Excellent postings on the immigration bill, Dafydd!
You've always come across as a seasoned, extremely rational thinker and Thank God! you (and Captain Ed) haven't come completely unhinged over this issue like so many of our Conservative and/or GOP friends!
Your blog is an oasis of sanity in a sea of new right-wing extremist craziness and hate!
(Who knew normal people could become so unglued over this issue?!)

Well written post, Dafydd, even if I do think you're still wrong on some things. I added a link at Amnesty, shamnesty. Maybe it'll die in the Senate.

And we'd only have another 11 million to go!

Heck, at that 40yr-rate, most of the remaining 11 million would die here in America before they ever got a chance to be deported!?! Are you sure of those numbers?!?

Anyway...great 'stuff'...

Dafydd,

They're never going to be deported; the economies of several states would be wrecked if we tried. And it's not physically possible... at a rate of one immigration hearing every five minutes, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, without even a break for lunch or a Christmas holiday, it would take forty years -- to deport the first one million of the 12 Million.

Nice strawman: no one is proposing to deport anything like that many. The 500,000 felons already in our jails would do nicely. After that, we simply propose the current environment which is friendly to them being here illegally be changed to one which is unfriendly: No jobs, No housing, No benefits. At which point they will self deport.

What do you mean, "it makes no difference?"!! Would you rather have 12 million lawbreakers as your neighbors, and whose continued residency constitutes an "ongoing criminal enterprise," or 12 million people who did NOT break the law? There are "practical" considerations, to be sure, and you have raised them. But to suggest that we must forsake the principle of "the rule of law" on which our very nation was founded and depends, just for partisan gamesmanship, well...

SDN:

First, I wholeheartedly agree that any illegal immigrant who commits a crime should first serve his sentence; then upon release, should be deported.

But your figure of 500,000 is quite exaggerated. The total U.S. prison population is around two million, and the idea that 25% of the entire nation's prisoners are illegal aliens is patently false. Even in a border state like California, the figure is only about 20%; and non-border states aren't going to have anywhere near that high a percentage.

Second, the idea that if you only make America harsh enough to illegal immigrants, they'll "self deport" -- is a charming fantasy. They have lives here; they have children who are American citizens; they own houses and businesses... their lives are here. They're not going to leave.

If you push them hard enough, they will all work as contractors; and you cannot force everyone to check the immigration status of every plumber, gardener, electrician, painter, technical writer, engineer, or massage therapist they contract with; the entire economy would grind to an ugly halt.

Are you going to start arresting housewives because they didn't check the immigration status of their beauticians? Do we start busting homeowners because they didn't demand papers from the old gardener they've used for twenty years?

Why is it so urgent to you that all these people be made to leave the country... including those who have never caused any trouble or committed any crime other than being here illegally? Would it matter to you if you knew them? Suppose it was your daughter's fiance... would you call USCIS to get him deported if you found out he came here illegally as a 3-year old?

I'm honestly asking why this is such a big deal to you. The illegal aliens who are criminals, now that I can understand; we certainly don't need them. But why all the rest?

Dafydd

They cannot be blamed too much. We have had two previous "amnesties" without meaningful enforcement reform in the last forty years. It is not too cynical to believe that the President and the Democrats are perfectly content to have a permanent underclass of illegal workers who will be "rewarded" with "regularization" if they can hang around for twenty years or so, and that border security is merely the sugar-coating on the sop that they are throwing over their shoulder to the unwashed beggars crouching for crumbs at their master's feast. [I'll see you fine blend and raise you a mangle.^__^]

One comment deleted for being a commercial advert.

We cheerfully accept paid advertising on Big Lizards, emphasis is on the word "paid."

If anyone wants to advertise here, please click the link at the top of the right-hand column that reads, "Free speech is never free -- advertise!"

We charge reasonable rates -- but we don't allow free adverts masquerading as comments.

Sincerely,

The Mgt.

Snochasr:

Would you rather have 12 million lawbreakers as your neighbors, and whose continued residency constitutes an "ongoing criminal enterprise," or 12 million people who did NOT break the law?

I would rather live next to good neighbors; I don't care about their race, religion, or immigration status. I care that they act like good neighbors.

Calling a person an "ongoing criminal enterprise" for simply living here without permission is very peculiar diction. One might almost imagine it to be deliberately crafted to elicit an emotional, illogical hatred. But it doesn't work on me.

