June 7, 2007

Republican Party Gets an Unexpected Mulligan - at Reid's Expense

Hatched by Dafydd

Yesterday, we reported that there was a strong possibility that the immigration bill would go down... not because it was rejected by the Senate in an up-or-down vote, but because of the impatience of Senate Majority Leader Harry "Pinky" Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 95%).

Tonight it became official: The bill failed a second cloture vote -- with all but a handful of Republicans opposing the end of debate -- for the simple reason that bill opponents had been promised the right to offer amendments they thought would better the bill, and even GOP bill supporters intended to keep their word.

The Democrats, however, demanded premature cloture... so even the main Republican defenders of the bill -- Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY, 84%), and Sens. John Kyl (AZ, 92%) and Trent Lott (MS, 88%) -- all voted to sustain the filibuster:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a last-ditch offer to try to persuade GOP conservatives to whittle down their expansive list of amendments if Reid put off the procedure vote, but Reid declined. McConnell, Lott, and even Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the bill's chief GOP architect, voted to sustain the filibuster -- a measure of Republican frustration with what they saw as heavy-handed Democratic efforts to deprive Republicans of a chance for votes on the floor.

Regardless, when the vast majority of Republicans (38 out of 45 voting) and a handful of Democrats insisted that the Senate continue considering amendments for a while longer, before silencing bill opponents (and proponents) with a cloture vote... Harry Reid shut down the process, pulling the bill from the agenda, most likely for the rest of the year.

The bill had successfully fended off a bunch of poison pills, but one slipped through: an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND, 95%) to sunset the entire guest worker program after 5 years. The amendment initially failed two weeks ago; but just after midnight Wednesday night, four Republican senators, including Jim DeMint (SC, %) and Jim Bunning (KY, %), changed their votes, leading to the amendment passing by a single vote, 49 to 48; DeMint and Bunning both admitted they changed their votes deliberately to kill the entire bill -- a "poison pill" indeed.

The net effect, however, is to give the Senate a "mulligan," a do-over... which in practice will help the GOP far more than the Democrats. And it benefits Republican opponents and supporters alike of comprehensive immigration reform:

  • For those who oppose the bill, the benefit is obvious: The bill does not pass. It has been laid upon the table, and Harry "Pinky" Reid seems determined not to pick it up again for a long, long time... probably not until sometime in 2008, when the bill can be turned into a Democratic amnesty wish-fulfillment bill instead for campaign purposes.
  • But we supporters also benefit. The bill had generated such a toxic environment, with Republicans drawn into a circle to stab each other in the back viciously and repeatedly, that it threatened to split the party. Some seemed almost giddy at the thought of "bringing down" the GOP.

    Reid's impatience and arrogance gives us all a many-month-long "time out," during which more fence will be built and other subjects will come to the fore... subjects that bring Republicans together, such as support for our troops and extending the Bush tax cuts.

So let us take great advantage of the breathing space that the (even more tone deaf than George Bush and Hugh Hewitt) majority leader gave us. Let's all just take a deep breath, calm down, forget about the immigration bill for a while... and can't we all just get along?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 7, 2007, at the time of 8:22 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2150

Comments

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Another great post on this immigration bill debacle, Dafydd.
I'd love to forgive and forget the recent behavior of my fellow "Conservatives" and "Republicans" who threw racist, hysterical, and irrational tantrums over this, but I'm not going to.
Other than horror and revulsion that there are quite a few on the Right that can act just as badly and be as intellectually dishonest as those on the Left, I'm not sure what it means for our country.
How about you?

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 8:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

Love ya Dafydd. This probably will always be my favorite blog. Keep up the good work!

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 8:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Pam

Yes, Rodney, we can all get along.

The above hissed in response by: Pam [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 8:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: SallyVee

Great post, as usual Dafyyd.

JenL - me too. I'll never be the same. But it's been a great chance to deprogram myself from the "conservative" spin machine, and shed many superflous radio, TV, reading and spending habits.

My worry is that the lights finally came and Reid realized what a freebie issue this is for Dems to exploit. Pelosi said as much publicly just a few weeks ago.

Dafyyd, I do not anticipate the toxic air clearing. It didn't happen this time -- after a year+ since the last time. And I have to say, the mob is definitely beating me down. Not sure how much I care when the next brawl begins. Meanwhile, let the border crossings continue... onward and upward!

The above hissed in response by: SallyVee [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 9:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

No kidding, Sally!
Those anti-"amnesty" "Conservatives" and "Republicans" can now sit back in gloating satisfaction that they "got their way," while illegals continue to pour over the border unabated and we're stuck with de facto amnesty.
I also concur about the "Conservative" spin machine: this is the first real disagreement I've had with Rush Limbaugh, not to mention Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin and as Dafydd showed us, Hugh Hewitt.
The only Conservative pundit who was reasonable and rational about the issue was Michael Medved.
I'm now a new Medhead fan and can never listen to Rush again the same trusting way.

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 10:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: SallyVee

Thanks for reminding me about Medved. He is truly amazing and has been beyond stalwart in the midst of an entire medium that is out of control. I admire him greatly. Plus, he is a genuine original. You just don't hear the repetitive daily talking points from him. He'll address the hot issues of the day, but with a depth and integrity that goes off the scripted spin. My MedHead subscription replaced RushL.com. I flushed Rush out of my head & life in early '06. Haven't missed him for a second. I wanted to remember him fondly, so I left him before he completely ruined our affair.

I don't know about you Jen, but my change in course began with Harriet Miers. That episode disturbed me. When Dubai Ports came along, I got chilled to the bone and saw the monster on full display. I also began to question my own role in creating that monster. Blameless, I am not. I was entering "Made Man" status in the mob, LOL. Looking back, I am amazed and appalled at how long I ran with the pack, when all my life I've thought of myself as an independent thinker in control o fmy own faculties.

But overall, like I said this has been a liberating experience. Bottom line, I don't like tyrants of any stripe.

The above hissed in response by: SallyVee [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 11:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Re: JenLArt at June 7, 2007 10:18 PM

I agree to some extent. They have the right to their uninformed opinion, but too many conservatives these days seem to think that being conservative is enough. They don't have to listen to any technology experts. They "just know" the Z-Visa can't work. Myself, I don't pretend to be an expert, but at least I'm curious. I know what I know, and more importantly, I know what I don't know. If a person doesn't know anything about modern data-mining, or fingerprint searching, or forge-proof digital signatures, then don't automatically proclaim that all that is worthless and won't work. That's what's most frustrating. Often their conclusions are based entirely on their psychic powers. "I'm feeling that it won't work." It's the 21st-Century. Do some homework.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 11:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

You centrights like to think of yourselves as effective pragmatists. Might it not be more useful if you stopped presuming that you can't legislate more effective enforcement on its own merits, and gave up trying to be apostles of Ted's statesmanship among the heathen Right?

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 1:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Yell:

Yeah, well where has any of this got you but in the minority? I know I am seeing a side to the right I do not like and while the loud people on the left and right might be able to kill things, they can't actually accomplish much of anything.

I agree with Sally V and Jen here. In fact I used to vote a straight Republican ticket... those days are gone. I don't read these people anymore, I don't listen to their propaganda, I don't care what they say.

The bill is dead and we are right back at the status quo. I think the hardliners like it there. I am beginning to think if you gave them the choice between resolving the issue and solving the problem or keeping it around unsolved to bitch about....they would take door number two.

And here we have Reid blaming Bush for not doing more to support the bill. How bizarre. People on the right calling Bush a traitor sticking to his principles and the Democrats saying he did not do enough to save the bill. Truth is the Democrats might just use this, vote for us they will say and we will fix this problem...all the other side can do is complain. And they may be right.

And you know something Yell? I don't much like Kennedy myself but he is a fact of life in the Senate and when a party is in the minority they have to deal with the majority. That is just how it is. I know that a lot of people on the right do not hold Fred Thompson's alliance with Diane Feinstein during his Senate years against him so this childlike stance that if Teddy Kennedy votes for something or supports something you just have to abandon it is absurd.

