Nicely done, Dafydd. Use the new system to generate data points and let supercomputers (a Beowulf cluster, if you're on a budget) crunch the numbers constantly to detect possible patterns. You might still have a manpower problem when it comes to analysts, but that problem exists independently of this technological scenario (in fact, part of Hugh's claim is that it exists now, and apparently its mere presence should stop us from trying to obtain the spiffy new tools? Yikes.)

This may work. Course it assumes that Walid doesnt have multiple "Z-Visas". It assumes that the prohibitions against law enforcement asking about his legal status are ignored. It also assures that Walid will not be shipped to GITMO, but will be tried in a US court (he will have "legal status") and presumed innocent and that the classified material we use to tie him to a plot will be "unclassified" so that he can be convicted along with his co-conpsirators beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am for requiring all illegals to "register". Anyone who is not "registered" can be immediately deported without recourse in court and can be jailed without parole if apprehended a third time. I am for sealing the borders so tight that jackrabbits cannot cross undetected. I am for denying government benefits to any "registered illegal alien" and to limit their rights under US law. Do that, and the current 12 mil can stay (if they register w/i 60 days and show proof of residency w/i the US prior to passage of the bill). I don't want their families or relatives of friends to immigrate along with them just because they are registered.

We must keep in mind that "the illegal aliens are here seeking jobs", not citizenship, not education, not medical care, not social security and not public welfare benefits! Base upon that, we should put in place rules recognizing this intention (widely admitted by immigrant activist organizations, lawyeres, and sociologists) and permit them to work, but then to get the heck OUT! They don't need citizensip or the other associated "benefits" of residency.

You can keep your "Z-card" program, just seal the border and then leave the other crap out of the legislation. The aliens don't want the other stuff or need it and I sure don't want them to have it!

Z-visas are a red herring, they cost money the illegals won't spend, especially since they can simply apply for provisional status, and the government has only one day to do a background check. That's the back door amnesty in the bill.

Dafydd,
That is all good and logical, but Hugh is having way to much fun bloviating to pay any attention. I like Hugh, but, like many in his profession (Bill O'reilly), they begin to like to hear themselves talk a bit too much and they become waaaaay over confident in their brilliant self rightiousness. Hugh needs to take a chill pill, listen...LISTEN, to the evidence, think through the arguments, then humbly submit to whatever the truth is or is closest to.

I'm with you, the more we can force people out of the shadows and make it harder for those who try to remain in the shadows, the better for our security. Heck, just shrinking the vast pool of shadow inhabitants should make it easier to find and track the few remaining in the shadow whether it be simply illegal aliens with no other evil intent or more importantly those with evil intent.

Question, Dafydd.

If there is admittedly little difficulty in crossing the border, working, or living indefinitely outside the law now, with legal provisions that require at the very least arrest and detainment, what makes you think that making new laws with new provisions will prevent people from getting across the border, working, and living indefinitely outside the law?

Its like gun legislation. The problem isn't that the old laws are bad or ineffectual. The problem is that they're being broken and no one is getting punished for it.

When was the last time an employer was nailed for hiring illegals under the IRCA and smacked with a $250-2,000 fine (per worker) for their first offense? When did you ever see in the news an article outlining how a third-offense employer of illegals received the maximum $10,000 per alien fine and 6 months in jail?

Why would raising that value to $40,000 increase the frequency of application?

Dafydd,

I admire the brilliance of your argumentation and I agree with your conclusions but I am afraid you are none-the-less pumping a dry hole here. I am not sure when it happened -- and it is certainly several years ago -- but the last remaining undecided mind in the US has come to an irrevocable conclusion about immigration and there is simply no point talking about it any more. Nobody is listening. And what's more, one can't appeal to the objective data -- there isn't any. Both the pro- and the anti- positions have flooded the space with their own tendentious "research" and with data that has been diverging so fast that the red shift has made each faction's data visible to the other faction only as a dim, distant glimmer in the far infra-red.

The National Review guys have challenged the Wall Street Journal editors to a debate which Hugh has offered to host on his show. Sadly, while this would be great fun the winner of the debate would be determined entirely by the selection of judges and would have nothing to do with anything the panelists might say. Instead of a debate, perhaps they could all meet in a bar. The gentleman could then decide the matter based on objective, observable data by dropping their trousers and sending someone for a ruler. That's more or less how the matter will be decided anyway...

Have you e-mailed this post to Hugh? I was quite impressed, but then I agree with you on immigration. I would love to see a response from HH -- and then a counter and a counter-counter. The net result of which could be proving that BigleeH was no longer incisive.

That was good, but there is no way Hugh would stop talking long enough to listen to it.

I keep hearing people say that we need to enforce the laws we have before we come up with more, but that just ignores the reality of the situation.