But to suggest that we must forsake the principle of "the rule of law" on which our very nation was founded and depends, just for partisan gamesmanship, well...

Oh come now, you read better than that. First, we were not founded on "the rule of law;" we were founded on liberty.

Second, I clearly stated that the most important points were border security and reforming the legal immigration system, neither of which means "partisan gamesmanship." Now you're insulting the host.

Dafydd

Nk:

They cannot be blamed too much. We have had two previous "amnesties" without meaningful enforcement reform in the last forty years. It is not too cynical to believe...

Yes, it is too cynical. You "believe" -- without any evidence -- that the president and the Republican Party are plotting a deliberate, massive betrayal. That, in fact, goes far beyond "cynical" all the way to... well, it goes way beyond.

It's perfectly reasonable to say, "We got burned twice before; this time, we insist upon real triggers."

What Tony Snow said on Hugh Hewitt -- when he could talk in between Hugh's bellowed cross examination -- is that the "trigger" for full regularization (the Z-visa) is the completion of at least half the fence voted in the last Congress and signed by the president. Not the budgeting, not the groundbreaking ceremony, not just hiring a bunch of contractors, but the actual completion of 370-some miles of actual fence, plus 200 additional miles of vehicle barriers, plus some unknown quantity of virtual fence.

That's a heck of a down payment, Nk. And it certainly indicates a GOP that is serious about making sure the security side isn't chucked out the window before the ink dries.

The illegales can get their provisional Z-visas immediately; but those don't get you anywhere towards citizenship, nor do they get you the vote. It just means you cannot be deported merely for the crime of being here illegally (you can still be deported if you commit a crime).

For this privilege, they pay a $1,000 fine, all back taxes, and register with the government. But in order to get the actual Z-visa itself, they have to wait not only for that 50% down payment on the fence, they also have to wait until USCIS first handles the entire backlog of people who applied legally for residency -- a minimum of eight years. This is simply to ensure that the illegales don't get to cut in line.

Honestly, Nk, it's a lot better than any previous immigration reform bill. It really is. It's especially good because, with the point system for legal immigrants (like Australia has done for decades), we're really taking a giant first step towards immigration policy that is rational, fair, and predictable, and which privileges those who are most easily assimilated... instead of privileging those who have a distant relative with a green card.

Dafydd

Dafydd,

Assume for the sake of argument that I consider the essential value of a human being to be more than his W-2 form and have only sympathy for poor people who sacrifice their youth and health at subsistence wages to maintain our standard of living.

My cynicism comes in part from the obvious quid pro quo -- border security for "regularization" -- to which you also allude. I do understand that we do not have a majority in Congress so we must trade "compassion" for sovereignity to the surrender monkeys of the Democratic Party. I find it harder to accept that from our Commander in Chief and chief law enforcement officer. Even though I do not watch a lot of TV and my memory isn't perfect, I remember the President starting this debate not with a request for more resources to secure our borders and to enforce the immigration laws but with a request for a "guest worker" program. Which leads me to believe that he is on the "quo" side.

"Betrayal" is too strong a word, at least in reference to the President. "Misplaced priorities" and "political insensitivity" are more appropriate. (On "political insensitivity", there was an article in the May 19 e-edition of the Boston Globe accusing the President of stripping out the back taxes provision that Senator Kennedy had put in. The left and many on the right will lay every flaw in this law at the President's feet and by extension to every Republican.)

Perhaps the Reps who support this do so in hopes that the illegals won't be angry with them and vote for Dems?

Dafydd:

I agree with your assertion that the 12 million currently here aren't the main concern. We could accept and assimilate the 12 million if we could find a way to limit the next 12 million and beyond. I agree with SDN that changing the envionment and eliminating the econmic incentive is the only solution to the next 12 million. I also belive that with enforcement we would get substancial self deportation. If some chose to stay and become contractors or otherwise found cracks in the system then so what. There are only so many cracks and they plug the gaps for the next 12 million.

The current proposal rewards those who came here illegally and will serve as an incentive to the next wave. The visa proposal will undercut any incentive to take action against illegals because it instantly permits all those here to remain and there is no practical way to differentiate the post Jan arrivals.