Believe it or not a lot of bills go through the Senate and there have been times when Republicans and Democrats have actually been able to vote the same way. It does happen. It is not a rule or something that you always have to be on the other side of everything. That is just mindless.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 3:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

I've registered Independent too, because I'm sick of a Big-Tent circus.

The center-right thrives on seeking immediate advantage rather than policy resolution, and reacting to public opinion rather than driving it. Is it any real suprise you can't fulfill your policy goals and are flummoxed by bad poll numbers?

Back when the center-right enjoyed conservative-won majorities, it still sought liberal support for "comprehensive reform" that doesn't address all problems and makes things worse.

The ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION for "comprehensive reform" was the supposition that direct enactment of individual provisions was doomed, doomed, doomed. "comprehensive reform" just had "Strike Three" called on the Senate floor. How many times do you have to fail before you reconsider your strategy presumptions?

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 3:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: MJS

Maybe the bill would have been a good thing...Dafydd convinced me to consider that potential, along with Medved.

Still, I am glad it didn't pass, especially at the hands of Reid.

Something was off about the whole thing, i.e.:
- the way this monstrous bill was trying to be passed
- the shiftiness of some of its strongest defenders (not you, Dafaydd; and yes, the opponents were quite shifty as well, but the greater burden rests on the proponents, in my view)
- the bill itself being so damn complicated and long that there is NO way it could have been read, let alone understood by the initial one-week ramrod period of its opponents,
- that McCain and mini-me sidekick Graham (who have singlehandedly done more to ruin GOP electoral and legislative success than any other Senators, notwithstanding that other Senators have done a great job or ruining things all by themselves), were its staunchest defenders
- that Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy and (most of) the rest of the liberal left were such strong proponents. (Call me knee-jerk and simplistic, but when the Ds nearly uniformily like something, it just HAS to be a horrendous piece of legislation.)

Show some real progress and results on securing the border, JUST SOME, and I think that I and other xenophobic conservatives will be happy to reconsider immigration reform next year. (Yes, I know I sound like HH there...that said, I'm still quite a Hewitt skeptic -- since Miers, I will always take anything that guy says with a heaping bucketful (or ten) of salt.)

The above hissed in response by: MJS [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 5:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: Pam

JenLArt, now don't be upset with Rush. If this is the first real disagreement you've had with him after all this time, come on, aren't you being as harsh and close minded as you accuse him of being. Come on! Can't all of us have disagreements without resorting to I'll never listen to or really trust you again.

My take on the Bill has always been a moral one. I hate the human trafficing aspect of this as well as the continuation of the whole "under class" society. I think the president, who is a Christian, felt like we had to treat these folks with dignity and respect while trying to solve the problem. I think the bill didn't address the human trafficing issues, nor the "fair wage" so I disagreed with the bill, but never was really angry at the president, as say Peggy Noonan, who felt like she didn't know him anymore. I still know him because he ran on this, so I didn't get mad when he tried to do what he said he wanted to do.

The above hissed in response by: Pam [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 5:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Pam, I agree with you completely on the moral aspect of the bill and I also concur that that is why President Bush wanted to pass it so badly.
The "Conservatives" who kept crying "Just deport them!" and the other ways they talked about "getting rid of" illegal immigrants made it sound as if they weren't even human!
Maybe it's because I live in Texas, where the Mexicans have been with us forever, but I can't not be aware that these people have lives, jobs, homes and families here now.
Many people here are the children and grandchildren of illegals--they were they "anchor babies" everyone derides.
And how many of our soldiers serving in Iraq are "illegals?" More than quite a few.
I thought that Dafydd did a great job of outlining the workability of the bill's provisions and I think it could have worked, regardless of its sponsorship by Kennedy or its backing by a RINO and headache like Lindsey Graham.
John Kyl of Arizona was behind it and coming from Arizona, he knows about the problems.
Most of our fellow "Conservatives" and "Republicans" are doing a victory dance today for their great job in "killing the bill" but I really don't think they ought to be so happy.
President Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote; Hispanics may never look at the GOP again after the hate fest they just saw...
Even I was shocked and I'm a WASP!
As for Rush, he just went too far this time and called the bill the "death of the Republican party."
Well, he may have started a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't know if I want to be a Republican after this, but of course, I will be.
It's hard to share a party with a bunch of screaming, hard-nosed bigots!
(Sorry--had to vent.)

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 7:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

This whole bill was about pandering to a potential electorate. Too big the teeth of punishing law-breakers and many Republicans saw this as a loosing process. Too soft on the teeth (gums) and even the Dems electorate would have had them answer to the lack of the rule of law.

Neither party wants to alienate a 12 to 20 million potential electorate (that will most likly not be returning to Mexico)even when they know that most in this nation want the borders closed first and then allow our southern friends to enter under a legal and documented process.

Illegal is still illegal! And it's still a can of worms the Senate is not ready to deal with.

And Harry's (Reid) got bigger fish to fry, like lambasting "Antonio Gonzales" (Reids very own words on the floor yesterday)

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 7:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

Dafydd

From what I am hearing and seeing the immigration bill fight is not over. I don't think it will be 2008 this will come back up but could be a matter of weeks.

Is the pressure of the Right? YEs. But various immigratn groups and allies I bet are just going to let the processs stop here when they were close to some sctual process and I think Reid will get a earful..Even the Corner was stating that the White HOuse is 100 percent committed and will go back on the attack on this bill

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 7:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: Freetime

I am not disappointed.

There were just too many things in this bill to allow me any comfort. I do not believe in "chain immigration"; I do not believe in "anchor babies"; I do not believe in condoning illegal activity; I do not believe in politician's assurances; like MJS I need to see some honest, sustained, well-funded support by the "ruling class" for existing immigration laws. I need to see bureaucracies that take their jobs seriously ("..He didn't look sick to me... For God's sake!!!??)and are trained well for them. I need to see practical results before I buy into any more political promises.

I do like the idea of scoring (if it's set up specifically to support and advance the economic and sovereignty goals of this country-I don't feel the need to apologize for that);I support an effective ID system; I, like dafydd, think we should immediately and continually send the criminals back where they came from; I support an effectively monitored guest worker program (that does not lead automatically to citizenship); I don't advocate sending back people who have made themselves useful here (but still don't support automatic entry for any of their relatives); I am open to increasing the number of legal immigrants over the present quotas; I support reducing/eliminating the less common sense hoops impinging on legal immigration (see reference to skilled and dedicated bureaucracies, above).

I think this is all reasonable, and I think the vast majority of the people who were against this bill are equally reasonable. Any time the politicians try to do things behind closed doors, they should expect they will have little support in the populace (There's no need to support the expense of 535 people in Congress if a handful are going to control what happens there).

Now there's time to do it right. I suspect that if the politicians could ever deign to put the internecine battles and power struggles aside for a while and try to act like statesman, these things could be done relatively easily (I miss Moynihan and Simpson and their kind!). I also suspect this is a forlorn hope----but "hope springs eternal...", as they say.

The above hissed in response by: Freetime [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 8:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

I understand some of the lament re: the tone, but understand that there is a deep mistrust of the government, Kennedy, McCain ... and yes, the president, over this issue. I understand that Pres. Bush has been consistent here, but he has been consistently wrong.

If the govt. would simply start with meaningful enforcement ... this is not an unreasonable request ... then we could move forward to address the remaining issues. The primary problem, in the eyes of many opponents of the bill like me is not "what do we do with people here b/c we haven't enforced our laws?"

Put another way ...

Start with enforcing the border meaningfully, with a fence, a means to track every one in the U.S., and with punitive measures for those businesses who hire illegals. Then we can actually know how many illegals we have to deal with. Failure to enforce the border first is a ruse to perpetuate and make the immigration problem bigger, because it's not much of a "problem" any way in the eyes of the proponents of McCain-Kennedy-Bush. More cheap labor and more handout recipients/voters. But if we enforce the border and punish those who treat the U.S. like a supermarket, then a lot of the illegals won't come and won't need the perks they are currently being offered via "comprehensive immigration reform". That's the dirty little secret that a lot of McCain-Bush-Kennedy proponents don't want people to know.