We are a lot more mobile than we were when those were passed, people can move around and communicate with one another in ways we could barely imagine a generation ago. And hiding in plain sight has become way too easy.

For us to really enforce the laws we have now, we will have to pass a bill like this just to get more detention centers and courts and officers to even begin to catch up on deportations. And we need to streamline the process so that we can move more people through the system quicker, but so many hardliners seem oblivious to what it really takes the enforce these laws. They also seem oblivious to the fact that a lot of Americans would have to prosecuted as well, and I am not just referring to meat packing plants.

No, they come up with a simple idea for a complex problem and then refuse to even consider the possibility that they are wrong.

BTW, about half the illegals in this country did not cross that border. Putting up a fence would not stop those people and it would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers either. People like Hugh need to realize that their border enforcement only plan would not deal with all these people, not even close. It is more complicated than that.

Really Gone
"We must keep in mind that "the illegal aliens are here seeking jobs", not citizenship, not education, not medical care, not social security and not public welfare benefits! Base upon that, we should put in place rules recognizing this intention (widely admitted by immigrant activist organizations, lawyeres, and sociologists) and permit them to work, but then to get the heck OUT! They don't need citizensip or the other associated "benefits" of residency".

Let me engage this a tad. I think it is human nature for us to try to put people in boxes. We really can't do that here. There are people that want citizenship and to be part of the community. That groups mostly comes from the people that have American Children and wifes and husbands that are citiznes. The nuclear family unit and thus society is not benefitting by not trying to incorporate these people in. Also there is another fact. Many of these illegals came here as small children To them America is all they know. This is a population of some 1.7 million people-- that is under 18 years of the age. We have 1.5 million Asians here that are illegals. Many are people that overstayed their visas because they don't want to go back to the regime they came from. As to Chinese alone, This number is at the least 500,000 by estimates. I think that is conservative. Ditto for people from certain African Countries.

I guess the point is that we need to get knowledgble about the people that are here and their motoivations in order to solve the problem. For instance I don't see a lot of Chinese wanting to go back to China to apply for citizenship. I know I wouldn't. I would be afraid they would not let me out.

Now there is a group that jsut wants to work. That is one reason why I am against this low limit on the guest worker program. But again the population we are dealing is diverse in many ways

Its like gun legislation. The problem isn't that the old laws are bad or ineffectual. The problem is that they're being broken and no one is getting punished for it.

When was the last time an employer was nailed for hiring illegals under the IRCA and smacked with a $250-2,000 fine (per worker) for their first offense? When did you ever see in the news an article outlining how a third-offense employer of illegals received the maximum $10,000 per alien fine and 6 months in jail?

The reason is that it is almost a possible case to prove. Because there is no verfication system in place. If there was then the Govt could more easily proved that the Employer with knowledge and intent hired a illegal alien

THere is a flip side to this. Often I hear conservatives talk about the abuses of the IRS. YEt many want small business to subjected to vast prosecutions. Under the current process it is not so easy. Also as I have pointed out that all these folks are hispanic. Many are Asian and 50,000 are Irish. What if a guy in Boston unknowingly hired a Irish guy that was illegal. Shall we just go after them all and let the judge decide?

There are only so many prosecutors and so mnay investigators. A new system will work good. The employer that uses the verfication system is not going to be happy with the guy down the street that is not. I expect he will be making some phone calls. Thus the market helps enforcement.

Dafydd,

Now, I agree with your overall point, in that a comprehensive approach addresses security concerns better than doing nothing, or better than just sealing the borders and waiting for 12 million people to "self-deport", but I see a major flaw in the argument you just put forward. What about forged passports from visa waiver countries? Your Walid character (and, incidentally, I was a bit dissapointed after reading into this post, since due to the title, I thought Walid Phares was going to weigh in on the immigration debate, but, oh well) could bypass every mechanism you mentioned by using an EU passport (like, say, a Belgian passport, since we know of a passport fraud scheme involving real but blank Belgian passports). I don't know, maybe we'd be able to track a person through joint cooperation with the EU, but somehow I doubt it. Besides, like the 9-11 hijackers, this guy may have multiple identities, with numerous passports. Immigration measures are not a substitute for the offensive war on terror, and these war on terror arguments on behalf of various immigrations positions is frankly insulting. The problems with immigration, identification, and tracking, are global. Until a global approach is taken (integrated passport/visa system with biometric features), all of this discussion about "tamper-proof" IDs, and conversely, terrorists utilizing the proposed immigration bill's measures to infiltrate the country, is fatuous (although, like I said, I think the security benefits of the currently proposed approach are real, since, at least, ICE agents won't have to spend their time policing meat packing plants and avocado farms, and can track more serious things, like radical imams overstaying visas and whatnot).

Colin,

On Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in Henry Gibson hippy poet character would chime in, from time to time, with the question: "But what about the buffalo?" It was funny because it was a random non-sequitur in almost all situations.