If the proposal does not stop the flow of illegals and dismantle the structural system that supports that flow then it will have little national security value. Absent that value we are better off with no bill.

It seems to me that Democrats should share some responsability for national security or pay a political price. A position that they will only vote for national security if they can gain a partisan advantage via more voters (path to citizenship)is a dangerous road. Republicans can position the Dems so that any damage coming from the Southern border is on their ticket.

The illegal aliens who are criminals, now that I can understand; we certainly don't need them. But why all the rest?

There seems to be a huge disconnect here....

Illegal aliens are by definition criminals. You can't ignore that, can't get around that. How many of those illegals are also using fake SSNs? Whoops...that's another crime. I'm trying to think of any illegal acts citizens can be rewarded for committing...but I'm drawing a blank here....

Thank you dafydd.

If these people are all criminals then the majority of the population of several states has aided them in their "crimes" for years. When you eat in a restaurant and don't call the INS on the busboy you are party to a crime. Obviously this is a stupid argument. These people have been coming here for years and the county, city, state and even federal government have allowed it. No one stopped them, the immigration laws were about as enforcable as Prohibition.

I have seen and heard things from the right in the last few days that has made me wonder if I even want to be associated with some of these people.

So, regularizing these people is going to make more come? Well not regularizing these people and failing to get a bill will make more come. Now, that means you either deport 12 million people {and God what would that cost?} or you let them stay here and go on like they are. Well is that not a form of amnesty? I think that the right is more concerned with the Democrats getting votes than they are with border security. It might be different if they were in control of the process, but unless they can bully the Democratic leadership into saying how high when they say jump...I think they will kill this deal. And after they kill they will immediately demand a new deal, as if they were in any position to make that demand.

As for McCain, I remember when Cheney told Leahy to go eff himself and people thought that was kind of funny. I may not always agree with McCain but I have seen and heard some things said about this man that make me wonder why it took him so long to say F*** you to someone. There was a link at Instapundit that lead to the New Editor and he had some links to some people on the net saying outrageous things about McCain and his service. Such as he would know the size of HoChiMinh and Kennedy's you know whats because he had serviced them both or words to that effect. The man served his country and whether these loons agree with him or not, they owe him a certain degree of respect, at least civility. Cornyn can take care of himself.

sandog:

There are people in this country selling drugs and doing porn and selling their bodies and evading their income taxes and pirating music and all manner of stuff and we do not demand that every single one of them get locked up forever. Hell, they can get a slap on the wrist, a fine and they are back out there doing their thing.

But these folks, even the ones just working...well they are bad bad bad.

Where the hell has everyone been on this for years? If these people are no different from serial killers or whatever they should have been dealt with long ago. The truth is if some of these folks had committed a violent crime the statute of limitations would have run out on them by now.

But people let them in, used them, ignored the laws, did not secure the border, and now years later they want to do what? Lock them all uP? Impossible not to mention stupid.

To kill a compromise over an issue like this when there is not even a viable alternative available is irresponsible.

We have to deal with the 12 million people here. A little fact is this. THere are 3.1 million American Children of these illegals. These are or will be future voters. THese people also have wifes and husbands , Godchildren, Aunts, and Uncles, and Cousins that are Americans. They too will vote. I have no clue why we can't compromise with these groups a tad. Since the 86 bill hispanic trends toward the GOP have been going up not back. Now we are in GRAVE danger of making the hispanic vote a bloc Democrat vote. How come no one is listening to the GOP Hispanics on this issue. How come no one is listening to conservative leaning groups like the Hispanic Evanglical Groups. THey are sending out warning signs and no is listening.

I know "race" and "ethnicity" is not the only thing behind this debate. But I am seeing some pretty ugly stuff out there and it is being attribured (unfairly) to the entire GOP and the conservative movement . In the end that perception is important

JH
Louisiana

Dafydd-

There are certain concerns I should like you to address, not in order to formally challenge you, but to solicit a response for my own benefits. While I cannot say that I agree with you yet (in entirety) I can confidently say that your take on the immigration issue is by far the most calmly and rationally based of any that I've heard recently.