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 8:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

The position I have stated above is not just a position of the Republican base, but of the majority of Americans, per Rasmussen.

Here is the link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/56_support_enforcement_only_immigration_approach">

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 8:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

The bill would have secured the border first before the visas and work permits were granted, Daisy Cutter.
Have you not read any of Dafydd's posts here?

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 9:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Start with enforcing the border meaningfully, with a fence, a means to track every one in the U.S., and with punitive measures for those businesses who hire illegals. Then we can actually know how many illegals we have to deal with. Failure to enforce the border first is a ruse to perpetuate and make the immigration problem bigger, because it's not much of a "problem" any way in the eyes of the proponents of McCain-Kennedy-Bush.

While, IMHO, Daisy hits the "bulls-eye" on how a majority of the nation feels about this, I still submit that our representatives (in this case the Senate) are scared **** to put the "teeth" into legislation that alienates a potential voter base-----and there-in lies their cowardice.

Political power above what is best for the nation will hopefully bite them in the arse.

[Rovin, Rovin, Rovin; you know the language rules. Come on! -- The Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 9:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Daisy Cutter, I forgot to add that the illegals don't treat the U.S. like a "supermarket."
All the ones I know and see work pretty darn hard and pay for what they buy at our supermarkets, too.
Must you come to one of the few Right Wing blogs that has a rational and favorable position on the bill and spew your Pat Buchanan talking points here, too?
Surely, you haven't run out of websites to do that where you have lots of friends....

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 9:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Freetime

"GET OUT!!!!" JenLArt requests of those who disagree.

The above hissed in response by: Freetime [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 9:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

No, it's just that there are plenty of blogs who feel the way you do.
We don't come here for that.
We come here because there are quite a few of us that are Conservative, Republican and who actually liked the bill.

[Entire last paragraph excised for being a personal attack. Cut it out, JenLArt; Big Lizards will be equal-opportunity free-speech suppressors here... we will regain control of this comment section. Thanks. -- The Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 10:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: patrick neid

this bill's biggest problem started with its supporters. the vast majority of them supported the bill before they even had read it. after pontificating on it ad nauseaum some were forced to continue their support using slurs and doom and gloom.

the bill like all the preceding bills back to 1965 provided for no enforcement. all the goodies were given instantly with enforcement to follow. the "triggers" were this bill's snake oil phase. ted kennedy has been providing this color commentary since 1965 when open borders became his passion. the american public saw right thru this charade as many of us predicted. the only split in the republican party is the small sliver that sided with all the dems in their attempt to sneak this bill through. they won't be missed.

with some luck, all the good parts of this bill can be paired with a border enforcement bill. the enforcement will come first before any temp cards are issued. congress can start by building and completing the 854 mile fence that they signed into law last october. when the fence is done then, and only then, will we be convinced that congress is, for the first time in 42 years, serious about immigration reform.

until the border is closed there will be no comprehensive immigration reform. myself and many others predicted as much starting back in august 05. the problem is the dems and a few repubs are hard of hearing.

as to this quote:

"The bill would have secured the border first before the visas and work permits were granted, Daisy Cutter.
Have you not read any of Dafydd's posts here?"

you clearly have still not read the bill or the footnotes.

The above hissed in response by: patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 10:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

patrick neid
:

"will we be convinced that congress is, for the first time in 42 years, serious about immigration reform."

Patrick do you know how much we have spent on border security in 86 and how much we spend now

In the 21 years since the 86 bill was enacted the number of border patrol agents has increased from 3,243 in 1986 to 11, 106 today. Spending on border security has gone from $700 mil to $2,792 billion.

As Brownabck noted the other night enforecement first he ahs been working on a lot of enforcement first bills. THey don't work because it doesnt tackle the whole problem

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 10:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: sadie

It's ironic that the only name calling going on here is being done by the people who are decrying name calling by others.
It appears to me that those fighting this piece of legislation have referred continually to aspects of the bill that they found inappropriate. Why to bill supporters is this anathema?
We find ourselves in this position because our government has refused to enforce laws passed previously. I don't blame the persons who have taken advantage of this but I do blame our government. Why should I believe them now?
We need a simple concrete bill to address ways to punish employers for hiring undocumented workers, set up a system to control visa entrants and assure their departure as appropriate and control to the maximum extent feasible all entries into the US.
We do not need a 380 page behemoth of a bill that is unclear and needlessly complex.
My husband is from India and I must say that 29 years ago when he became a naturalized citizen it was not a major problem. Once we accumulated the necessary documentation for him, it was smooth sailing. Maybe because we did everything in a perfectly legal manner.
If our esteemed Senators and our President had not tried to pass this bill without input from the American people, none of this kerfuffle would have occurred.

The above hissed in response by: sadie [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 10:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

I am hearing a lot still about the problem is that supporters didnt read this bill and they were all ignorant fools.

I must say this. That talking point shows First(1) a standard that is not applied to other legislation we talk about constantly,

and
(2) a horrible lack of knowledge how this process works.

or I hate to say

(3) full knowledge of how the process works but a willingness to take advantage of the average Americans lack of basic civics

Parts of this bill were discusses at great detail. THe supporters endorsed the concepts in this bill. THey recognized that the Senate was just part of it and that further details would be worked out in the House then conference then it would have to again go to a vote.

There is a tact that is used that the Senate Bill had to be perfect in all respects. My friends(to borrow John Mcains word:) that never happens to any legislation. The Senate is part of the process as with wvery other bill. It is called making legislative sasuage.

For those that wish to appluyperfection to the Senate bill then they should be prepared to be demanded to have that state of perfection for any bill that they support that is proosed in one chamber.. That is of course impossible and is not how the process works.

It doesn't work in the Congress and it doesnt work that way in the numerous bicamerial statre legislatures we have in this Country

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 10:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

The bill like all the preceding bills back to 1965 provided for no enforcement.
No, it did provide for enforcement--for the fence, for more border agents and for I.D.s, as well as the necessary funding.
With some luck, all the good parts of this bill can be paired with a border enforcement bill. the enforcement will come first before any temp cards are issued. congress can start by building and completing the 854 mile fence that they signed into law last october. when the fence is done then, and only then, will we be convinced that congress is, for the first time in 42 years, serious about immigration reform.
The bill provides for both border security and immigration reform, too. It did provide for enforcement first. The fence needs to be funded--something Congress "forgot" to do. Dafydd pointed a few weeks ago brilliantly that Republicans want border security and Democrats wants illegals to be provided a path to citizenship and that for each to get what they want, they must meet on this bill which provides for both. In a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, it's the best bill we can hope for. Republicans are all screaming for a tough "enforcement only" plan that will never happen and they didn't move their ball any further down the field by the ************* they've had in the last few weeks.

[Ibid. -- The Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 10:57 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

Sadie:
"We do not need a 380 page behemoth of a bill that is unclear and needlessly complex"

Prepare yourself one day for a bill that is much less complex. Demographics and time are not on that side. The less complex bill will be a real Amnesty and not what we have in this bill now.

That time is coming. We cannot have Farmers Branch Tx making it illegal to rent to illegal aliens and have New Haven Conn giving out id cards for illegas so they can get social services. That is happening. We cannot have cites that often do Dracoian laws that are punative only to illegals and massive cities in other parts become Sanctuaries Cities. We cannot have States that give in state tution to some people and deny it in others.

The Fugative Slave act and Dred Scott didnt work for a reason. NO IAM NOT COMPARING ILLEGALS TO SLAVES. But the concept is still the same.