In the almost forty years since then the random non-sequitur has evolved from a running gag to a debating technique. It is used to baffle the opposition in a highly-polarized debate. It works like this: first you stretch to make a connection from your side of the argument to some other totally-unrelated issue that people feel strongly about. You then argue that the two issues are connected and that, in order to achieve some desirable goal in the other issue, your side must prevail in the matter more immediately at hand. If your opponent tries to point out that the two matters are unrelated you accuse them of not caring about the other issue. If, on the other hand, they allow the connection but try to argue that it runs the other way, your argument is likely to be stronger because you have the element of surprise. Your opponent is unlikely to have included any consideration of the buffalo in his planning and will be caught off-guard. This works best in arguments where all listeners already have strong opinions since those listeners who tend to be on your side will ignore the tenuousness of your argument and your opponents floundering will convince nobody.

There are only so many prosecutors and so mnay investigators.

That's kind of my point? Have you read the bill? Besides obfuscating the whole thing and increasing the complexity, none of the proposed changes are new. Saying we'll have more agents and more identification techniques and more accountability toward Homeland Security doesn't make it happen. That isn't how Washington works and I think if it were any other issue Dafydd would be slugging away with me here.

Worksite arrests declined 84% from 2,849 in 1999 to 445 in 2003. The amount of time the INS and ICE spent on worksite enforcement dropped from 9% to 4% across the same period. Its not that they didn't have the manpower or the time. It just wasn't an important issue!

The laws are there. They have teeth. People have been arrested in the past. The problem is George W. Bush doesn't care one hill of beans about enforcing these laws and he's going to make darn sure no one underneath him does it. He wants amnesty, he's said so before, and its not a surprise.

New laws won't fix this. A new visa program that makes it easier than ever to get into our country won't fix this. You can lead a horse to water but you can't legislate him to drink!

k2:

I read the bill and while there are things I would change in the bill, I do think it is an improvement in some ways. We do need additional people and resources in enforcement. We need to have more detention centers and more courts to help deport people as well.

One of the big reasons there was a decline in work place arrests this decade was that the people trying to evade arrest changed their tactics. The system was effective enough for a few years that they worked to find ways around it. I read somewhere {sorry no link} that the real decline began in the last two years of the Clinton administration with the really high rate being earlier in the decade. In other words, the decline began before Bush became president. One of the big arrests recently was of a company who had found and supplied their people with social security numbers so that they could avoid detection. Crooks are not stupid.

I think you are overlooking the fact that the people who do the arresting are career people. If it was important when Clinton was in, then it was important later. My brother-in-law got a job for the Justice Department right out of grad school back in the 70's. He has watched a lot of presidents come and go and he just goes right on doing his job no matter who is in the White House. That is the permanent government.

Now the Bush administration has put more people on the border and more resources into enforcement than any president in history, to blame him personally for this long term problem is just plain stupid. And besides after the recession in 2001 the Housing market took off and unemployment declined and there was more of a demand for manual labor and that lead to more people trying to get in.

And Bush never said he wanted amnesty. He always said he wanted a guest worker program and immigration reform, besides I thought that one of the reasons the Bushies fired the US Attorneys was that they were not pursuing immigration cases.

Well I tell you what, if you are right then the states should step in and deal with the problem themselves, because all it takes is the desire to do it and the rest just falls into place. So why haven't they?

I know I keep asking this question but those that oppose the Senate bill have not answered it yet.

Lets say that the "base" scares off most Republicans from supporting it. THe House bill over there is still going to be introduced. Yall feel good about stopping that from becoming law. I am willing to bet they can get out it out the House and the moderates GOPers will vote for in the Senate. It seems that they could get over 50 and tantalizing close to 60. Such a bill would not have Republican input. It might also have legalization(full citizenship) in a much shorter times and have none of these provisions that conservatives are fighting for.

Is all this worth that risk?

lsu:

They refuse to come to grips with the fact that they are not the majority. I did hear that the House GOP stepped into the fray and helped slow up this bill some more. Something to do with the tax provisions.

I keep hearing about how Bush does not want to enforce the laws, but when California tried to give drivers licenses to illegals and turned LA into a sanctuary I think that says a lot about how some state governments deal with the problem.

Well I tell you what, if you are right then the states should step in and deal with the problem themselves, because all it takes is the desire to do it and the rest just falls into place. So why haven't they?

State politicians benefit just as much from lobbying as politicians on the national level do. We recently had our Lt. Gov. in Texas give a second chance vote (what the hell?!) to the Democrats in Texas after the Republicans successfully voted on a bill to require a picture ID to vote. The re-vote was allowed and the Democrats won it. They said it would cost them an estimated 7 million votes. And you think local politicians don't benefit from illegals?