I can understand the irrationality of an ALL-deportation argument, as well as the problems considered in forcing a kind of 'self-deportation', although I would support some conditions, if any were determined reasonable, in order to trigger a substantial exodus of illegals. I can also accept the concept of regularizing the illegals already here in order to enforce our borders in the future. However, I see a few problems and would like your take:

>Although enforcement cannot be guaranteed, it is true that without a bill there will be no enforcement anyway. However, much depends on your meaning of 'enforcement,' or rather, which aspects of the bill will be enforced. How is the new system, considering new procedures, priorities, etc. 'weak politician-proof' in any fashion compared to our current situation? Would whatever actions expected to take place (or likely to take place) in securing our border, etc, outweigh, in your opinion, any potential psychological effect initiated by the perception of 'amnesty' (on the part of Mexicans)?

>It is clear that we cannot deport the 12 million. For that matter, they are not our main concern. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to ignore the impact or potential impact they might have on our national welfare (no pun intended). I have no problem with some kind of 'regularization,' including some form of guest worker program. This is not because I am in favor of such programs, but because such a scenario already exists in effect and as the laws have not been enforced legalization may become necessary. However, a path to citizenship could lead to profound problems for our country- A) if the millions do not assimilate, which seems likely despite certain provisions, and B) if the millions assimilate somewhat, and yet retain a socialist, welfare-loving mentality that would strengthen the Democrats and liberalism. While I am too ignorant to propose a solution, other than encouraging assimilation and American values, I would like some reassurance that such assimilation and Americanization is possible. Realistically.

>The subject of criminals, that is to say criminals beyond the realm of immigration status, has been considered within these comments. You said: "First, I wholeheartedly agree that any illegal immigrant who commits a crime should first serve his sentence; then upon release, should be deported." Forgive my ignorance, but is this the procedure as the law stands, would it be under this new bill, or could it be after further debate?

Thank you.

Did I say "politically insensitive"? Ok, Secretary Chertoff, we'll all be good little Bushbots and shut-up.

nk:

I am not a Bushbot but I do think there are people on the right who would jump off a building if Michelle Malkin fluttered her eyelashes and asked them to.

I really think the right is making itself look fanatical on this, it has nothing to do with Bush. I would feel the same way no matter who was in the White House.

My wife would push me off that building if she caught me looking at Michelle Malkin's, err, ahem, eyelashes. ^_^ And with that, I'm shutting up.

JLS:

The visa proposal will undercut any incentive to take action against illegals because it instantly permits all those here to remain and there is no practical way to differentiate the post Jan arrivals.

That's not strictly true: The bill doesn't say anyone who is here now can stay; the bill says anyone who is here now can come forth and apply for the provisional Z-visa. There are requirements for it to be granted, including a clean criminal record, paying back taxes (still in the bill, so far as I have heard), and so forth.

Only those illegals who step forward and reveal themselves will be able to apply; anyone who does not apply within a certain window remains subject to deportation simply for being here illegally... and I suspect a large portion will fail to apply, either because they know they aren't qualified or because they think it's some sort of trick.

But another large portion will apply and will receive the provisional Z-visa; for these, it will be both a great relief to them not to worry about deportation, and a big benefit to society that we know who they are and where they are.

It is actually fairly easy to distinguish those who arrived here before January 2007; it's impossible to live in this country, even "underground," without leaving a substantial trail of both witnesses and paper.

It seems to me that Democrats should share some responsability for national security or pay a political price. A position that they will only vote for national security if they can gain a partisan advantage via more voters (path to citizenship)is a dangerous road. Republicans can position the Dems so that any damage coming from the Southern border is on their ticket.

Well, Republicans can try; but the Democrats will simultaneously be positioning themselves as wanting to regularize the illegals already here for national security reasons and because of compassion, and I suspect that will be more successful than the GOP positioning them as cynical party hacks -- regardless of the truth, people tend to believe that most folks, even most politicians (considered as individuals, not as a class), are sincere.

Sanddog:

Illegal aliens are by definition criminals. You can't ignore that, can't get around that. How many of those illegals are also using fake SSNs? Whoops...that's another crime.

You are using the definition that a criminal is anyone who violates a law; this is one definition. But you fail to distinguish between "malum in se" -- and act that is evil by its very nature, such as murder, rape, and robbery -- and "malum prohibitum," which is wrong only because there is a statute against it, such as driving on the left side of the road, owning a prohibited firearm, or cutting hair for money without having a barber's license.