At some point a general Amnesty will be pushed and get through. We will then look back perhaps ten years earlier with saddness we didn't pass this bill and enact the enforcement measures that were in it

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 11:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

Jen L Art,

I come here because this is a great blog. You know, as a conservative, I think we should allow people to make their own choices as to why they read what they read. I find your comments interesting.

I don't write Daffy off b/c I think he is wrong on this issue. As some one pointed out above, it is you and the bill supporters such as McCain who call names and **************** to make your case. In doing so, you show you have no case.

My point is simple and it is held by the majority of the American people (read Rasmussen today): Enforce the border first, and via separate legislation. Once we make a meaningful effort to enforce the border (including the key element of punishing law-breaking businesses) then we will find that there are a lot fewer Z Visas to give out ... a lot fewer new Demo voters, etc. And perhaps fewer illegals for businesses to hire so that they can pass on their labor costs to others.

If the bill is/was so great, there would have been no reason for tactics of H. Reid or the hysterics of many of the bill's supporters.

[Ibid. -- The Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 12:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

Re: my disdain for those who treat the U.S. like a supermarket, let me elaborate b/c Jen L Art doesn't seem to appreciate what I am saying. By the way, Jen, I guess b/c you and Harry Reid agree on this bill that you are a Harry Reid supporter? Your logic is more dense than your bill. I am not Pat Buchananite. Far from it.

First of all, with the "supermarket" reference, I am talking about businesses and the Chamber of Commerce who see the U.S. as really only a market, part of the world market. I see the U.S. as a nation, with a common culture, government and border. America has a market; it is not a market.

I also refer to Demo politicians who seek to treat America and its system as a way to perpetuate their power: "Would you hand me a few million voters, please sir?"

And yes, I refer to those illegals who come here simply to get what they can, to buy what they can from America and take advantage of our freedom without the burdens of citizenship.

Yes, it's true that people who come to the supermarket pay for what they get (most of them). I understand that some who cross the border illegally are not law-abiding citzens. Oh, wait ...

We don't have lot of loyalty to a supermarket, right? Wouldn't make great sacrifices for it? Wouldn't die for it, right? It's simply a place we go to get what we want. That's my point.

As for me, I want people who are here to obey our laws and respect this nation, and I want people coming here to work legally, and the ones that stay to want to be Americans. I could care less where they are from. I just want to know that immigrants who plan on staying love this country and want to be Americans.

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 12:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

Well more evidence it is not over

Immigration Bill Opponents take heed
Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.
Michael Corleone


Despite the fact that it was primarily Republicans who voted against the maneuver, all the GOP lawmakers who spoke with FOX News were upbeat that the legislation could be revived soon — even within a matter of weeks, with one negotiator noting that last year’s bill was first pulled from the floor by then-Majority Leader Bill Frist before it was brought back up again and passed.

Graham said he talked extensively with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and is confident the bill will return for senators to take another crack at developing a comprehensive plan to legalize millions of foreigners living unlawfully in the United States.

“I know where the votes are for final passage. … We’re going to get this done,” Graham said, adding that the topic is not going to go away. “All I can say is, if you name a post office, you’re going to be talking about immigration.”

“There are ways we can do this,” Reid said later. “There can be an agreement on the number of amendments. Hopefully we can do that in the next several weeks. We’re very close.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279213,00.html

I so love Sen Graham. He is like the Seaators you read about in History or a Republicn Mr Smith goes to Washington

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 1:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Rovin:

And Harry's (Reid) got bigger fish to fry, like lambasting "Antonio Gonzales" (Reids very own words on the floor yesterday)

Hey, we're lucky he didn't call him "Jesus Gonzales" or "Paco Gonzales!"

A friend of mine whose last name was Goldstein once attended a lawyers' symposium (he's a lawyer); he introduced himself to the woman sitting next to him at the luncheon; for the rest of the luncheon, she called him Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Finklestein, Mr. Moskowitz... until it finally dawned on my friend that what she was really saying each time was simply "Mr. Jew."

I wonder what Harry "Pinky" Reid is really saying?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 1:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I hear all these people worrying about how much enforcement was in the bill while at the same time they congratulate themselves on maintaining the status quo. Well folks, there were a lot more provisions for enforcement in this bill than the status quo offers and somehow people have no problem with that.

They will jack around until the really scary bill gets passed by a big Democrat majority and then they will have something to complain about. It is good to have a plan B when you kill plan A. so far the only plan A I have seen is the one where Republicans eat their own. Hillary will appreciate it guys. The last time the right did this sort of thing to itself Bill became president with 43% of the vote. It seems the pundits and talk radio are trying to do the same thing for Hillary. They must think another Clinton presidency will be good for ratings.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

Supporters of the bill take note: Here is why the bill failed, per Rasmussen.

When a solid majority of the U.S. feels a certain way, it's hard to dismiss their concerns as "nativist" or worse. The majority is not going to let the Senate steamroll legalization without first addressing ... addressing, not saying they are going to address ... border security.

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

A solid majority of Americans also want a bill my dear. Now if you can get all the parties involved to do as the Great God Rasmussen instructs them fine, but from what I have seen and all efforts will be destroyed by certain people who prefer to demagogue the issue.

My feelings are that if half the illegals in the US got here by some other way than that border, we need to deal with that. And I don't think that we can deal with that just by building a wall. So then we get into a debate about exactly what enforcement is. In other words, if refusing to register any people who are here simply leaves in place a huge mass of undocumented people then it makes enforcement more difficult, not less.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: IanM

To state the obvious: The immigration problem is a typical case of supply and demand.

Without directly addressing the underlying demand issue, the demand side (the need driven use of low cost and compliant illegal labor) does in fact drive the supply side (illegal immigrants looking for work.) This labor supply will not be stopped no matter how tight the boarder is for the same reason that the flow of drugs across the boarder has not been stopped. Where there is a demand, a supply is soon to follow.

To address the problem of uncontrolled immigration the demand/employment side of the equation must be addressed. Doing so may build some trust that could be used to develop a more comprehensive solution.

The grass roots distrust of the key players who created this complex immigration bill, doomed the bill from the start. The Senate bill was a classic case of overreaching with a bill that Rube Goldberg would have been proud of.

The devil is in the details and thus was provided lots of grist for the political mills. Plus, who knows what kind of firestorm the House bill would have caused. Then last but not least, the conference report would create its own controversy. Long gone are the days where a bills detail is buried in obscurity. Too many eyes watching...

The only good thing is that a major Presidential campaign issue is still on the table. Depending on how the immigration issue plays out in the campaign trail, the voters may have a voice on this issue.

The above hissed in response by: IanM [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

And Daisy Cutter, I am not a {boo hiss} Senator and in the last few days I have been called a liar, a traitor, a moron, a fraud, a phony, an idiot, and that is just a sample. I have heard illegals referred to by names that I will not even repeat. The level of mindless hatred that has come out of some of the opponents of this bill has left me to not trust their motives or much of what they say.

In other words, if I have to make choice between trusting the good will of Mitch McConnel and the man who made some nasty crack about my dead grandmother, who do you think I will trust?

No, I am not buying this the big bad evil horrid Senate tried to pull a fast one but Rush saved us routine. Not even close.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

Terrye,

You are the one demagoguing, rather then addressing the main point. The point is, the people want illegal immigration stopped. Stopped. They don't want illegals legalized, without stopping the flow. Enforcement means, in the common sense belief of Americans, stopping the flow first.

In the guise of attacking the "Great God Rasmussen", you are really attacking the American people and their views. Rasmussen is relating what Americans believe. I understand you don't like this.

Again, there are a lot of things we can do, from a fence (a real one) to, I think just as importantly, punishing businesses who are passing off their labor costs to the rest of us. If we take away some of the magnets that draw illegals and also make it much tougher to get across, a lot fewer will come here, and also, voila, many of them here will go back. That's why we must enforce the border first.

People don't just want a bill to have a bill. This is what you may want. But you are out of step with the country and the Republican Party.

The bill people want (56%) is a bill that is enforcement only. Don't tell me it can't pass. It is only stopped by those who insist on legalizing illegals without first respecting our laws.