Also, any time any local government tries to do anything legislative to make it hard on illegals to live here (like that Dallas suburb saying you needed to establish proof of citizenship or legality to rent property) it gets overturned in federal court faster than you can say "Podkayne Fries". The federal government loves to remind local governments that immigration is their show...so back off, bub.

Know what I mean?

Terrye

To say the least this doesnt appear to me be some politcal chess game going on. It looks all so ill advised. Not much governing. I think some want a liberal bill to pass because they can blame it on the dems.

The cry party happening over that THE CORNER is something else. They are declaring DIVORCE from the President. It seems to me that will be or should be a short divorce because I am sure they want the Presidents veto pen in the future.

Isu:

I oppose the senate bill and I'll answer you.The "base" is most Republicans, and they oppose it.I've seen Pelosi quoted as saying the bill won't be introduced unless 70 GOP reps support it.I doubt very much that will happen.If that quote is accurate this bill may never be introduced to the house.If it is it will not get very many GOP votes there, regardless of what happens in the senate.But so what.If Dems support it, it will pass.Such a bill would very likely be close to the senate bill which does have GOP input.If it doesn't, GOP support in the senate will collapse when this bill goes to conference committee-and the bill won't survive.More briefly,if the bill doesn't have GOP input, the bill won't pass.IMHO the Democrats need GOP support as cover because many provisions of this bill aren't popular with the public even though they will benefit the Dems greatly.If the Dems can't get GOP cover from Bush and the senate GOP they'll bail on this bill and just go back to blaming everything unpopular on the GOP.

Reallygone:

Course it assumes that Walid doesn't have multiple "Z-Visas".

Fingerprints.

K2aggie07:

If there is admittedly little difficulty in crossing the border, working, or living indefinitely outside the law now, with legal provisions that require at the very least arrest and detainment, what makes you think that making new laws with new provisions will prevent people from getting across the border, working, and living indefinitely outside the law?

Because the proposed new laws are far more easily enforced:

• Building a fence;
• Creating a tamper-resistant Social-Security card;
• Fining employers who break the rules.
• Doubling the Border Patrol;
• Changing the rules by which we allow immigrants into this country;
• Adding a guest-worker program;

Enforcing these laws does not require locating and trying millions of people who are hiding from us. These laws are enforced upon the law-abiding.

When was the last time an employer was nailed for hiring illegals under the IRCA and smacked with a $250-2,000 fine (per worker) for their first offense? When did you ever see in the news an article outlining how a third-offense employer of illegals received the maximum $10,000 per alien fine and 6 months in jail?

Why would raising that value to $40,000 increase the frequency of application?

It's not raising the fine that does the trick; it's making enforcement as automatic as triggering a tax audit when the 1040 claims less income than was reported by employers or clients.

That isn't how Washington works and I think if it were any other issue Dafydd would be slugging away with me here.

This is the "back to the future" fallacy: "If such and such were to happen, you would be on the other side!"

It is certainly not true that on "any other issue," I would be in your camp; nor would that imply any hypocrisy or even misunderstanding on my part, even were it true.

Let's use your own example, but we'll make it much more applicable. As you know, there are many otherwise honest citizens who have the misfortune to live in an anti-gun state like California, where they cannot get CCW permits unless they're friends with the police chief.

Many of them, however, live, work, or travel in very dangerous areas; and I know many who, disregarding the law, carry illegally.

Would you favor a national CCW permit law -- rooted firmly in national defense, strengthening the unorganized militia, and easily constitutionally justifiable -- that allowed permits to any adult who passes a criminal background check and has no history of alcohol or drug use?

Wouldn't it be better to allow those who carry a gun illegally for their own protection, but are otherwise law-abiding, to come out of the shadows? Let them come forward, pay a fee, and receive a CCW permit that can be renewed indefinitely, revokable if they are convicted of a crime, including substance-abuse.

Or should we label all those people "criminals" -- they broke the law! -- hunt them down and prosecute them, and enact a lifetiem ban on keeping or bearing a firearm for anyone caught carrying without a permit?

I am consistent... are you? I support both forms of "regularization," and I think both are good for our national defense.

Levi from Queens:

I would love to see a response from HH...

Sure... see our next post!

Colin:

I was a bit dissapointed after reading into this post, since due to the title, I thought Walid Phares was going to weigh in on the immigration debate...

Nah, I was just grabbing for the first Arabic name I could think of that sounded enough like "Waldo" that people would get the "Where's Walid?" joke.

Which apparently nobody did!

Your Walid character... could bypass every mechanism you mentioned by using an EU passport.

No, it doesn't matter what name he enters under; what matters is that somebody with a Z visa or a tourist or student visa flew to Pakistan and then Spain on those dates. That hugely narrows the range of possible suspects.