When most people use the word "criminal," they mean it in the sense of malum in se; they don't typically mean the unlicensed barber. This is also a perfectly valid definition of the word "criminal."

If you cannot distinguish between those two main types of crime, it's hard to hold a discussion. Immigration violation is clearly malum prohibitum, because absent a specific statute, nobody would think it an obvious crime to move over here from over there. It only becomes a crime when the law recognizes an international border.

Thus, it's technically true to say that all illegal aliens are by definition "criminals;" but it's obvious (or certainly should be) the distinction I was drawing, which is between those whose only crime is that they are illegal aliens, (plus ancillary crimes relating solely to that, such as fake I.D.) -- and those illegal aliens who are also guilty of some malum in se crime, such as drunk driving, assault, burglary, or homicide.

White Fang:

However, much depends on your meaning of 'enforcement,' or rather, which aspects of the bill will be enforced. How is the new system, considering new procedures, priorities, etc. 'weak politician-proof' in any fashion compared to our current situation?

The best element of this bill -- and one that should be strengthened and made really, really explicit -- is the "trigger" requirement: As it currently stands, illegals can get provisional Z-visas by coming forward now, which is semi-regularization; but to get an actual Z-visa, which is the only thing that can lead to a green card and eventual citizenship, they must wait until we have actually built -- finished construction on -- about half of the fencing that was enacted last term:

That is, we cannot by law issue any Z-visas until we have finished construction on 370 miles of actual fence, 200 additional miles of vehicle barriers, and some number of miles (specified in the bill but not yet reported that I've seen) of "virtual fence." Plus, the actual hiring of 18,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and the enactment of a number of enforcement laws against employers.

Those all must precede, by law, the granting of even the first actual Z-visa. As I said before, that is quite a substantial "down payment" on border security; and clearly, its purpose is to avoid the sort of bait and switch we got suckered into in 1986.

Would whatever actions expected to take place (or likely to take place) in securing our border, etc, outweigh, in your opinion, any potential psychological effect initiated by the perception of 'amnesty' (on the part of Mexicans)?

I believe that argument is actually more myth than reality. There may have been a bump in illegal immigration following the 1986 law -- though I have never seen figures proving it -- but overall, the increase in illegal immigration follows a rising curve that doesn't appear to have been substantially affected by that law.

In other words, I believe the vast majority of the 9-10 million illegal immigrants who came here after 1986 were likely completely ignorant of that amnesty and would have come even if it had never been passed. It's rather an odd proposition that Mexicans and other illegal immigrants fleeing north would be lured by the promise of a rich America -- but would have given up the dream, had we not enacted an amnesty 21 years ago.

That extraordinary claim -- that impoverished immigrants arriving here in, say, 1999 or 2000 would even be aware of, let alone take into their immigration calculations, an American act of Congress from more than a dozen years earlier -- requires rather more extraordinary evidence than I have yet seen.

[A] path to citizenship could lead to profound problems for our country- A) if the millions do not assimilate, which seems likely despite certain provisions, and B) if the millions assimilate somewhat, and yet retain a socialist, welfare-loving mentality that would strengthen the Democrats and liberalism. While I am too ignorant to propose a solution, other than encouraging assimilation and American values, I would like some reassurance that such assimilation and Americanization is possible.

First, I highly doubt that most of those 12 million would go all the way to become citizens, a path that is at least 13 years long (probably longer); they have lived all this time without the benefits of citizenship... the most reasonable interpretation is that their primary interest is simple security that they won't be deported.

Thus, a big bunch will get the provisional Z-visa and that's all; and another big bunch will go as far as the actual Z-visa itself... but only a small fraction will go all the way to citizenship.

But there is no reason to believe that a group of immigrants, who are substantially conservative Catholics, will become socialists. Of course some will; it's a huge bunch of people. But the partisan split of the total Hispanic vote fluctuates between 55-45 for Democrats to about 50-50... leaning slightly Democratic, but subject to change (it's been growing more Republican over the past generation).

Remember, even if someone is here illegally, if his children are born here, they are already citizens; they can already vote when they reach voting age.

The small fraction of illegals who become citizens will not be anywhere near as Democratic as, say, blacks or secular Jews; this is not a strong argument against regularization.

And here is the point: If regularization, which is a small issue, leads to immigration policy that privileges those immigrants most likely to assimilate (as the point system does), then it will, over the long run, lead to a more American America -- and a more capitalist, individualist, and conservative one.