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Daisy Cutter;

The point is the only thing the hardliners stopped was this bill. Illegal immigration will go right on happening until they decide they would rather work on a viable solution than use the issue for political gain.

I am not an ideologue, I would be willing to make compromises, but that is not true of most of this bill's detractors. They actually expect the other side to roll over and give them everything they want just because they say so. Well fine, they can want that all day, but the people voted the Democrats into the majority. I remember when Republicans used to say that the only poll that really counts is the election. Now they sound like the people at Kos demanding funding be cut for Iraq because the polls say the war is not popular.

Where is their alternative bill? The way bills are made is that we start in the Senate which brings us a broad based idea, then we go the House to hammer out more details, then the two bills go to Conference, so far thanks to the Tancredo wing of the party spewing out all kinds of bile and misinformation we can not get past step one.

All the polls that have been done also show majority support for compromise, a guest worker program and regularization of at least some of the illegals here. Those majorities do not seem to count to certain people, most of whom managed to get through decades without so much as a pout much less a full fledged temper tantrum about this issue.

If this is such a big deal to so many people, why wasn't even an issue in the 2004 campaign? Why didn't the Republican majority deal with it a decade ago?

People want the issue solved, that means people have to work together to solve it instead of congratulating themselves on derailing the process. That does not solve anything.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

This bill is less popular than the Iraq War, Terrye. It has made Pres. Bush's ratings sink even farther. Yet, we are expected to roll over. This is crazy.

The govt. has lost its credibility on this issue. The issue is boiling more now than before, more each year, each month. You are correct that it wasn't as big an issue in '04. It's gotten bigger and will continue to fester and grow.

Here is my main point: If the Senate means what it says (enforcement b/f legalization, etc.), then they have to prove it. Pass a bill (there is broad support for this) to build a fence, punish law violators in the business community. To the extent possible, remove other magnets, too (such as entitlements).

I agree that we have to do something about those people who are here, But let real enforcment of the border be tried before we go handing out more goodies ... then let's see how big the problem is. You know, if we made it punitive enough on law violators here in the U.S, some might not hire illegals. We have never really tried this. What I have suggested here has been proposed, and it will be proposed again.

I understand there's been a lot of heat on this issue, but I think you are missing an important point: There is a passion for America that drives opposition to the recent efforts by the Senate, and their sneaking around and insisting on no compromise and really no meaningful enforcement first has raised distrust of the government to an all-time high on this issue. People are right to be skeptical. Look at what happened as a result of the '86 deal. Nothing good.

Asking people to respect the process at this point and "let's just have a bill", well, that ain't resonating out here.

The tactics of the bill's supporters have galvanized the movement toward enforcing the border, and for that, I thank them.

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 2:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

"Where is their alternative bill?"

We differ on that very point, that a further bill is required. There's already a fence to build and a Border Patrol to use in the cities. There's already laws on the books specifying how to handle illegal immigration.

"They actually expect the other side to roll over and give them everything they want just because they say so."

I think that a fair description of your insistence that we pass just one bill, that it claim to have everything in it, and that we owe it to the human race to stifle doubt and critical thought until it passes.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 3:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Sorry about trying to be a guest censor, Dafydd!
I was hoping we'd be spared from suffering the "it's amnesty!" crowd anymore, but maybe they do spur good discussion.

Terrye, I couldn't agree more with all of your posts!
I've been reading your comments for several years now on various RW blogs and we are of one mind virtually all of the time.
I was accused of being you on the PL forum by a Leftist troll and I took it as a compliment because you express the right thoughts so well!

IanM, I think the Dems killed the bill so that President Hillary can solve the problem (open borders! amnesty for everyone!) in 2009. I wish it would be a campaign issue and one that would work to get Republicans in, but the Dems won't run on their record or what they really stand for and they won't admit that they're for total amnesty and open borders because they know they'd never get elected if they did.
That's why it wasn't a campaign issue in 2006.
Nor was the war.
Nor was Social Security reform.
The Dems who won in '06 did it by promising to clean up amorphous "Republican corruption in Washington" and by using words like "Macaca."

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 4:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Daisy Cutter:

You are the one demagoguing, rather then addressing the main point. The point is, the people want illegal immigration stopped. Stopped. They don't want illegals legalized, without stopping the flow. Enforcement means, in the common sense belief of Americans, stopping the flow first.

DC, it makes absolutely no difference what "the people want," until and unless they express that desire in the only way we make available to them: voting for representatives in a regular election. This is a constitutional republic, not a mob-rule democracy.

And we already polled the people... back in November, 2006: The respondents of that poll expressed a preference for the Congress being run by the people who want to give amnesty, real amnesty, to illegal aliens and do not want to build a fence. The respondents chose to give control of Congress to Harry "Pinky" Reid (Majority Leader of the Senate), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House), Dick Durbin (Assistant Majority Leader of the Senate), Steny Hoyer (Majority Leader of the House), and of course the twenty or thirty Democratic committee and subcommittee chairmen and chairwomen.

That is the reality, DC, that we must live with: The same people who now say they want enforcement only (in this one poll you cite, but who say different things in different polls) earlier said, in a much more decisive way, that they want at the very least a comprehensive bill.

Because they expressed that preference the way they did -- in the 2006 congressional elections -- we cannot simply enact whatever conservative Republicans want, and let the rest go hang.

I have asked opponents of this bill over and over and over again to tell us what their plausible alternative is; each time, the only response is a list of laws they would decree were they King of America.

Well, the fact is, you're not. Nobody is King of America. You cannot get what you want by pointing to Rasmussen and declaring that the pee-pull have spoken.

You must deal with Majority Leader Reid, Squeaker Pelosi, Chairmen of the J-Coms Pat Leahy and John Conyers -- and yes, even with Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Edward M. Kennedy.

You, personally, put those people there, DC, no matter how you voted; you put them in that position of authority by participating in the elections, and then by not taking up arms to dispute it. We all agree to abide by the election results, even when we really, really wish they'd gone differently.

You cannot brush them aside; you cannot simply say "this is what we shall enact, so shut up and vote the way 'the people' want."

And I'm telling you now -- take the advice as you will -- the Democratic leaders that you and I and every other American voter, even Republican voters, put into that position are not in a mood today (or at any time since last November) to give conservative Republicans everything they want, in exchange for nothing that the Democrats want.

I don't know how to explain this any simpler.

You keep saying we should do this, we should do that; but you never say, "and this is how we're going to get enough votes in the House and Senate to do this and that." I'm not sure you even understand why that last line is the most important one.

But you'll find out. Keep watching the skies.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 4:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Daisy, now you are playing with the polls and you know it. People support every facet of that bill and if the detractors had tried to fix it rather than tell people whoppers such as there were no border enforcement provisions in the bill etc the outcome might have been different.

Even then most of the polls did not show the majority against the bill...it just did not show a majority for it. There were a lot of people who did not know what to think because they were hearing so much conflicting information.

In the end the bill that some Republicans could not support because Ted Kennedy was involved in it was put to rest by an anti war tax raising Democrat named Dorgan sucking up to the AFL CIO.

And as for making it punitive to hire illegals etc, this bill had stronger enforcement for that and the opposition killed it anyway. They had made up their minds as soon as the bill was released that they were going to destroy it and they got what they wanted.

Just like Dubai and all that nonsense. I remember certain people using polls as an excuse to have a cow about whether or not Bush was selling our ports to terrorists. The fact that the very idea of such a thing was pure stupidity was beside the point.

Needless to say we were subjected to the same outrage and frothing at the mouth as well as the same kind of accusations against all and sundry and in the end all that was left was the Republicans looking stupid.

So far the people who killed this bill have not come up with anything productive that will really change anything.

So, I guess we wait a decade or two until the right people decide that maybe they are satisfied with the wall and then maybe they will get around with other aspects of reform. maybe. And needless to say everyone else is just supposed to go for that. Sure, that is going to happen.

