not been built. I am saying that you are assuming it will not be built because you are basing your entire argument on the fact that the government can not be trusted.

Well except for Fred Thompson maybe or some other former Senator who is saying what you want to hear.

This is the problem, if we assume you are correct then the logical thing to do is.....nothing.

Just forget the whole damn thing. No wall, no nothing.

We can go out there and in an effort to enforce the law fine or imprison tens of millions of Americans who have been a part of this crime against humanity. All the landlords and employers and social workers and priests and ministers and school teachers and car salesmen and retailers and private contractors etc...but somehow I doubt that the Americans involved in this horrid and sordid affair will pay, unless they run a meat packing business. Nope, we will just sit back and say...it won't happen in the future because it has not happened yet.

And you know what? There has never been a closed border down there. I am sick and tired of people acting as if they have been trying for decades to get a wall on the southern border and no one would listen to them. I don't remember Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich ever even bringing up the subject. This whole thing was never even seriously considered until recently. So don't make this into to some long drawn out ordeal that has been going on for decades. There are more resources down there on that border right now than at any time in history. We did not have this many men with guns on our southern border when Pancho Villa was raising hell.

So if you are going to use history as a reference at least be realistic.

patrick:

I said that 75 miles is under construction. I have watched highway crews spend an entire summer putting new black top down on 50 miles of state highway. Your assertion is that Senators like Kyl with a long history as trustworthy conservatives are deliberately lying to you just so they can destroy America. You base this on the fact that since last August when the bill was signed a 700 mile was has not been built. I am saying that you are assuming it will not be built because you are basing your entire argument on the fact that the government can not be trusted.

Well except for Fred Thompson maybe or some other former Senator who is saying what you want to hear.

This is the problem, if we assume you are correct then the logical thing to do is.....nothing.

Just forget the whole damn thing. No wall, no nothing.

We can go out there and in an effort to enforce the law fine or imprison tens of millions of Americans who have been a part of this crime against humanity. All the landlords and employers and social workers and priests and ministers and school teachers and car salesmen and retailers and private contractors etc...but somehow I doubt that the Americans involved in this horrid and sordid affair will pay, unless they run a meat packing business. Nope, we will just sit back and say...it won't happen in the future because it has not happened yet.

And you know what? There has never been a closed border down there. I am sick and tired of people acting as if they have been trying for decades to get a wall on the southern border and no one would listen to them. I don't remember Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich ever even bringing up the subject. This whole thing was never even seriously considered until recently. So don't make this into to some long drawn out ordeal that has been going on for decades. There are more resources down there on that border right now than at any time in history. We did not have this many men with guns on our southern border when Pancho Villa was raising hell.

So if you are going to use history as a reference at least be realistic.

I have no idea why that double posted. Sorry.

terrye,

you just continue to type blather. get a grip.

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