The subject of criminals, that is to say criminals beyond the realm of immigration status, has been considered within these comments. You said: "First, I wholeheartedly agree that any illegal immigrant who commits a crime should first serve his sentence; then upon release, should be deported." Forgive my ignorance, but is this the procedure as the law stands, would it be under this new bill, or could it be after further debate?

It is not in the bill now, so far as I can tell. But it's an excellent provision for the GOP to press in the debate, both in each individual chamber and in the joint conference. E-mail your congressman!

Dafydd

Muslims will settle our immigration 'problems' for us...

Apologies to the host, though the "partisan gamesmanship" referred in no way to thy good and valuable service in this matter, but to the manner and substance of the matter currently being pursued in the sausage grindery. That seems to be ALL politics, with no thought to actually solving the real problem, whatever it may be.

Calling a person an "ongoing criminal enterprise" for simply living here without permission is very peculiar diction. One might almost imagine it to be deliberately crafted to elicit an emotional, illogical hatred. But it doesn't work on me.

In this, I merely refer to the fact that this good and decent neighbor may have done more than violate our immigration law one time. They may have participated in any of the following, either to sustain their presence or to advantage themselves: Identity theft, tax evasion, misrepresentation, voter fraud, theft of government services, not to mention things like driving without a license or uninsured. No less than Senator McCain believes that the notion of "fines" should be extended to all of these additional "crimes," and I'm inclined to agree except for the near impossibility of processing all of these illegals in even the most perfunctory manner.

Dafydd:

I appreciate your clarification of my post:

That's not strictly true: The bill doesn't say anyone who is here now can stay; the bill says anyone who is here now can come forth and apply for the provisional Z-visa. There are requirements for it to be granted, including a clean criminal record, paying back taxes (still in the bill, so far as I have heard), and so forth.

To further clarify, my understanding is that everyone who comes forth will be granted a provisional visa and will be allow to stay in country until the application is processed. This is expected to take a year but could take much longer. My point was that with the enactment of the bill all illegals in country would have the right to remain and therefore the incentive to seek and deport illegals would be undermined. Further, all that is required to meet the documentation requirements that you were in country before Jan 2007 is a signed affidavit by two witnesses other than a relative. How hard can that be?

Well, Republicans can try; but the Democrats will simultaneously be positioning themselves as wanting to regularize the illegals already here for national security reasons and because of compassion, and I suspect that will be more successful than the GOP positioning them as cynical party hacks -- regardless of the truth, people tend to believe that most folks, even most politicians (considered as individuals, not as a class), are sincere.

You may very well be right about that but it seems the Republicans have the better argument. They just don't make it! From a national security perspective "amnesty" is a loser. Compassion is a stronger position because we can all sympathize with the hard working landscaper, housekeeper or restaurant worker. The debate should center on the cost of this compassion in terms of dollars and national security risk.

Thanks again for your response and keep up the great work.

I agree that the most important part of this proposed bill is how we control immigration and attract quality immigrants in the future. To that extent, the point system is a good start, as is tying actual citizenship to actual implementation of enforcement.

To me I think you need to recognize the people that are here, no matter how they got here. Yes, I know it is rewarding illegal behavior. It is also punishing really stupid behavior on the part us and our politicians by not setting up a good system 20 years ago. I don't like it but you have to make them legal (not citizens, but legal)in the meantime until they become citizens.

The main problem I have with regularization/citizenship is the one brought up by the Heritage Foundation and that is the entitlements will kill us. We already can't pay social security and medicare to the existing seniors, why add a bunch of immigrants that are net losers in this system? If you allowed them a Z citizenship which didn't allow them entitlement benefits, it would make a huge difference...

as stated:
" And it's not physically possible... at a rate of one immigration hearing every five minutes, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, without even a break for lunch or a Christmas holiday, it would take forty years -- to deport the first one million of the 12 Million."

but we all know the background checks will all go a little quicker!?

as evidenced from the comments above it is clear that some of you have not read the bill yet. which seems to be par for the course.

Thank you for the clarification.