By then the illegals will have found a half dozen ways around that wall and their numbers will be so great that there will no dealing with the problem. And we still will not know who is here.

It is ridiculous to talk about going after employers if you are not going to support an employee verification system and that requires registering people. Nothing is as simple as the hardliners say.

What is the next big hissy fit going to be about?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 4:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Yell:

I see, so your point is that we just ignore the millions that slip in some other way and do nothing about all the people living here illegally now.

fine, it is not as if I ever thought you guys were really serious about the issue anyway.

I will tell you what is more likely, the American people get sick of this song and dance, elect a super majority Democratic House and they roll right over the top of you. Rush will not be able to save you if such a thing happens.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 4:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Terrye, I would only add to that from what I could gather, all the Conservative pundits including Rush, Hugh Hewitt, and Laura Ingraham, that were sounding the "It's Amnesty!" siren were basing a good part of their alarum on one--ONE. Single. Lone.--"study" by the Heritage Foundation that used no facts, no data, nothing (dare I say "nada?) to state that 20, 40, 100 million more illegals (meaning Mexicans or Latin Americans coming through Mexico) that would be rushing to America once the bill was passed...
This "study" came out right before the House tried to pass the immigration bill in 2006 (and failed) and was designed to be a hit piece on any "lax" border security bill that came up for a vote, IMHO.
Has the 20 million figure of illegals supposedly already here been confirmed by any serious entity?

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 4:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Jen:

Why thank you Ma'am. That is one thing about the internet, you can be called a fascist and a communist on the same day. The lefties do not like me any more than the righties.

And it seems to me that the extremes are getting closer and closer and closer.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 4:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Jen:

The Heritage people are about as unbiased as the unions Dorgan carries water for.

I could just as easily say that half of Mexico will be up here before they can get their wall done. Which side would you want to be on when the wall gets done?

I know they are saying amnesty is a siren, but there were millions of illegals here long before any thought was given to any kind of amnesty. The same thing drew them that always draws immigrants.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 5:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

What does "enforce the law" actually entail? Break it down piece by piece: We need a greater ability to detect and capture illegals, we need a way to identify whether somebody is legally allowed to work, we need a way to determine whether an employer is knowingly hiring illegals and dissuade him, and we need governmental bodies which can handle the increased workflow in these areas.

Thus, to truly "enforce the law" the way you want, we need (1) a drastic increase in the Border Patrol, (2) a tamper-resistant ID card, (3) much heavier employer penalties, and (4) administrative changes to take care of the huge numbers of captures, administrative fines, and court trials resulting from 1-3.

We have no authority or money whatsoever for any one of these four enforcement tools. We need to get both authorization and also appropriate money. The Executive branch can do neither of these; authorization and appropriation is the function of the Legislative branch.

The Legislative branch means "Congress." Congress must authorize; Congress must appropriate.

You are right back to square-one: Why would a Democrat-controlled Congress give money to do all the things conservatives want to do -- if they refuse to compromise?

I cannot explain it any simpler.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 5:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Terrye, Dafydd, all,
what we've had and still have until we pass some kind of bill is de facto amnesty and it's been this way since Reagan's bill of 1986.
Part of my shock at the response from my fellow citizens on the Right is the volume and intensity they've shown NOW.
Why have they held it in for 21 years?
And why didn't they put up more a fuss in '86 and use their political pressure to make sure that Simpson-Mazzoli (the enforcement package that was supposed to accompany the amnesty) was passed, too?
Dafydd mentions going back to tax cuts and the war--why didn't Conservatives and Republicans get just as about these issues?
The outrage wasn't nearly as loud against the 1st Dem "surrender" war spending bill that was loaded with $20 billion in pork...
And there's no groundswell to make the tax cuts permanent.
And there's no outcry to fix Social Security before it starts bankrupting the Treasury every year.
But mention a path to citizenship for illegals, Dubai Ports or Harriet Myers for SCOTUS and you have Paris Hilton being sent to jail times thousands! Nooooooooo! Mom! Drat that Bush!

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 5:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

You are right back to square-one: Why would a Democrat-controlled Congress give money to do all the things conservatives want to do -- if they refuse to compromise?

Possibly because this is what seventy percent of the nation wants (including democrats and their constituents) and they want this legislation resolved and politics are driving it (again) to a dead end?

This whole Senate/President game playing with an issue that means so much to everyone is an embarrasment to all involved in the process.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 5:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Rovin, Rovin, Rovin; you know the language rules. Come on! -- The Mgt.]

A thousand "forgive me's"----I don't know what came over me. And yes, I do know the rules.

I will accept 20 lizzard lashes and go to my corner.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 6:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: patrick neid

apparently i have to repeat myself.

every bill since 1965 has had enforcement provisions written in the bill. we all know this. so to repeat myself, along with the 72% of americans, we don't trust our government to enforce any of these provisions contained in any bill. until the government puts in place the complete fence, cameras, patrol officers etc etc will they regain our trust. illegals do not get a temp card on the day after the bills are signed as they would have. they get their get out of jail card when the fence is completely done. now they would have gotten it when it was started.

to show good faith the government has to build the 854 mile fence they approved and funded last october. barring the above there will be no agreement. as duncan hunter said last night--the government is not serious about border security. they have only built 11 miles of that 854 mile fence.

while all the dems and less than 10 repubs want to discuss the deck chairs on the titanic wiser minds will continue to press for the border being sealed first before we proceed with the party favors........

a good bill crafted by a presidental candidate is almost a sure road to the white house. thankfully most of the repub candidates support border security first and foremost.

and as for all the folks claiming to be repubs, i don't think so. when you find yourself supporting a bill approved by all dems and only 8 repubs and virtually none of the house members i think you have moved somewhere else. just my personal opinion of course.

The above hissed in response by: patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 6:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter

Well said, Patrick.

C'mon, Dafydd. You know better. We have elections every two years, not referendums. And if immigration had been on the ballot, we know which side would have won. In fact, a lot of Demos ran to the right on immigration last election cycle, and a lot of Republican voters stayed home (I think this was a bad idea, but they did) because of disgust over Republican ineptitude on this issue. I know there were other issues, but immigration was clearly in the mix. The lack of border enforcement was and is a major concern of the Republican base.

Now, the base is right where the American public is.

What to do now? With the American people lined up with the base, we move forward, not backward. A prior poster said it, as did Patrick: Do the enforcement that has already been promised. Do more, even. The public overwhelmingly will support this, if Republicans will show some spine.

Giving in now on "comprehensive" reform with no demonstrated commitment to enforcement is a violation of principles for many conservatives. We must continue to fight to get the govt to do its job. We will.

The public is continuing to come around on this issue, too, and as I have said, the Senate antics of late have helped in this regard.

It's not a matter of "giving conservative Republicans what they want". It's a matter of the people's representatives behaving or losing their jobs. It's a matter of defending the country.

I am tired of the political arguments from the bill's supporters ("it's the best we can hope for, give it to us or we die, you bigots"). These arguments have no merit, and the overwhelming majority of Americans is telling you this ... not just the big-bad-meanie conservatives like me, but average people.

People don't trust the govt on this issue, and with good reason. A very telling vote in the Senate this past week was the failure of an amendment that would have required the Congress to certify that border enforcement under the bill had been implemented b/f the goodies were distributed. Of course, it was defeated. But, I know, we need to trust them. They're from the govt and here to help.

Your bill is less popular than the Iraq War. If this fact won't wake you up, then you are lost in self-deception. Are the bill's supporters the only "enlightened, non-bigots" among us?

Give me a break.

The above hissed in response by: Daisy Cutter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 7:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

So the bill didn't get passed and we still have illegals swarming across the border, just like we would have if it had been passed. The difference is that since it didn't pass they're still illegal and there's still hope of doing something about the situation. There are a lot of people like me, and like Patrick apparently, who simply don't trust the Bush administration to follow up on enforcement no matter what's in whatever bill eventually passes. Show us a fence with guards behind it first, not just a promise to build one later, and then we'll be ready to discuss what to do about the people who got in before the fence went up.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 8:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

I see, so your point is that we just ignore the millions that slip in some other way and do nothing about all the people living here illegally now.