Simple examination of the digitized photos would narrow it even further: Even if we didn't have a picture of Walid, we would have a description... we would know he wasn't a blue-haired, blonde-eyed, 19 year old Swedish girl, or a 76 year old, bald, black guy from Jamaica -- which would eliminate many of the previous hits.

Then we could investigate every remaining suspect, because it would be a manageable number -- perhaps 8 to 10 possibles.

Besides, like the 9-11 hijackers, this guy may have multiple identities, with numerous passports.

But he cannot have numerous American visas, because the NCIC computer would spot the identical fingerprints in a heartbeat. We're not tracking the foreign passports; we would be tracking the mag strip or bar code on the American visa.

Immigration measures are not a substitute for the offensive war on terror, and these war on terror arguments on behalf of various immigrations positions is frankly insulting.

Oh, get off your high horse. I'm not intimidated by being told my perfectly reasonable idea is "insulting." It should be clear that the war on terror is fought both offensively -- by killing jihadis wherever we can, especially right now in Iraq -- and also defensively, by keeping them out of our country.

Until a global approach is taken (integrated passport/visa system with biometric features), all of this discussion about "tamper-proof" IDs, and conversely, terrorists utilizing the proposed immigration bill's measures to infiltrate the country, is fatuous.

First, this is an excuse for doing nothing... because a truly "global approach" is impossible when many countries actively oppose anything America wants and others actively support jihadist terrorism for its own sake. "The best" is often enemy of "better than before," as you yourself note.

Second, I have been very careful to write "tamper-resistant," not "tamper-proof." At least give me credit for that. But tamper-resistant is a heck of a lot better than the cardboard Social-Security card I have in my wallet right now.

Dafydd

Dafydd:Total Information Awareness is "widely believed" to still exist? Are you kidding me? Are you willing to bet your your life that it does? Or mine? No thanks.And why would Walid bother with the Z visa when he can just wander across whatever part of the border isn't fenced, guarded or blocked.And once Walid gets across the border his movements will be pretty much unimpeded.And what if Walid isn't interested in getting a job-just detonating the nuke that was smuggled across the open border? And-obviously-if a terrorist and his pet nuke can get across the border so can enough hundred dollar bills to keep him afloat long enough to complete his mission.So-pardon me-but I remain unconvinced by your arguement.

Xennady:

So-pardon me-but I remain unconvinced by your arguement.

And your realistic alternative is...?

Dafydd

Xennady:

Less flippantly, everything you say Walid could do under the new system he could certainly do under the current; you have demonstrated no downside.

Dafydd

Okay, Dafydd

I'm off of my high horse now. I'll concede the first couple of points to you, but with regards to visa waiver status being applied to EU countries, I still think it allows a possible path of entry for people who can obtain fraudlent documentation, like those blank Belgian passports I mentioned. I'm not sure, but I think the EU doesn't yet have biometric requirements for their passports, and if only entering the country one time (for the purpose of conducting an attack), I can see our defenses being defeated.

Second, I shouldn't have said "insulting", but I think that people are blowing the immigration debate way out of proportion in regards to the War on Terror. Yes, immigration laws can be a useful tool in protecting the country, but, at least in my opinion, their greatest utility is in the "spit on the sidewalk" approach, using routine violations of usually ignored immigration statutes in order to prosecute and harass suspected terrorists and terror sympathizers.

Finally, I'll plead guilty to being sloppy with language, since I carelessly used "tamper-proof", not in reference to you, but in reference to the commonly-phrased idea of a biometric ID card. Also, the global approach doesn't necessarily need to be an excuse for doing nothing. Seriously threatening, and even revoking, visa-waiver status for the EU, would probably bring them into line, and allow us to link up our immigration databases, as well as pushing them farther along towards instituting biometric features into their travel documents. We've pushed these multinational solutions before, like with the Proliferation Security Initiative, and been successful. Those countries that oppose doing anything America wants aren't subject to visa waiver policies, and by integrating immigration systems with those countries that are subject, we can actually do something , and in a global manner.

"The "base" is most Republicans, and they oppose it."

Yet most Republicans when polled support the provision that are in the Senate Bill. THe key is to that message out

"I've seen Pelosi quoted as saying the bill won't be introduced unless 70 GOP reps support it."

According to Mickey Kaus there are already indications she is backing off this. If she 20 or 30 I expect she is a go. In the end she has the ultimate cover. That of a Republican President. A week ago this was the view of the dems

Frm what I am reading it appears the Dems think this is the year to get it done. THey want this off the table so they can as they dream have a PResident thats focus is health care

This is what the Prospect had to say
THE STATE OF PLAY ON IMMIGRATION. Spent some time Picking Up The Damn Phone this afternoon, and got a much better sense of the political path the immigration bill still has to traverse. First, expect the temporary guest worker program to tumble from 400,000 to 200,000 workers, as Jeff Bingaman and Dianne Feinstein's amendment passes yet again. But this is a more complicated win than it appears at first glance: There's concern among certain liberal groups that if you drop the guest worker program too low, you simply amp up illegal immigration, which is actually worse.

Enter H.R 1645, the STRIVE Act. The House will spend June creating their own version of the immigration bill under the leadership of Zoe Lofgren, a Silicon Valley Democrat (so expect a much greater number of visas for high-skill workers in the final bill) and former immigration lawyer. She'll be under heavy pressure from unions and left-leaning groups to use Luis Guttierrez's STRIVE Act as the basis for her bill. STRIVE, which has a long list of cosponsors ranging from Rahm Emmanuel to Dennis Kuncinich to Silvestre Reyes to Jeff Flake, has a few advantages over the Senate bill, the most notable being its treatment of guest workers, who, after 5 years, $500, and evidence of English and US history classes, can apply for citizenship.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2007&base_name=post_3752

THe Strive act already has 70 co sponsers
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/17/2007
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 3/22/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 3/22/2007 Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 5/10/2007
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 4/19/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 5/15/2007
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 5/10/2007\
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 5/3/2007
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18] - 3/22/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 5/10/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/22/2007
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 3/22/2007
Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] - 4/17/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/28/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 4/18/2007
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] - 3/22/2007
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] - 3/22/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 3/28/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 3/22/2007
Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 4/18/2007
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS] - 5/2/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/17/2007
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 3/22/2007
Rep Fortuno, Luis G. [PR] - 3/22/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 4/17/2007
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 3/22/2007
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 3/22/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/22/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 3/29/2007
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 3/28/2007
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 3/22/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 3/26/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 5/21/2007
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 5/3/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/22/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 5/1/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 5/2/2007
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 3/22/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 3/29/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/29/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 5/15/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 5/15/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 5/3/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/28/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 5/10/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 4/17/2007
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 5/10/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/24/2007
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 3/22/2007
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 5/2/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/24/2007
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 3/22/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 4/17/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/22/2007
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 3/22/2007
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 3/22/2007
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 3/22/2007
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 3/22/2007
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 3/22/2007 Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 4/18/2007
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 3/22/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/22/2007
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/22/2007
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 3/22/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 3/22/2007
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 4/18/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 5/1/2007
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 3/26/2007
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 3/28/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/10/2007

Colin:

And I'll grant you a point. I didn't understand one thing you said last time... but I believe that the new system must apply to every person who enters the country: Either you have a U.S. passport -- which must transition to the tamper-resistant SmartCard style -- or else you get a visa.

I believe we should completely eliminate all visa waivers... for anybody from any country, even Canada, England, and the rest of the EU.

Those countries have proven themselves to be feckless in the extreme, as far as checking out those who traipse through Europe to get to the United States. Thus we can no longer extend them the courtesy of waiving the requirement of a U.S. visa.

I hope somebody proposes that as an amendment; I would love to see the Democratic argument why we must accept an Algerian-born radical imam with French citizenship for entry into the United States... without even requiring him to get a tourist visa.

Let's call that the Colin Codicil.

We could, however, extend the idea of that VIP airline-security card to persons holding EU or Canadian passports: They should be allowed, if they wish, to pay a fee -- say $500 -- voluntarily undergo a rigorous background check more extensive than would be done for a normal visa, and get a special year-long, renewable U.S. visa.

They still have to swipe it every time they enter and leave the country; but they can just keep it and not have to specifically reapply each time they visit.

Of course, the VIP visa (I picture a single, big V, with "IP" on one line, and below that "isa") is revokable at any time, for any reason. If there is no good reason, we can still revoke it; but we must refund the full $500.

That way, somebody like Mark Steyn -- a British-born Canadian citizen who lives in the United States but visits Great Britain fairly frequently -- could get one and be able to zip right through the customs line as quickly as an American citizen would.

Naturally, every entrance and exit should become part of the TIA database... especially for VIP visa holders!

Dafydd

It sounds real, real nice Dafydd, but this bill makes two huge assumptions -- one: that the people residing here trust the government enough to come forward and 'fess up, and two: that the specified security measures will be done and done correctly.

As far as this goes

...it's making enforcement as automatic as triggering a tax audit when the 1040 claims less income than was reported by employers or clients.

Again, I ask. What if people don't come forward? Whats to keep them from staying exactly where they are -- not in the shadows, but in broad daylight? And why do you think the immigrants with less than two years' residence here are going to leave?

Especially regarding that last topic, all they have to do to establish their residence period is have a signed affidavit from a non-relative saying "Jose Conseulo Jones has lived at x adress with xyz-123-1234 phone number for 5 years". Can't sucker me, I've read the bill. It has more holes than swiss cheese!

You envision this great system of a tight border with "ports of entry" and guards and cameras and computers and swipey cards. I envision a big freaking mess, or worse - a half-assed attempt that ends up unfunded, incomplete, and forgotten. Half a fence with two ports of entry and a few sanctuary cities, along with a database that isn't widely used and is largely ineffective. Given the track record of our government, which scenario is more likely? If you were in charge of the show I'd probably feel a lot better about it. As it is...ehh.

All that happens is its now much, much easier for new folks to come in...and the current residents stay where they are, legal or not.

At any rate, I'm right with you that our legal immigration system needs reform. And I'm also not of the "hunt 'em down" variety. I don't think you need to. What folks do need to do is up the rate of worksite and employer fraud enforcement and quit these endless deportation hearings. If they're illegal and you catch them, drop them off nicely on the other side of the border. Don't punish cops for inquiring about legal status. Don't honor the Matricula Consular or let them use it to open bank accounts or rent property. These are common sense approaches that are well within the confines of current law, and if properly carried out, would work. Kind of like the new laws. Only less fuss.

PS Your CHL scenario is below the belt seeing as I'm a gun owner, NRA member and active shooter. But in all honesty, I don't think it really applies. The more applicable scenario would be that these folks have been carrying the guns on their hips, shooting holes in signs at significant cost to their neighbors, and generally making a big public stink actively breaking the law. And then Uncle Sugar comes in and says "Hey all y'all that have been making this mess? Here's a CHL on me, along with a .45 and some ammo." when there's millions waiting to get CHLs by legal means who continue to do without. Thats whats happening here.

And no, I wouldn't and don't support folks carrying illegally. If people are caught breaking the law they should be punished. By the same token, I will donate and endeavor mightily on their behalf -- and if I were on the jury that was selected for that case, I would find them not-guilty if I felt that they were being persecuted (prosecuted?) by an unfair and unjust system.

I read an article a few years ago that said that manufacturers could track shipments from factory to store using a micro chip or similar technology. Wouldn't it be possible to create an identification card with a GPS chip imbeded? If so we could locate people who had entered legally but overstayed their visa. If the "smart" visa wasn't swiped on leaving the country the chip could be activated.

We've got amazing technology, why not use it?

I'm getting sick of HH. His guests are really top rate, so I keep listening for that reason, but...

1. Harriet Miers
2. Romney cheerleading
3. Self-righteousness
4. Denying/excusing all of the above

...have left me turned off and I now take his views and analysis with a heaping spoonful of salt.

Note how he constantly brings up FDT's "indolent lymphoma." I'd say the most indolent thing of all is starting to be HH's takes and his efforts to appear disinterested.

K2aggie07:

Look, this is not a "winnable" argument, in the sense that one of us will produce the killer piece of evidence that will cause the other to change his mind. I've seen all of those arguments before; and weighing their impact times their likelihood with the equivalents on the other side, I see the bill with a big net plus.

You -- and a lot of conservatives -- see the opposite; that simply reflects the values each side assigns to the variables above.

Simply put, I asked myself this question: If not this bill, what is the realistic alternative?

And there I had me.

I have asked the same question of many others... and to date, nobody has come up with an answer I consider remotely passable in this or any Congress in the forseeable future.

Your answer is that we somehow, magically, get federal judges to stop forcing lengthy deportation hearings and just deport people without a hearing. It's just not going to happen, K.

Hugh's answer is that the GOP should issue an ultimatum to the Democrats: We should offer a laundry list of amendments and demand that all of them be brought up and passed, and in the order we dictate, or else we'll filibuster the bill and kill it. I can almost hear Hugh snarling "that will fix them!" in the background.

Unfortunately, yes, it will: It will fix the Democrats' own immigration problem... they will ride the issue into the 2008 elections, and the mantra will be that the minority Republicans still think they're running the show, and it's "my way or the highway," and doesn't this just remind you of the arrogance and contempt for the voters that caused you to vote against them last time?

And we'll end up losing five more Senate seats and 25 more House seats.

But at least, as one commenter hear gloated, we'll know who to blame when the country goes to hell!

So if you don't like this bill, then give me a realistic alternative that can actually pass in this Congress, with these Democrats in charge.

Not what will pass come the revolooshun, when lions are beaten into lambs, and the sword shall lie down with the ploughshare, and conservative, enforcement-only Republicans will have a veto-proof majority in both chambers.

I mean, I love daydreaming; that's how a novelist makes his living. But I must distinguish between desire and probability.

Dafydd

K2 also ignores all the people out there who do not work in "workplaces". They lay carpet, fix roofs, do hair, babysit kids, etc. The farm workers have always had a different sort of status because they make up 47% of the ag labor and there is not exactly a line of people waiting to take their place.

I think that by the time Rush and Hugh and the gang get done warning everyone that America is over if this bill is passed the base will be afraid of it. But that does not make the fear valid. Looking back at it now I think most people realize that the whole Dubai Ports song and dance was pure nonsense, but at the time the "base" was pretty damn scared. After all would people like Malkin who know so much about port terminals etc deliberately blow something out of all proportion and misrepresent it to make herself look like hot stuff? Surely not.

I think this argument of we can't trust the government is just a way to avoid coming up with an alternative. It is the let's just bitch and moan approach.

I understand your point Dafydd. I guess I just don't see that new legislation is going to fix any of the problems that we have now. It'll just put a new spin on them. What you're saying about endless deportation hearings is a prime example of how people who dont want to enforce the laws simply won't. There are always ways around them. Creating new and more complex laws to fill in the chinks is the fallacy of governing that (historically) has strangled every country. I mean, look at our current tax code (!).

Interestingly enough, we have a 6-9 month backlog on creating new passports at the moment for current citizens of the US (January marked the beginning of a new travel requirement that if you travel out of the country you're required to have a passport). I don't even want to think about the nightmare exercise in bureaucratic inefficiency the implementation of this bill represents. 10 million temporary Z visas? And it isn't like these illegals can show up with a birth certificate and a SSN card. They have to

1.) show up with all their fake documentation and cross themselves, spit on the ground, turn around three times and promise to never do it again (hah)
2.) bring "proof of residence" in the form of an affidavit (which is literally the dumbest thing in that bill) from a non relative or a rent or power bill
3.) do the in-and-out hokey pokey if they've been here for less than 5 years

I'm not ignoring the people that don't work for corporations. My father works for a homebuilding company; I'm not blind to who makes up the framing crews here in Texas. But those same people that are openly living and working here outside of the law now will literally have no reason to change their ways. Dafydd asks me for a better alternative - I think a valid alternative is a do-nothing approach because I honestly believe thats what this bill represents. They're not getting arrested for breaking laws now; they won't get arrested for breaking laws in the future. So why should we spend money enacting a new system to not catch people who don't want to be caught?

Dafydd says the law-abiders will register and the remainder will be the "real" crooks. Ok? The "real" crooks are getting caught and not deported now. So when all the 10 million veteran illegals (5+ years) are registered and we catch the novices (

For the record, I don't listen to Hugh Hewitt or Rush. I'd like to think my opinions are my own. And I'm apparently not part of the "base" (at least how Terrye defines it) because I thought the Dubai ports hubbub was retarded.

And the "we can't trust the government" approach is not only valid, its what this country was built on. Its why we're supposed to limit the actions of the federal government to whats written in the constitution. Any time you look to the government to protect you and yours, look out! The joke's about to be on you.

I'm not bitching and moaning about illegal immigration -- I'm saying that making "newer, tougher laws" isn't the solution.

K2aggie07:

All right; so your alternative solution is that you don't want a fence, you don't want reform of the legal immigration system, you don't want to double the Border Patrol, and you don't want any sort of meaningful or workable enforcement against those who employ illegals. You like the status quo just as it is.

Your suggestion certainly has the virtue of being possible; in fact, it's very likely, especially if conservatives continue their opposition to any solution that is not 100% what they want and 0% what anybody else wants.

But I'm not sure most folks would recognize that as a "solution," actually. And if that is what you want the Republicans to stand for, then the ultimate solution -- imposed by the voters -- will probably be "fewer Republicans."

Dafydd

The only really clear way I can put it is I wish I were president and had the power of line item veto for this bill.

Do I want a fence? Yes. Do I think its a good idea to increase the power of the border patrol? Yes. Do I want "workable enforcement" against employers of illegals? Yes, yes, and yes.

But why do they have to come coupled together in a huge mess of a bill that has many stupid provisions in it -- enough provisions to render it wholly ineffective?

I just don't agree that legal immigration reform goes on the same bill as border security, that's all.

But why do they have to come coupled together in a huge mess of a bill that has many stupid provisions in it -- enough provisions to render it wholly ineffective?

I just don't agree that legal immigration reform goes on the same bill as border security, that's all

The reason it has to go all together is get the needed coalition to get something done. In the background of this rememebr are groups that are opposed to virtually all immigration. For instance they are not only opposing the low shilled workers they say will be our downfall but they are opposing the entry of new foreign high tech workers.

In the end much of our problems come from a immigration system that needs to be finetuned to the needs of the day. Each faction in this debate has power and each is afraid they shall be left out. I am glad this is all put together my self.

I have looked at this bill and is difficult so far to much I would Line Item veto If I could. The only problem I have is that the Guest Worker program has numbers way too low to meet its intent and that it seems their is provisons in it to try to doom it to failure.

Somebody needs to let Hugh know that "a burden of proof requirement on non-Spanish speaking immigrants from countries with jihadist networks" means Mark Steyn would still be waiting beyond the Pond. Remember 7/7? The Shoe Bomber?

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