My concerns have been mostly based on the (typically baseless, however believable at face-value) alarmist view that such a bill would destroy the conservative movement in America. What is particularly frustrating is that so many such alarmists are people I have previously admired. Being as I am relatively new to politics, and as I'm quite cynical on the subject of politicians, it is sometimes difficult for me to determine whether or not such complicated and theoretical issues are worth that degree of worry.

bpilch:

There is no such thing as a Z citizenship. If these people are working and paying taxes they can help support the entitlement system, but I think a lot of them should be denied benefits anyway.

patrick:

And you have? Or have you just been getting the right propaganda on it? Don't fear, they will kill it and lovely status quo will remain intact and the nonstop bitching will continue.

Snochasr:

I merely refer to the fact that this good and decent neighbor may have done more than violate our immigration law one time. They may have participated in any of the following, either to sustain their presence or to advantage themselves: Identity theft, tax evasion, misrepresentation, voter fraud, theft of government services, not to mention things like driving without a license or uninsured.

Yes, he may have; but we don't know. My non-immigrant neighbor may have done the same things.

I am an individualist, Snochasr; I do not condemn this illegal immigrant over here for what that illegal immigrant over there has done.

JLS:

To further clarify, my understanding is that everyone who comes forth will be granted a provisional visa and will be allow to stay in country until the application is processed.

Well, yeah; there's no other way to do it, is there? I mean, you can't say that everyone who comes forward is deported... and then if his application for a provisional Z-visa is approved, he's invited back!

Of course they must stay here at least until we decide whether they can stay here.

My point was that with the enactment of the bill all illegals in country would have the right to remain and therefore the incentive to seek and deport illegals would be undermined.

I assume -- because it seems like the only rational way to do it -- that there will be a grace period, during which illegals can apply; at the end of that time, any illegal who has not applied for a provisional Z-visa could be deported simply for being here.

If you have contrary information, let me know; I haven't seen any reporting to this depth on this topic.

Bpilch:

We already can't pay social security and medicare to the existing seniors, why add a bunch of immigrants that are net losers in this system?

Why assume they're "net losers?" Considering what a bad "investment" Social Security is, and the fact that the regularized illegals probably won't get "back" Social Security (though they'll likely have to end up paying back taxes, if that's amended back into the bill, as I think it will be)... they'll end up contributing more to the system than they take out.

But it's a null argument in any event. Our problems with entitlements are not made significantly worse by the addition of even 12 million people to the rolls. Our problems are endemic to the system and must be changed in any event, or our economy will collapse.

Patrick Neid:

" And it's not physically possible... at a rate of one immigration hearing every five minutes, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, without even a break for lunch or a Christmas holiday, it would take forty years -- to deport the first one million of the 12 Million."

but we all know the background checks will all go a little quicker!?

Yes, of course they will. We're not talking about full FBI field investigations of all 12 million; that would be insane.

The vast majority of background checks will of necessity be record checks... and that can be done by computer at a rate of seconds per applicant, without human intervention in 95% of the cases.

Each deportation hearing, by contrast, is an actual court proceeding (in the immigration court) and actually takes hours, sometimes days, and occasionally (if contested on refugee status) months.

Too, we only need to do the records check on those illegal immigrants who actually apply; but mass deportations, by definition, would be done also on those who are actively hiding from us, fighting deportation, and not cooperating in the least.

Deportations would take orders of magnitude longer than the simple background checks for that portion of the illegal immigrants who apply for a provisional Z-visa.

Dafydd

Here, in my opinion, is what will happen.
1. Congress will pass this disaster
2. Once it looks like it will pass, millions more people will hotfoot it over the border to get in line and take advantage of the visa program because there is no enforcement on the border and because almost any document will serve as proof they have been here long enough to qualify.
3. The price of everything will go up anyway because legal workers cannot be paid a buck an hour like the illegals are now. The argument against deportation effecting the economy is bogus because of this.
4. The border will continue to be unenforced because no one in the government has the will to do so. Any meaningful enforcement will become even less likely as illegals become legal voters.
5. Lack of meaningful border enforcement and the pull of relatives living legally in the US will pull even more immigrants across the border.
6. The illegal economy will continue to flourish because there will be no enforcement of existing laws regarding deportation of those without Z visas who come here after the law is passed and don't want to or cannot obtain a visa.
7. Because of all these factors, the problem will only get worse, just as it did after the amnesty program in the 80's.

Print this out, put it under your pillow, then take it out three years from now and read it again.

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