See what I'm talking about? I've said, deport as many as possible, and see them start to leave. You act as if that's "nothing", as if I've made no proposal at all.

That is the reality, DC, that we must live with: The same people who now say they want enforcement only (in this one poll you cite, but who say different things in different polls) earlier said, in a much more decisive way, that they want at the very least a comprehensive bill...You must deal with Majority Leader Reid

I heard him babbling for 20 minutes on the Senate floor about how hard he tried and how he had to admit he'd failed. I'd say we were dealing with him just fine.

Setting aside for a minute your rather odd theory that a loyal opposition electorate ought succumb to the majority agenda-- that we, the citizen constituent, are out of line to agitate for our own policy preferences-- I remind you that last year the Republicans were in power and you advocated the exact same policy options.

We need a greater ability to detect and capture illegals, we need a way to identify whether somebody is legally allowed to work, we need a way to determine whether an employer is knowingly hiring illegals and dissuade him, and we need governmental bodies which can handle the increased workflow in these areas.

That would certainly help, but the Administration already has the authority and manpower to sweep the warehouse districts, the fields, the garment centers, the docks, the taxpayer-built "day laborer centers" as used to be done before the illegal population trebled. That nabbed so many illegal employees that it gave birth to the militant amnesty movement.

That doesn't happen because the Administration feels free to proclaim "de facto amnesty"--an attitude which dooms any trust that it will use expanded enforcement tools more effectively.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 12:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

I remind you that last year the Republicans were in power and you advocated the exact same policy options.

For exactly the same reason: Because with the power to filibuster, the Democrats can stop any enforcement-only bill the Republicans try to pass.

The Yell, Rovin, Daisy Cutter, Patrick Neid, and even Bill Faith -- you guys live on a different planet on this issue than I. In my world, we have an incredibly closely divided Congress that can stop any one-sided bill (on either side), and where at the moment, the Democrats control the committees and the agenda.

I live on a planet where nothing will happen, nothing will get done, and there will be no major "surge" in immigration enforcement until and unless there is a compromise between Democrats and Republicans on a bill.

But you guys seem to live on a planet where the mystical power of "the people" will cause seemingly hard-core left-liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer and Dick Durbin, and John Conyers and Pat Leagy to crumble, giving away their position and power to help Republicans enact an "enforcement only" program that is anathema to the liberal base of the Democratic Party.

I don't see it; but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 1:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd, you might as well have a long time with a brick wall. We went through this last time when they looked at the polls and were just sure that taking a hardline position would help them win seats. The fact that they were wrong has not had any impact.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 3:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

You see I think what they overlook is that they believe they can win seats in the House by riding this issue, completely oblivious to the fact that it backfired on them the last time.

Not to mention, if you spend all your time undermining the government and saying it is bad and useless and does not want to solve the problem you do not end up with a majority, you end up with the Minute Men and all their direct mail scam issues.

So if people in a poll say they want a problem fixed, they want it fixed. They don't want it bitched about forever to no avail and the Democrats have their own way of fixing things...and right now they are the ones winning the elections. Thanks in large part to the right itself.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 3:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

Suppose the very real problem of road construction were jobbed as an Omnibus Road Bill, the lone opportunity for Congress to deal with bridges, highways, byways, overpasses, cloverleafs, mountain roads, supertransits, and rights-of-way for the decade? Comprehensive and exclusive road construction legislation--the one, the only road bill permitted to be considered?

We'd become a nation of mud tracks and log roads.

Yes, we're obdurate. We've noticed that building a popular movement from beyond Congress, despite Congress, is a fine way to reshape the Congress.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 4:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Terrye: The problem for you is the people in the poll don't want problem fixed this way at all.They want the border secured, laws enforced, then amnesty later, maybe.They don't want amnesty now, laws ignored, and border security never.So far thanks to Bush we've pretty much the Democratic approach all along-no enforcement, no border. In 2008 we may well get a choice between the permanent rolling amnesty you want and border security and law enforcement that the American people want.If so we'll see what the people choose.If not, we may as well march off the cliff without GOP support-since the Democrats will "fix" things anyway.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 4:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: patrick neid

as stated above:

"But you guys seem to live on a planet where the mystical power of "the people" will cause seemingly hard-core left-liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer and Dick Durbin, and John Conyers and Pat Leagy to crumble, giving away their position and power to help Republicans enact an "enforcement only" program that is anathema to the liberal base of the Democratic Party."

you keep running out this straw dog. no one, and i mean no one has called for a "enforcement only"
program. that's the canard you continue to print because the hole you folks have dug for yourself doesn't allow cognitive thought to operate any longer.

the bill(s) that are going to pass--and they will pass, is enforcement first--what part of first don't you understand. 72% of the american people understand this very clearly. you are the fringe. you are the extremists. you supported a bill you had not even read. need i say more.

after the enforcement bill is enacted and completed the second part of immigration reform will start--not a moment before.

for the love of god at least read this editorial. this is the majority position on immigration not your trotted out hobgoblins about what congress can and can't do.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/why_the_senate_immigration_bill_failed

i'll repeat what i have said all along, here and at other sites etc. the majority of the folks that supported this bill and all the prior ones are fundamentally against closing the border either by hiding behind the enacting of bad legislation or through the dismissing of enforcement issues already in print. when the 854 miles of previously passed and funded fence is built and completed we'll talk. until then the government and its supporters can not be trusted. that obviously includes some of you here.

The above hissed in response by: patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 10:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

patrick neid
"i'll repeat what i have said all along, here and at other sites etc. the majority of the folks that supported this bill and all the prior ones are fundamentally against closing the border either by hiding behind the enacting of bad legislation or through the dismissing of enforcement issues already in print. when the 854 miles of previously passed and funded fence is built and completed we'll talk. until then the government and its supporters can not be trusted. that obviously includes some of you here."

Wow some of the commenters can't be trusted you say.
First, I would use a term other than "close the border". I think you mean get the border under control so that we can control migration. However looking at the comments on forums, blogs, and emails I receive that term means something far more expansive. IE Look at the Kansas City Port controversy, the supposed "Nafta Highway controversy", and the NAU stuff.

Second, I have yet to see how devoting all these resources to building a fence a Fence is going to do much. I can live with it , but it seems to be a conservative version of a big feel good govt project that will nothing. I much rather spend that money on Employer verification, interior workplace enforcement and virtual border technolgy.

Third,there is a valid concern that goal posts will just be moved. The regularrization issue seems to be a nonstarter forever as to the illegals on the blogs. Orgainizations like FAIR, CIS, NUMBERSUSA, are examples of that. That is what is what is often holding back enforcement first from passing

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 10:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

xennady:
Terrye: The problem for you is the people in the poll don't want problem fixed this way at all.They want the border secured, laws enforced, then amnesty later, maybe.They don't want amnesty now, laws ignored, and border security never

The problem is that the laws as a practical manner cannot be enforced. This blogger has showed that a million times but I shall go throught it again

The issue is work place enforcement. As predicted in 1986 the wrok place enforcement part of the bill would fail because as a practical manner prosecutions cannot be won on the average. There are not unlimited Federal Lawyers to prosecute nor are their unlimited Public defenders for defandants, nor are their unlimited judges to hear these cases. As we continue to Federalize Crimes there is less resources. Thus resources are diverted to areas where the Govt can make a difference

Now as to the Law. The Govt must prove that the the Employer Knowingly and intentionally that he hired a illegal alien. I believe that this has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, with the document forgery etc this case is very hard to prove. The law is impractical. Also the fines are nothing more than a operating expense. THe new law with the new ID, the workplace verfication system, heavy fines is what was needed in 86. However we get none of that if we don't make a deal to get 60 votes in the Senate and get a bill passed the House. That is just reality and just saying ENFORCE THE LAWS really doesn't solve the problems.

Further we are not slaves to law. Laws serve us. At some point we must take a look at our various national interest and see if there needs to be changes

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 10:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

xennady:

The problem with you is that you pick the poll that works for you and you ignore the rest of them and then act as if the poll even means anything in terms of the law anyway.

If you asked me if I think border security is a priority I would say yes. However, most hardliners say they will never support any kind of amnesty in spite of the fact that almost every poll done shows support for regularization. And they just ignore that.

And I think asking people if they want the laws enforced is stupid. The question is not if they want the laws enforced, who doesn't? The question is do we have the resources to do that at present without additional legislation from Congress. Asking Americans if they want to see laws enforced is ridiculous, of course they do.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 11:07 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Isusportsfan: I disagree.Despite his honorable efforts Dafydd has failed to convince me.I've recently seen TV ads from the government warning me of dire consequences if I don't wear my seat belt.Now if the government has ample resources to run ads like those it can just as easily run ads warning of dire consequences to those who hire illegal aliens.And I doubt-should I get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt-that I will end up with a jury trial.If fines are just an operating expense, so are wages.And if wages don't matter why would anyone hire illegals in the first place? And there aren't unlimited prosecutors or legal resources to enforce any law.Yet as I noted the government somehow found the resources to begin a new campaign to make people wear their seat belt.Hmmmm.Furthermore if Uncle Sugar can't enforce the law now just how do think adding 700+ more pages will help? It won't.The problem is that George Bush and congress just don't want illegal immigration stopped.They conjured up this 700 page monstrosity to tap dance around that fact and hope nobody noticed.They have.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 11:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Terrye: I'm a hardliner and I would cheerfully support amnesty if the border was secured first.From what I've read that isn't an especially rare position.I'm gratified to see that you think border security should be a priority and that the law should be enforced.It seems we really don't disagree that much after all.But I do not believe this bill will achieve what we both want.As I wrote above, I believe it was deliberately structured to fool the public into thinking the problem was being fixed while nothing positive would actually be accomplished at all.Thus, I will not support it.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 12:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

xennady:

I don't know how to make this plainer: I have no problem with securing the border first, in fact when I heard that there were triggers in the bill I thought that was a good idea. of course the hardliners blew that off because our government sucks and can't be trusted blah blah blah. But, without some mechanism in there to appease the Democrats and make them believe that the hardliners will not hang the rug out from under them once they get what they want....that will not happen. You keep acting like you can just blow that off.

it is like dealing with children.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 1:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

BTW, this is a gift to the Democrats. They will only gain if Republicans can not pass a bill. They will not be penalized for any socalled failure to secure the border and they will make huge inroads among the hispanic community who has generally been treated like crap during the course of this socalled debate. And I am not talking about illegals either, I am talking about taxpaying American citizens without whom the Republican party can not carry states like Florida or Texas.

The truth is the Democrats no doubt think the righties will never believe that border is secure enough to move to the next step and so both sides want guarantees.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 1:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Terrye:

BTW, this is a gift to the Democrats. They will only gain if Republicans can not pass a bill. They will not be penalized for any socalled failure to secure the border and they will make huge inroads among the hispanic community who has generally been treated like crap during the course of this socalled debate.

Not necessarily; read our current post!

We have the power to turn the onus of this failure one way -- or the other; it all depends upon whether our political savvy outweighs our vindictiveness.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 7:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Dafydd, I'll have more to say in the comments on your newer post.

Terrye, I can certainly identify with your comment about dealing with children. Children are born very trusting and need a few lessons in real life to get over their naiveté. Some of us have learned from those lessons and aren't about to fall for a promise from the Bush administration to build a fence next year if we'll just start handing out Parole Cards (see Dafydd's latest) this year. Congress authorized a fence last year. Where is it? Under the right President (his name's Fred) things might look different. For now there are huge numbers off us, enough, as we just demonstrated, to make a whole lot of noise, who'd rather have no new legislative action of any sort than a bill that include amnesty now and a fence later.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 7:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Terrye: I don't know how to make this plainer: The people that wrote this bill don't want to secure the border ever. That's the problem. That's why the fence didn't come first. That's why a gigantic bill supposedly intended to solve an enormous problem was written almost secretly and why its supporters attempted to shove it through the senate with almost no debate and no amendment. You don't do that if want to solve a problem-you do if you want to cover up NOT solving a problem. I'd love to see you explain just how the eeeevil hardliners are going to pull the rug out from under the saintly Democrats when the Democrats control congress and the president sides with them-unless you actually believe the Democrats KNOW what they are attempting is extremely unpopular and demand cover from the GOP before they will attempt it. The reason why the Democrats are doing this is because they know 70+ percent of those illegal and formerly illegal hispanics will vote Democratic regardless of of how much George Bush kisses their @ss.Cold cash beats warm kisses any day, and cold cash is how Democrats win support. Just ask William Jefferson. How can you not have noticed this? All those formerly illegal aliens are why California is no longer a Republican state. And if the Democrats aren't penalized for their outrageous stance, it's only because Bush and some Republicans lack the guts or the sense to challenge them.Given the choice between one pro-amnesty party and another, the voters will pick the pro-amnesty party every time-or just stay home. If you think the hispanic community has been treated like crap-hell, treat ME like crap! Immunity from US law, taxes optional, free health care- even instate tuition to whichever state I happen to be in. Treat me like crap, Uncle Sugar! Yes, Terrye it's like dealing with a child-and a retarded one at that.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 3:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

If you think the hispanic community has been treated like crap-hell, treat ME like crap! Immunity from US law, taxes optional, free health care- even instate tuition to whichever state I happen to be in. Treat me like crap, Uncle Sugar!

...I wonder if Xennady realizes he just casually equated illegal aliens and the entire Hispanic community?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 5:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

The people that wrote this bill don't want to secure the border ever.

This is just not true.
Sen. Kyl of AZ and Sen. Cornyn of TX helped write the bill and I know they want very badly to secure the border.

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 1:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Dafydd: I was responding to what Terrye wrote. If he or she didn't mean the illegal alien subset of the Hispanic community then I'm at loss to understand the meaning of "treated like crap" in this instance. As I'm sure you would agree most Americans of Hispanic descent are treated and behave just like everyone else. They pay taxes, obey US law, serve in the military, and even run for president. So if anyone equated the entire Hispanic community with illegal aliens, it was Terrye.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 3:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

JenLArt: They HELPED write the bill. But the pro-amnesty party has a majority in the senate and some Republican senators and the Republican president is on their side. If either Kyl or Cornyn were writing this bill as part of a senate with a majority of pro-enforcement senators and the backing of a pro-enforcement president it obviously would look very different. In that case I would write that the authors of an immigration bill wanted to secure the border even though such a bill would also have pro-amnesty co-authors.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 3:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

If either Kyl or Cornyn were writing this bill as part of a senate with a majority of pro-enforcement senators and the backing of a pro-enforcement president it obviously would look very different
I believe that the President is pro-enforcement as much as he is for a guest worker program (and NOT amnesty). We can have a laundry list of what we want in a dream world that we wish could exist, but these men--Bush, Cornyn and Kyl--are dealing with the way the world is, not as they wish it would be. This is the world of real politik and that of the "now" with a slight Dem majority in the House and Senate, not a fantasy world where everyone's a hard-line enforcement proponent.

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 4:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

JenLArt: I was explaining why I chose the words I did to characterize the authorship of this bill, not imagining any fantasy world. No offense, but if you think George Bush is pro-enforcement, you're living in a fantasy world.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 12, 2007 3:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

xennady, I do indeed think he is pro-enforcement.
Since he's been President, the wall/fence is getting built and many more illegals are being picked up and deported.
This just didn't happen under previous administrations.
Also, he very much wants this bill to pass and it includes plenty of things that are enforcement tools.

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 12, 2007 3:41 AM

Post a comment

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

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved