Captain's Quarters -

Captain,
Basically you are telling, that we are doomed anyway. I can't accept that.
Sorry.

I'm going to disagree. If our country is willing to stage elaborate sting operations for a sandwich bag of marijuana, I'm pretty sure we can put effort into finding illegal aliens and deporting them.

Without that effort, no bill passed is ever going to work. Why should they apply for these Z-visas in the first place?

Are you telling me that if a temporary guest worker's two years are up, he's going to leave the country? Why should he?

And why would the fence keep them in? They don't have to sneak their way out of the country.

Anybody cross into Mexico at a border crossing without any identification check. It's only when you cross from Mexico to the US that you are asked for identification. No one is trapped from going back to Mexico.

So they can simply go back if they were motivated to do so. Lack of employment is certainly one such logical motivation.

To me, any serious attempt to control illegal immigration would focus on stopping the flow first then and only then tackle the status of those already here. Since this bill attempts both I predict the safeguards will turn out to be specious elements used to get the votes for passage. They will not be enforced vigorously, but it will be too late.

Remind me again how much money has been allocated to building the border fence that was approved by Congress? I'm almost certain the number is close to zero.

And you assume th Congress is suddenly going to keep it's word now? What world do you live in again?

The Captain may see the problem as hopeless and that we should all cave in. Thank God he isn't a position to make that decision for all of us.

"In the first place, the ICE has to find them, usually where they work."

Particularly since there are already areas in the US that proclaim themselves immigrant sanctuaries (NY/SF). Any effort to deport 12 million people would flounder upon resistance from aliens AND citizens.

The best is the enemy of the good. This Bill is an improvement on the chaos we now have.

Republicans don't want any real immigration reform anyway. They were in power for long enough and didn't bother. I guess it would be hard to give up all those half price nannies for the little ones and quarter price lawn care workers for the mansions... All they are really hope for is that all the issue is going to drop from the radar screen, as it once did and we’ll keep in fact a class of almost a slave laborers.
It al is wrong morally, wrong for US Citizens and wrong for people coming here for hope, but getting only slave labor and no rights (and “let’s keep it that way”). Our law makers seem to act with a cynical self interest and take only token actions, when the issue hits second pages.

The part that bothers me the most is that the security fence is now going to be les than 400 miles long. I have never seen a map which shows where it is supposed to be built, what is being left out, and a mile by nile justification for inclusion or exclusion.

Secondly, this matter of a $5000 fine seems like window dressing to shut up dissent. I can easily see a loan sharking type of cottage industry arising to handle the fine payment, thus it is really no barrier to anything, and these law breakers get to stroll right back into the country.

I keep hearing half a loaf is better than no loaf, but our half keeps getting smaller. At some point, I and people like me will cease to trust the political establishment.

Faithful lurker and fan.

Ed, I disagree strongly. This is not an impossible situation to correct. Sad to see you give up on this, is the war next?

No Captain. For starters, you MAKE a law that all illegals identify themselves by a certain period. IRS already knows this by their TIN’s system. After that period of time, the remainder goes on the ICE ‘most wanted’ list. Caught after deadline, automatic deportation, regardless of ‘anchor baby’ criteria (which is to be argued separately by DoJ at SCOTUS?) Sanctuary Cities need to be determined to be illegal and Fed funding is pulled for refusal to act.

That is the starter. It won’t happen ‘cause there’s more nefarious plans going on behind the congressional scenes, that if brought to the forefront, will be claimed by the powers as being some ‘lunatic fringe conspiracy theory.’

Challenging post, a couple of points that I hadn't considered.

I would add one other point supported by anecdotal evidence, so take it for what you will.

I live in San Antonio, only an afternoon's drive to Mexico. Unemployment here is running officially at about 4.5%.

Just about every employer I know is hiring somebody. I recently spoke to a guy who runs an employment agency, and I asked him what he needed, openings or people. He told me if he could fill all the positions he had on his list right now, he could probably retire.

That 4.5% includes a bunch of unemployables, at least around here - one position I'm aware of had 40 applicants, not one of which had held ANY job for a year.

Another factor: Texas gets revenue thru sales taxes instead of income taxes, so the illegals have a much harder time evading their obligations.

So if you subtract all the illegals working in South Texas, and add their jobs to the mix, I think I can make a pretty good case that Texas would come out a loser in the bargain - illegals are doing jobs the last legal but unemployable types around here wouldn't touch, and wouldn't endure long if they did deign to take the job at all.

Theoretical absolutist approaches sound nice, but then communism's basic pitch sounded real appealing too. Most sales pitches do.

The Captain's post is pragmatic and raises real-world problems. And there is another issue - some of you may not have noticed but Mexico is going to hell. The only place more dangerous for journalists is Iraq and 22 people died this week in a 5 hour gun battle not too far from Arizona.

We could easily find ourselves deporting the same populations trying to get out of hell over and over and over. Sound appealing to you? Me either. And oh yeah, the border is thousands of miles long, and the illegals and the cartels both dig like gophers. And oh yeah, there's a war on, so maybe we don't have unlimited resources to throw at this problem.

I don't have a perfect solution, but let's not rake people over the coals because they have fallen from the pure faith of a theory.

Hey Tristan, Lanny, TomB, if you want to argue, address the points raised, and offer a better solution or another alternative that at least addresses some of these issues. Otherwise, go check out the temperance movement in the 1920s and see how well that worked out in the real world.

No Captain. For starters, you MAKE a law that all illegals identify themselves by a certain period. IRS already knows this by their TIN’s system. After that period of time, the remainder goes on the ICE ‘most wanted’ list. Caught after deadline, automatic deportation, regardless of ‘anchor baby’ criteria (which is to be argued separately by DoJ at SCOTUS?) Sanctuary Cities need to be determined to be illegal and Fed funding is pulled for refusal to act.

That is the starter. It won’t happen ‘cause there’s more nefarious plans going on behind the congressional scenes, that if brought to the forefront, will be claimed by the powers as being some ‘lunatic fringe conspiracy theory.’

Ed,

1. What does Congress do well now? A Democratic congress enforcing a border that keeps out their potential constituents? yeah.

2. If your favorite restaurant were handing out an unlimited number of "Eat for free for Life" VIP cards, you wouldn't run over there and grab one?

3. I've had a couple Careless Driving tickets and I would like a reward. Maybe a card that gives me immunity from tickets?

4. Of course they won't self-deport. There's a prize waiting here for them.

#l - The days since we could trust Congress to do ANYTHING in our interests, have long since passed. The "illegal" advocates in California and Texas who are going to provide the Democrats with millions of new voters are already screaming that this bill is too tough and that there is no way an [illegal] immigrant can pay back taxes or a $5000 fine.
Look for that to go away.

#2 Hew Hispanic Research Center did a study and found that over 40% of Mexican nationals wanted to come to the United States. That is over and above what is already here. So now, the trick is to sneak into our country prior to the enactment of this bill so that you can claim you were here on Jan. 1, 2007 and we have no way of proving differently. And if history is any indication of what happens when you grant amnesty, one only has to look at the 1986 amnesty when the flood gates really opened as they all hoped for another anmenty if they just stayed here long enough.

#3 The point that you can't deport 12 million people is moot. If you do not provide jobs, education, social services and the reasons for being here, why stay? The Wetback Program deported approx. 80,000 illegals yet it is estimated that another 1.8 million self deported. If we are going to grant amnesty after amnesty for those who sneak into the country, why have a Border Patrol? Just eliminate that agency and use the money that it is going to take to provide for a new crop of uneducated (60% of all illegals have less than a high school education) proverty level residents.

#4 It works. Research the Wetback Program. Have you ever crossed the border, say at Hidalgo, Texas? When you enter Mexico, if you are a Hispanic, you are not asked for any I.D. My friend, a Tejano, was not asked for I.D. but I was because it is clear I am not of Hispanic heritage. And so those who came across the Rio Grande to get in, will go across the Rio Grande in the same manner. The difference is that, unlike our government, the Mexican Army patrolling the Mexican border will shoot at you.

Great legislaturers take tough problems are create real solutions. Our current crop of D.C. leeches took a tough problem and put a band-aid on it.

Ed,

1. What does Congress do well now? A Democratic congress enforcing a border that keeps out their potential constituents? yeah.

2. If your favorite restaurant were handing out an unlimited number of "Eat for free for Life" VIP cards, you wouldn't run over there and grab one?

3. I've had a couple excessive speeding tickets and I would like a reward. Maybe a card that gives me immunity from tickets?

4. Of course they won't self-deport. There's a prize waiting here for them.

Sounds like Captains Quarters is lining up behind Ted Kennedy on this one. Sorry to see that.

While nobody to my knowledge has the final text of the bill at this point (something which ought to send up red flags in and of itself), my understanding from press accounts is that illegals will be given an instant amnesty card just for applying. While securing full citizenship involves a series of modest hurdles like paying a fine and going through an application process, those who choose not to do so are still protected from deportation and are basically here legally. How long before these 'probation card' holders are then put on welfare rolls, invite others into the country etc etc etc? Not long, and why not? They are no longer illegal.

Those saying we cannot deport 13 million are unable to explain how we can process 13 million applicants. This would involve a massive expansion of a bureaucracy that cannot handle the load. It would invite fraud and abuse on a level making Katrina look like a picnic.

No bill is better than this monstrosity. This bill must be blocked. Captain, swim toward the light.

Re your comments on Point 4. You ask for proof - I suppose the simple question really is: what percentage of those 11-12 (or 18...whatever) million illegals plan on staying in the US permanently? From reports I've read, many of them stay but a few months or years and then return to their homes south of the border. This is a critical part of the self-attrition argument. Your assumption seems to rely on the belief that all of them wish to live here permanently, and that isn't so. There is a natural attrition that will occur, with or without employer raids.

In addition, there are many thousands of these illegals who on their own present themselves to US authorities via traffic citations or arrests. The fact that few of these individuals who find themselves in this circumstance are deported is absurd. In fact, one might argue that these people should be among the first to be deported, especially those who are arrested for felonies or serious misdemeanors.

I have no interest whatsoever in providing an easier pathway to citizenship to any person who has no expressed desire to become a citizen or any discernable loyalty to the United States. Frankly, any individual who has followed our actual immigration requirements and patiently waited in their homeland, year after year, for the opportunity to come to America and become a citizen should feel like an absolute schmuck right about now.

"Some say that Congress will just ignore the law anyway. If so, then you can't trust Congress to do anything, so even if they passed a border-security-only plan, you still can't support it. That's an argument for futility, where one does not believe in the legislative system any more."

Amazing how you hit the nail on the head.

The answer is let the immigrants who want to contibute to the American society in, but don't reward those who are here just for the free ride. I am not in favor of amnesty, but we must be realistic here. If we don't have the will to enforce a law, then what good is the law.

In any case, without enforcement it is all a farce. Wilthout appropriating and spending the appropriate money, it is all a farce. If it takes 1000 pages to describe what you are goingd to do, it will be a farce once youo get into the court system.

This law is just a series of steps for the politicos in Washington to complicate the process so much they can blame some else when it does not go right. That is why I do not believe in the legislative process anymore.

olddeadmeat,
Let's just give up and play dead.
Most of the things you are telling is because of 20+ years of noaction after 30+ years of noaction. They don't treat us seriously.
You talk jobs? Create easy to apply system of working visas and ENFORCE THEM. If your grass is taken care of by somebody withut work permit - you pay. Next time YOU will be more carefull whom to hire.

Argument 1:

If they pass an enforcement plan first, and do nothing, we're merely back to the status quo ante.

If they do amnesty first (as this bill does), and then do nothing on enforcement, then we're worse off than we were under the status quo ante.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

If real enforcement is the price for eventual consideration of amnesty, then pro-amnesty types will have an incentive to support real enforcement. If amnesty comes first, they won't. Most of those who want amnesty do not actually want enforcement. They must be forced to support it by withholding any consideration of amnesty until enforcement is in place.

Argument 2:

So, you're saying that the fact that the last amnesty+enforcement deal was an enormous failure is an argument for supporting this one?

Phew!

Argument 3:

This argument is quite simply made in bad faith. No serious person is suggesting that enforcement should consist solely (or even primarily) of active efforts to round up and deport all the illegals. Deport those we can, yes, but what we really need to do is...

Argument 4:

...make sure they can't get work or government services. If they come here for a better life (as amnesty and open-borders advocates assure us that they do), then let's make sure they don't get one. Then what would they have to stay for? I really doubt that life in America is much better than life in their home countries if they are entirely cut off from the opportunity that characterizes that life.

Will they all leave? Of course not. But many of them will. And many fewer will come.

You want us to support the amnesty plan when we've already been scammed once, but we shouldn't support enforcement of the law because we don't have proof that it will work? Shouldn't we at least try to do the right thing before we give up?

And the idea that securing the border will mean that people can't get out is just weird. Is that really where you think our border-security efforts are going to go? Keeping them in? You have a twisted, Michael-Mooreish view of this nation if you think that border security means a new Berlin Wall. If the Mexicans want to keep them out, then the Mexicans can figure out what to do with them.

"If we really want to solve the porous border and the immigration issue, then we need to start somewhere to stop the problem from getting worse first."

True enough. So why do you support amnesty, which will do no such thing?

Ed:

You are missing the reality of present events. Your argument is to make a reasonable-person defense of the Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill. But there is no bill, nor has a deal been made on a bill that will reach Bush.

What you have, instead, is a stalking horse bill written to get -- Bush and Kennedy hope -- at least 60 R and D votes for cloture. If cloture is invoked, Reid, Pelosi, Raza, MALDEF and others then intend to write the bill that reaches Bush.

That there is no deal is evident in revealingly instantaneous statements by Reid and Pelosi that they want changes. With whom, then, were the WH and Kyl "negotiating?" Kennedy! He showed up to talk to us! He probably said he would give a good try to save the little window-dressing provided to people who might defend the non-existent "deal." EMK, hypothetically: "I'll vote for cloture on this. I might vote no on post-cloture amendments opposed by Kyl. I might even urge Ds to join me. But I can't guarantee anything on our side. You understand." Oh, yeah, I understand. This is not a deal, and we were -- as is our habit -- negotiating mainly with ourselves. White House, hypothetically: "How close can we get to what Bush and Kennedy want, and still get cloture?"

You're not looking at a bill or a deal. You are looking at a merely political contrivance to get cloture as quickly as possible, and with as little debate as possible.

Am I happy? Hell no!! But, since a goodly majority of the "voters" in this country couldn't care less about what Congress does, and this Congress in particular, this is the best we're gonna get. The illegals have won. Their supporters took pages from the African-American playbook regarding racism threats and entitlements and used it far more effectively for themselves. Most come here to find a job, sure, but the attitudinal change in the past thirty years has gone from one end to the other. Today the illegals feels this is their "due" and they are entitled to everything this country has to offer without truly contributing. That the secular progressives, socialists and anarchists have helped (they are the 30% polls always show hate this country) is icing on the cake for the tinfoil hatted leftist loons beginning with Kennedy to Pelosi and every hispanic politician, particularly California. America has changed drastically and will never be the same. Only the future will tell whether this change bodes good or ill.

Joining the dogpile:

1. You're begging the question. Why would any sane individual believe they would enforce laws not yet written on a subject that they refuse to enforce existing law on?

Your proposed counterpoint of a lack of belief is well taken. Congress is flying high at 29%. Well, 'high' in the Adams sense of throwing yourself at the ground and trying to miss.

2. "We have to do something!" Perhaps, during your hand-wringing, you missed the point that every amnesty leads to a greater problem. This has been shown repeatedly here and in Europe. So if we "must do something!" I submit knitting to keep your hands busy, as throwing kerosene on the bonfire is certainly counter productive.

3. Yes, yes. I could only picture you with your pinky in your mouth as you typed the ridiculously large number of '12 million'. If it will take too much manpower to find them and enforce the law now, then it will take the same manpower to do the same with the 'enforcement triggers' of which you are so fond. I know you're a sharper knife then this so I can only surmise you haven't thought this through enough.

Though, honestly, your objections strike me more of those that continue to white knuckle their inhalers over the ridiculously large number of 'insurgents' in Iraq. And the ridiculously large amount of manpower required. And the ridiculously large amount of time it is taking. If, to you, military occupation on a far greater scale half-way 'round the globe is feasible then who should take your concerns over simple domestic law enforcement seriously?

4. Others have mentioned to Operation Wetback already so I'll defer to them. Really, I thought this was already well established. After all this is the line the labor enforcement types have been carrying on about so long.

There seems to be as much emotion in this debate as there is reason. In the end, I agree with the Capn. This certainly isn't perfect, far from it. But let's be reasonable, it's a better deal than was being discussed last year in a Republican Congress. Does anyone want to take our chances on immigration in 2009 with possibly a Democrat led Congress and White House?

You are just wrong on this, Captain.

Instead of people like Fred Thompson issuing blog statements, I would rather see him holding a press conference right now telling the MSM and the rest of the world that this is a very bad bill. That, coupled with Mitt Romney’s recent comments would go a long way toward killing this bill before it ever sees the Senate floor. Mitt or Fred will have at least one less candidate to worry about, though, as McCain is finished.

The C.I.S. cannot handle its case load now, so how will it possibly deal with assimilating up to 12,000,000 illegals? The real losers here are those immigrants following the laws, getting in line, and suffering the hardships required to enter this country the way our esteemed legislative body decreed long ago. They will be shunted to the end of the line as we put all our emphasis on the illegals. Damn the amnesty program- where is the enforcement? Even the fence has been cut back about 50%, and who really thinks what’s left of it in the bill will ever get built?

As Ronald Reagan once stated, “A country without secure borders ceases to be a nation.”

I must say I am shocked at the shoddy thinking of "Argument #3". Essentially you say that since it is so onerous as to be a near impossibility to deport all illegals we should give up on the idea of deportation as the punishment for illegally being in this country; since we can not have perfection in the enforcement of a law, we should just not bother trying. No laws are enforced to perfection. It is just as impossible to catch and punish every mugger and petty thief in America, so should we simply stop trying? Of course not.

And please, do not try to say that the comparison to mugging or theft is unfair to illegal aliens because they don't victimize others. I tend to have about $60 or so in my wallet at any given time, so if I get mugged that's how much I lose. Providing social services to the millions of illegals in this country has already cost me far more than $60 in taxes and will cost me even more once they are granted amnesty. These people have undertaken an illegal action that is more damaging to me than someone stealing my wallet ever could.

People who support amnesty wring their hands and say "There's nothing else we can do. What can we do?"
We don't need to worry about trapping illegals in the US when we tighten the border. The first step should be to enforce laws against hiring illegal aliens. As distasteful as this may seem, once the jobs dry up, the people who are here to improve the lives of their families will no longer have any point to stay. They will leave. Of course the ones here for mayhem may have to be forceably ejected, but, don't tell me that the major portion of the illegals here won't leave once the job prospects dry up. And, if the employment attraction dries up, our border security can be directed to those entering to do us harm. The major flow won't be there.

People who support amnesty wring their hands and say "There's nothing else we can do. What can we do?"
We don't need to worry about trapping illegals in the US when we tighten the border. The first step should be to enforce laws against hiring illegal aliens. As distasteful as this may seem, once the jobs dry up, the people who are here to improve the lives of their families will no longer have any point to stay. They will leave. Of course the ones here for mayhem may have to be forceably ejected, but, don't tell me that the major portion of the illegals here won't leave once the job prospects dry up. And, if the employment attraction dries up, our border security can be directed to those entering to do us harm. The major flow won't be there.

I must say I am shocked at the shoddy thinking of "Argument #3". Essentially you say that since it is so onerous as to be a near impossibility to deport all illegals we should give up on the idea of deportation as the punishment for illegally being in this country; since we can not have perfection in the enforcement of a law, we should just not bother trying. No laws are enforced to perfection. It is just as impossible to catch and punish every mugger and petty thief in America, so should we simply stop trying? Of course not.

And please, do not try to say that the comparison to mugging or theft is unfair to illegal aliens because they don't victimize others. I tend to have about $60 or so in my wallet at any given time, so if I get mugged that's how much I lose. Providing social services to the millions of illegals in this country has already cost me far more than $60 in taxes and will cost me even more once they are granted amnesty. These people have undertaken an illegal action that is more damaging to me than someone stealing my wallet ever could.

I must say I am shocked at the shoddy thinking of "Argument #3". Essentially you say that since it is so onerous as to be a near impossibility to deport all illegals we should give up on the idea of deportation as the punishment for illegally being in this country; since we can not have perfection in the enforcement of a law, we should just not bother trying. No laws are enforced to perfection. It is just as impossible to catch and punish every mugger and petty thief in America, so should we simply stop trying? Of course not.

And please, do not try to say that the comparison to mugging or theft is unfair to illegal aliens because they don't victimize others. I tend to have about $60 or so in my wallet at any given time, so if I get mugged that's how much I lose. Providing social services to the millions of illegals in this country has already cost me far more than $60 in taxes and will cost me even more once they are granted amnesty. These people have undertaken an illegal action that is more damaging to me than someone stealing my wallet ever could.

OK,

Would everyone please take a deep breath and calm down? Some of your posts seems so mad you aren't seeing straight.

Maybe then you should read Daffyd's post the captain referenced in his earlier post.

3 other points:

1- Illegals are not the Borg, OK. Many of them are far more patriotic than many citizens. After all, many African-American citizens hold grudges for what America did to their ancestors. Many illegals look on us as their SALVATION from what repressive regimes or drug cartels did to their brother, father, or daughter. They love being here and they love this country. AL-Q would be better off recruiting Black Panthers than Latin illegals.

The point: they don't make us vulnerable to Islamic terrorism. If anything, give them the chance, and they will join the fight because they know a good thing when they see it. Why else do you think they came here?

2- It's not just what they are coming to, it's what they are coming from. The worst we can offer illegals - even if they lived off our garbage dumps, it's still 10 times better than the best chance they had at home. Heck, there are folks living off the garbage dumps of cities in Nicaragua. Do they even have Wal-Mart and Best Buy in Nicaragua? Bet our garbage dumps are 30 times better than the trash in Latin America.

The point: We can't make our country suck enough to make them want to go. Good thing, too.

3- Culturally, Latin immigrants and Asian immigrants assimilate very nicely into our nation. They are predisposed to support good family values and work pretty doggone hard.

The point: Give them a chance and they will contribute.

4- Given #3 above, there is every possbility of turning them into good conservative Republicans, except that some of the foot-in-mouth brigade in the conservative ranks keep convincing them the GOP has a secret KKK wing. The Dems encourage this, because they know otherwise they would never keep Latinos in the party.

The point: this whole freaking "amnesty" argument is not worth what it is costing the GOP politically - you are alienating people you should be recruiting, and there are a lot of other fish to fry.

5- Here's a thought, do you think it's easier to use them or lose them?

I'm a pragmatist on this point. You want to be here, great, get to work and pay your taxes, and maybe you can stay, there's plenty to do.

Besides, what if the Cherokee decide we don't deserve to be here either?

Sorry for the multiple post...it kept telling me it couldn't find the server....

The 2006 election had consequences. We lost. So, the choice we have now is between some slight variation of this bill, and doing nothing. We cannot just sit around and do nothing for another two years. That's why passing the bill is the better option of the only two choices. Don't look around for unicorns. They're not there. We can scream and shout all we want, but Ted Kennedy and the Democrat majority in Congress will not be impressed. Are you going to shame them into changing their mind? I don't think so. The best of two inferior choices is to pass the compromise bill. People like Sen. Kyl are just trying make the best of a bad situation.

"A man's gotta know his limitations." -Clint Eastwood.

ODM,

"Culturally, Latin immigrants and Asian immigrants assimilate very nicely into our nation."

Agree completely. Here in the DC area, I've noticed that the vast majority of Hispanics work their tails off, don't cause trouble and they are assimilating well.

I hired a first generation immigrant and his spanish only speaking father to renovate my condo and they did an incredible job in half the time and for half the price it would have cost to hire anyone else we looked at.

I just don't see the dangers predicted by those who are decrying this bill. If anything, it just acknowledges reality. We are not going to have mass deportations of illegals and I really don't see the cost benefit in the concept.

I don't see the social problems either. These people work harder than a good percentage of our native born population. If legalized, they will contribute.

Many of the arguments against this bill are the same ones that arose against generations of Italian, German and Irish immigrants around the turn of the century.

Immigration has worked out pretty well for this country and I don't see how this bill is going to change that record.

"The point: this whole freaking "amnesty" argument is not worth what it is costing the GOP politically - you are alienating people you should be recruiting, and there are a lot of other fish to fry."

Absolutely correct. The DNC has had a lock on the criminal vote for too long. And since the GOP can't break that lock... why not recruit the criminal immigrants? Brilliant!

"Besides, what if the Cherokee decide we don't deserve to be here either?"

Easy, we tell them: "Tough crap. Maybe you should have thought more about border security."

Illegial aliens are criminals. They should be arrested and deported.

English should be the official language of the US.

Lamont

Geistmaus:

The Dems succeeded in framing the argument as a GOP whites v. Dem Latinos issue. Many Latinos have been citizens since Texas was a republic.

They vote. You can split the hairs all you want, but the PERCEPTION in the Latino population is that this issue is driven by racism.

It's a pragmatic point, granted, but it is a reality of the situation.

The people rallying against this bill are ignoring the fact that this is a majority Democrat Congress- stopping this bill would mean that the Dems would just try (and possibly succeed) to pass one that contains none of the compromises the Republicans forced them to accept in this one.

People who support amnesty wring their hands and say "There's nothing else we can do. What can we do?"
We don't need to worry about trapping illegals in the US when we tighten the border. The first step should be to enforce laws against hiring illegal aliens. As distasteful as this may seem, once the jobs dry up, the people who are here to improve the lives of their families will no longer have any point to stay. They will leave. Of course the ones here for mayhem may have to be forceably ejected, but, don't tell me that the major portion of the illegals here won't leave once the job prospects dry up. And, if the employment attraction dries up, our border security can be directed to those entering to do us harm. The major flow won't be there.

People who support amnesty wring their hands and say "There's nothing else we can do. What can we do?"
We don't need to worry about trapping illegals in the US when we tighten the border. The first step should be to enforce laws against hiring illegal aliens. As distasteful as this may seem, once the jobs dry up, the people who are here to improve the lives of their families will no longer have any point to stay. They will leave. Of course the ones here for mayhem may have to be forceably ejected, but, don't tell me that the major portion of the illegals here won't leave once the job prospects dry up. And, if the employment attraction dries up, our border security can be directed to those entering to do us harm. The major flow won't be there.

We REALLY are the stupid party!

We REALLY are the stupid party!

Ed - so you support giving 12 million a free ride for their illegal activities? And an additional 900,000 a year a free ride during the accelerated "chain" immigration period, and an additional 400,000 guest workers a year? And giving all of these tuition assistance, welfare, Medicare, legal aid, and other statist programs?

Have you lost your MIND? So sad to see you roll over and be a lapdog Ed.

We CAN force the illegals to go home. Enforce the border. And enforce employment laws by fining EMPLOYERS of the illegals. Cut off all social services to illegals (require proof of eligibility before issuing the checks).

Its that simple.

And NO we cannot trust Congress - they passed a law last year for 700 miles of fencing, and have *2* miles built, and this bill allegedly reduces that to 370 miles.

So Ed, you're being stupid and you are wrong on this - and your arguments just tanked.

What now Captain? Gaping hole in your ship, and you're sinking with this bilge you've swallowed on immigration.

Show progress on the border FIRST, and ONLY. Then once the Congress and Government have demonstrated they can get a handle on this, then we can talk about immigration policy.

So stop ignoring reality that this is a bad law and we are better off enforcing the ones we now have - otherwise you'll end up like McCain, with your lips planted firmly on the Rear of Ted Kennedy.

Captain, it has been said several times and bears repeating:

No bill is better than a bad bill.

Why?

Because conservative principles matter?

Why?

Because if we do not govern by conservative principles we are governed by polls and offer no alternative to Democrats.

Re: Lamont Cransont at May 18, 2007 9:53 AM

Lamont Cransont wrote: "Illegial aliens are criminals. They should be arrested and deported."

What if they don't want to be arrested and deported? I think you should make everybody who smokes stop smoking. Start with an easy one. See how that goes.

So, they won't self-deport if the jobs dry up and will stay just for social services? But I thought they all came here because they were hard working American Dream seekers and that's why we should let them stay?

"They vote. You can split the hairs all you want, but the PERCEPTION in the Latino population is that this issue is driven by racism."

I'll pick that nit. The perception in the Democrat voting population is that it's driven by racism. Which is similar to the perceptions of the GOP held by other common DNC bloc voters. The blacks, for example.

Since the GOP has had little success with the other DNC blocs, what makes you think they'll have success with yet another that's already:

a) An ethnic minority
b) In sore need of social safety nets
c) Federal criminals

It's not just in the DNC favor, it's a Left-wing trifecta. So from a purely pragmatic viewpoint you're on the wrong side of your own argument. That's you.

Me? My pragmatism runs towards the health of my country long before that of the GOP.

Ed you are a crappy captain.

Your ship is taking on water, and you're more concerned with changing how you are bailing than fixing the hole.

Examine the arguments against this bill - its huge expansion of social rights of illegals, its amnesty rewarding those here illegally, the huge jump in "chaining" admissions, the guest worker parts that even the Democrats (Dorgan, ND) are attacking, the HUGE cost associated with all this.

And It leave me wondering how you can in good conscience fold on this. Its like accepting a ban on some guns, because its "the best we can do with this congress"

Ed, wrong is wrong. I thought you knew that. Apparently you are nearly as flexible on this as Ted Kennedy. Enjoy the company in which you have placed yourself. And please, no more pretentious posting as a conservative - you've blown that with your stupid and spineless settling for bad.

Let the pumps (present laws) do the bailing, we need to concentrate on containing and patching the growing hole in the hull.

Some captain you are, ignoring the breach.

Well, Captain, it was nice to know you before you got stuck on stupid.

Ed is drinking the Republican Party Kool-Aid and Hugh Hewiit is fighting back. What an interesting turn of events.

Ed -- The "it's impossible to deport 12 million..." is a very dishonest argument. You don't deport them, you cut off their job opportunities by jailing the CEOs of companies that hire them.

Olddeadmeat -- There is zero opportunity to turn them into conservative Republicans -- zero. You, Karl Rove, and Bush are living in a dream world if you think that's the case.

The only "good" thing this bill will accomplish is the reduction of the number of illegal aliens in the country. It will go to zero overnight. This will remove the term "illegal" from the discussion, and begin the process of pacification of those who oppose open borders. Eventually we will forget that guest workers arrived here in violation of our laws. They will have a status which does not denominate them as law-breakers, making it harder to oppose them.

What has not been discussed anywhere is the financial burden imposed on the country. At some point in our near future the economy is going to tank, dropping us into deep recession and most likely a depression (Social Security, foreign trade imbalances, declining dollar vs. Eurodollar, etc...) When the economy busts, who gets layed off first? Those with the lowest paying, lowest education-required jobs. Who holds those jobs? When they get layed off, will they go home, or will they hold out their hand and say, "I'm legal, I paid taxes, give me my unemployment money and SS benefits". This is at least 12 million (the current number down from 20 million just a year ago), in addition to the numbers of currently legal workers who also will be laid off. Does anyone believe the US Congress can fund benefits for the expected influx of immigrants?

You bet they can.....it's called higher taxes. Work harder white boy, you've got some new friends who need you to pay for their food, clothes, housing, and medical care on their way over right now.

Geistmaus:

You are a treasure. Unlike many others, you are thinking and reading. I invite you to review your assumptions and prove them. It may be in other regions I am wrong, but I will use Texas as justification for my argument.

Unlike some other groups - e.g. Gay activists, Communists and the Black Panthers, the immigrant groups I referenced are culturally conservative in their basic outlook, especially on family values.

As for criminality, I will cite San Antonio. When you look at our demographics, our murder rate should be 2-3 times as bad as it actually is. But we have a majority Latino population that tends to be very Catholic and very family oriented. Local sociologists cite this as a huge factor in why our city is so much more pleasant to live in than, say, Detroit. Anyone want to bet that Detroit has more illegal immigrants than San Antonio?

Yes, right now they criminals, but what is the better solution - put otherwise productive people out of the country repeatedly, or charge them admission to become non-criminals? Why not let them pay their debt to the society they so eagerly wish to join?

As for welfare, no one has ever accused Texas of being a welfare state. And hadn't you noticed that the GOP is in charge down here? Our Hispanic population (the majority here, I believe) doesn't seem to know they should all be on welfare and voting Democratic. No, they just keep on working.

Bluedog: If you are right the GOP is hosed - Latinos are outbreeding just about everyone.

Both of you, why don't you look at the 2000 election results? Look at how as Texas demographics shifted away from the white majority, the state became progressively more conservative and less Democratic.

Just about the only thing that really drives them back to the Dems is this issue.

To all the people more interested in flaming than real posting: grow up and read and think and then post, insults are beneath you. Why stoop to the level of the average Liberal poster?

Hey Bob, "white boy" just proves my point as far as pushing the wrong buttons. Welcome to the foot-in-mouth brigade.

Just some factual points.

There is more than a shred of proof that aliens will self-deport (a silly term, its really called 'going home').

1)After the 9/11 event there were reports of massive movement of illegals back across the Mexican border, for fear that the US would crack down on immigration.

2) Every year massive numbers Mexicans (many illegal) take 3-4 weeks off and visit family in Mexico, so much so that the Santa Ana school district has extended Christmas (oops! Winter) Holiday to accomadate them

3) A wall would not trap illegals in the country -- the US would certainly not stop someone from leaving who was here illegal, in fact in my experience no one checks you 'out' of the US (although Mexican officials check you in to Mexico, I don't see them not allowing their own citizens back in through a port of entry). There has been a case made that the common, circulatory pattern of immigration was disrupted by the meager barriers around population centers that we have now -- See work by Sociologist Douglas Massey. He claims Mexicans as less likely to leave because of the cost of sneaking back it. Problem is, he doesn't account for magnets such as Plyer v. Doe (his work is based on the amnesty period and walling period of the early 1990s)

Ed,

In all my years posting here i have never directed a comment towards you but your analysis on this subject is way off the mark. In fact it's border line delusional on these points:

Enforcement: there is no record that the government will enforce any provisions that are legally challenged. Who can forget the the 700 miles of fence approved just last fall as a election gimmick? What possesses you to think that any enforcement will take place if we can't even build that.

12 million illegals : why this canard or Orwellian doublespeak. 12 million is really 40 million. The compromise allows for spouses and children. Where are the hospitals, schools, roads etc for this immediate influx over the next several years? Who is going to check that these wives and children are actually who they say they are? The big money will be in small town mexican bureaucrats printing phony certificates.

new illegals: the electronic fence that everyone is hiding behind does not stop entry--it simply monitors the numbers. We now know that one million plus come across the border every year. Are we going to deport them if they have no proof of being here before january 2007? You have already answered that question--no. How you can think that after 40 years of not enforcing any laws connected to illegal immigration that we suddenly will is the definition of insanity. We all know the definition--repeating the same behavior expecting a different result. Ed you have lost your mind on this issue.

the original solution remains--build a 2000 mile fence like this

http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg

before we have any suggestions about other matters.

And finally, what is our moral responsibility to mexico? Are we allowed to hollow out their country to build ours while leaving theirs in a shambles. We are effectively stealing 40% of their 20-40 year old population. That doesn't sound very christian to me--all so you can have your cheap spinach and the lawn mowed!

Ed, you need to take a break and give this some more thinking. No bill is better than a bad bill.............in fact the status quo is much better than this sell out.

"Hey Bob, "white boy" just proves my point as far as pushing the wrong buttons. Welcome to the foot-in-mouth brigade"

Actually, my use of the term "white boy" harkens back to the popularity of a song by Wild Cherry - Play That Funky Music. I suppose I could have used bud, buddy, Mac, pal, dude, or some other term. Mea Culpa.

Is there any concern on your part about someone pushing "the wrong button" for me? Or do I need to just lay down and take my government-sponsored screwing like a man?

Captain Ed
Let me try to rebut point by point

1) There are security triggers but there is no guarantee that they will work or be effective. If we did border security first we could design a system with employee verification that does work then deal with the illegal hear already.
The current legislation again gives amnesty first promises of border enforcement the may or may not be effective. Given President Bush's lack of effectiveness and shall we say suspect sincerity on this issue, I think this is a huge risk with little gain.
2) Fake id's are a cottage industry now. This will prompt a run at the border with every illegal who wants to come her paying a coyote what $5,000 to get across the border plus some fake documents to prove they got her before January 2007, that will not be scrutinized, and $1,000 fine and they are legal now. Again security first and once its demonstrated that it works we could figure out what to do with people already here.
3) What respect for the law. We saw in the demonstrations last year that Illegals has a sense of entitlement. Just pay $1,000 dollars an the identity theft or fraud, being here illegally in the first place, skipping out on medical bills, working illegally and not paying taxes will all be forgiven. This demonstrates that all you have to do is get here and sooner or later you will get amnesty.
4) Back to the first point why don’t we try security first and see if through a combination of border security and enhanced work place regulations they don’t self deport. Again after the border is secured and good work place restrictions are in place we could figure out what to do with these illegals.

It’s an often used analogy but I think it fits, don’t you have your Plummer fix the leak in you basement before you start pumping out all the water.

Some others have spoken about how Latin American’s are more conservative and this will be a net positive in the long run. I think National Review does a pretty good of demolishing these theories. Latin Americans are reliable democratic voters and even those who vote republican tend to be on the more liberal side of the party. As evidence of this witness all of the far leftist governments in South America, much more leftist then even the Democrats here.

Sorry Captain Ed, but as you can probably see not many of us are buying what you are selling. I understand you sincerity, but history has shown that anything Ted Kennedy sponsors on this topic and supports is not designed to fix the problem but only make it worse. Again hat tip the NRO and their article in the Corner on the subject. As usual the devil is in the details and the details as they are coming out make this bill look even worse.

In the end Republican’s will suffer for this in the short run with many Republican’s who support this facing primary challenges or receiving less support in the general election from conservatives in 2008 and in the long run by speeding up the demographic shift of this country away from the Republican’s. The only positive is this will effectively end John McCain’s presidential run. Unfortunately we had to legalize 12 million illegals in the process.

[Government estimates suggest that foreign visitors who have overstayed their visas account for roughly 40 percent of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now in the United States. Immigration analysts say visa violators represent a greater portion of undocumented immigrants in the Boston area, with its huge student population and large concentration of European immigrants. The plans outlined by President Bush and Congress focus heavily on sealing the Mexican border -- by deploying National Guard troops, building fences, and using new technologies. But no amount of border enforcement will have an impact on ''visa overstays," because they don't cross the border illegally in the first place, said Deborah Meyers, a senior analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.]

( http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/20/border_initiatives_miss_huge_group/?page=full )

It will prompt a flood of illegals.
What do we have now?

I'm sorry. I thought we were trying to fix an acknowledged broken situation.

Do you seriously suggest that implementing a broken solution to a broken situation will yield anything other than a still-broken situation?

Captain,

I disagree with you on number 4. We do have evidence that it works and works very well.

Take a look at what Eisenhower did when faced with a similar situation in the fifties.

It is eye-opening, I assure you.

It's a slower morning than usual, so I will indulge myself by continuing some dialogue.

Bob:

Fair enough. - I know the song, but obviously didn't catch the reference.

I guess I am wondering how exactly this particular bill feels to you like you are being screwed.

Is it about paying taxes for gov't benefits to illegals?

I can see that being an annoyance in places like California which uses income taxes, but at least here, the effect of Federal welfare reform was that local illegals pretty much get bupkis. So, compared to other problems, taxes supporting illegals is way down on the list of ways the federal gov't screws me. To my mind, California could fix some of it's other problems (like switch to sales tax over income tax) and then maybe this issue wouldn't loom so large.

Matt - do you hate it when beautiful theories are slain by facts? See my previous post re: Texan demographics.

And if the National Review is right, then once again, the GOP is hosed, because even if the illegals go, whites will be a minority nationwide very soon from pure demographics. And if only whites vote Republican, then the GOP is doomed. Maybe the GOP should start trying to build bridges to ethnic communities instead of burning them.

Rush calling it the Comprehensive Kill the Republican Party bill. Exactly right. Amnesty = death of the GOP.

My goodness, how dumb are Bush and Rove? The Architect now looking more like Demolition Man.

From NRO The Corner:

Ted Kennedy on Immigration:

1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system."

Any predictions on when he goes back to the well for his next "fix"?

You've completely jumped the shark on this one Capt Ed. Do you even believe what you write anymore?

We have laws banning unauthorized entry into the country.

We have laws banning the hiring of illegals.

We have a law mandating the building of an 800 mile fence.

What do these have in common? None are enforced. Should we really expect the granting of amnesty to suddenly change that? How stupid would we have to be to believe that?

Build the damn wall, strengthen border security, enforce immigration law... THEN and ONLY then should we even consider what to do with the illegals here.

Your absurd, illogical, Bushbot stance on this is very disappointing Ed.

First off, I've been dealing with BCIS for 5+ years of time and money to legally have my wife here and get her green card. The system stinks.

I'm wondering why we bother having borders and visas and what-not if we're simply going to ignore them and say "well you're already here so..."

Nope, that doesn't sit at all well with me. Two reasons
1) Does ILLEGAL mean anything? Do you suppose Kennedy and company would be so sanguine about 12 million "undocumented" handgun owners?

2) If we're going to open the flood gates and let everyone in then let's start with all the H1-B people. Let's get people who are smart, motivated, and a real contribution to society first.

This whole "let's not do it because it's difficult" attitude is going to really hurt this country.

The crux of argument number 1 is: "Some say that Congress will just ignore the law anyway. If so, then you can't trust Congress to do anything, so even if they passed a border-security-only plan, you still can't support it. That's an argument for futility, where one does not believe in the legislative system any more."

Not quite, Ed. One can support "border security only" while at the same time mistrusting Congress's zeal in enforcing it. There's no inherent contradiction here.

I do trust this Congress to be active in enforcing laws that help liberals and "minorities". I don't trust this Congress to be active enforcing border security laws. Both their self-interest, and the history of past "enforcement" laws, suggest Congress will drop the ball if they can on border security.

That is precisely why we say, "Border security first", as a precondition for other changes. Frankly, I think Congress will drop the ball on enforcing a "border security only" law, but at least in that instance the amnesty won't take effect and the added incentives to cross the Rio Grande won't exist.

Amnesty and freebies for everyone! Yay!

wait...

Isn't this the BushHitlers Amerikkka?

I am confused.

There is a lot in this bill I am good with. But, I have a problem with granting indefinate permanent status (Z visas). And, I question why the temporary worker visa has a three strikes your out clause (why a limit to how many times someone can work here under a temporary visa)? It seems that encourages workers towards the permanent resident aspect rather than temporary worker aspect. I think we should look at Canada's temporary worker program (which works well without granting permanant residence or citizenship).

I agree that it is a good compromise bill between the two parties/two positions; but, I would prefer we secure the border first and then take the issues to task about what to do with the millions who are here illegally in a slow, methodical manner.

RE: Bob (May 18, 2007 10:41 AM)
This will remove the term "illegal" from the discussion, and begin the process of pacification of those who oppose open borders. Eventually we will forget that guest workers arrived here in violation of our laws. They will have a status which does not denominate them as law-breakers, making it harder to oppose them.

and

...At some point in our near future the economy is going to tank, dropping us into deep recession and most likely a depression (Social Security, foreign trade imbalances, declining dollar vs. Eurodollar, etc...) ...When they get layed off, will they go home, or will they hold out their hand and say, "I'm legal, I paid taxes, give me my unemployment money and SS benefits".

Exactly.

Despite the talk about how "terrible" the economy is from the MSM and the Democrat spinmeisters, we are living in quite prosperous times. Like any cycle, this will turn. When it does, the very concerns you raise will ensure the fall is that much harder because of a shock to the system that cannot handle such a huge change in labor dynamics and resultant safety nets designed to assist much smaller numbers of individuals.

Why is this a perfect storm?

1) We are about as far removed from an election as is possible, so those who support amnesty will have the maximal amount of time for the public to become resigned or complacent to this issue.

2) We have a President who has wanted open borders ever since he was elected but had to slow his promises to Vincente Fox and the Mexican leadership in the aftermath of 9/11. Now that that seems like a distant memory to a growing proportion of the population, Bush can push his pet project as he is walking out the door on his lame duck session. He suffers no backlash.

3) As you have alluded, the economy feels fine and the inevitable labor pinch or the costs subsequent to a downturn are being ignored. We are an instant gratification country, so as we enjoy the current pleasure, the inevitable pain some years from now doesn't register.

4) This generation of politicians sees a unique opportunity to "solve" an issue that has been dogging many of them for years (at least since Reagan), one that unites the vast majority of legal Americans to oppose amnesty, and can kick the can yet again for the next generation of politicians who won't enforce another round of laws. Remove the "illegality" of it all, kind of like a money laundering process, and this rhetorical trick will provide the exact cover legislators need to contemptuously ignore the desires of the masses. The main argument against amnesty has been about the illegal act of entering the country along with paper crimes to perpetuate "legal" status illegally. But that is hardly the only one, just the simplest to concisely respond to a chaotic situation. Amnesty advocates would prefer to disarm that debate bomb by eliminating "illegality" which would make subsequent debate more complex since it would require people to review the details of macroeconomics, demographic shifts, sovereignty, etc. which are eyerolling exercises as much fun as statistics. The trick is useful because the majority of the population just tunes politicians out at that point - a specifically desired outcome of a majority of politicians who really don't want to take a side on this issue.

So, when Ed suggests that we shouldn't trust our Congresscritters on anything, he may not be too far off the mark. It's overstated but I inherently don't trust Congress though I understand sausage-making in a democracy. The thing is, on this issue, the vast majority of the public has been intensely opposed to amnesty(plus) but Congress will not listen to the constituency... well, not the common constituency anyway. Powerful special interests are another matter. Congress has proven itself to be as standoffish, belligerent, and sneaky on this legislation as any legislation I have ever seen. Congress, and this Executive, needs to prove its ability to back and enforce current law before it asks me to trust it with something new.

Argument 1: Congress will never enforce the border-security provisions/triggers.

This is still a valid concern. From what I have read of the program, while these ‘triggers’ exist in the bill, they only serve to prevent the issuance of Z-visa’s for 18 months. After that it calls for certification….Think about that, the same folk who are claiming this is not amnesty will get to certify the border! When, not if, they do, over ten million folk can step up for the new Visa’s. and once they have them, they are legal…That is Amnesty. They do not need to pay to get these, they have to pay to convert these to green cards.

Why would they need a green card? This thing gives them all the same rights except a path to citizenship. They get to stay, use our schools and social services, and work. Why bother with the rest?

Argument 3: It rewards illegal behavior; the penalty for illegal entry should be deportation.

You respond to this by complaining about the difficulty of deporting 12 million. Yes, it is hard, but how hard will it be to create a completely new program to make this bill work. We will have to vet the very same 12 million for Z-cards, we will have to administer the program and we vastly increase the size of the folk legally getting benefits. In addition, when you say it is impossible you forget that Ike managed in under 3 years to get rid of 3 million illegals. He simply DID IT instead of complaining about how hard it is.

I think this thread, providing that there aren't one person posting under multiple names, is very likely a macrocosm of what the country believes about this. Americans, both Democrat and Republican, overwhelmingly believe that illegal immigration is a problem. This bill is not going to solve the problem, in fact it will only make it worse, as it only encourages bad behavior. Think about the lesson we're teaching by our actions here: what message have we sent?:

"If you stay here long enough as an illegal alien, there is no penalty and eventually you will get amnesty"

That's the message being sent here.

But a few points that I think may help here:

1) TomB and others: I don't think it is either wise, nor do I think it is useful or reliable, to have business be in the business of document verification. In addition, simply by taking on that role, they open themselves up to accusations and lawsuits for discrimination. By making employers responsible for someone else's honesty you not only do not solve one problem, you actually create a new one---frivolous hiring discrimination lawsuits.
SOLUTION- this is where I think innovation from the business community comes in. Documents are submitted to private verification agencies (similar to credit reporting agencies) who are paid by the employer, but whom the government repays by a tax break etc to the employer. False documents are confiscated. Users prosecuted and imprisoned.
2)Heavily tax wire transfers/email transfers of money to Mexico.
3) Olddeadmeat- it used to be that if 4.5% of the population didn't work (and I agree with your assessment) then that 4.5% of the population didn't eat. Unfortunately, that's not the namby-pamby case anymore. Solve that problem, and you solve the other one as well.
4) As always, my disagreement (only partial) with patick neid persists. A fence is only useful if you are going to arrest, deport, or shoot someone coming over it. Right now we have snipers shooting at us from the other side of the border and we do nothing. I don't see how a fence will do anything other than give a different flavor to the same lack of political will.

Aside from the social costs (SS & Medicare benfits) that these people will be drawing from the (near bankrupt) systems without having paid into it, just who will be doing those low paying jobs that "Americans don't want to do"? Now the low paying workers will demand AT LEAST minimum wage - which we have been told employers cannot afford to pay. Once the unions get involved, they will be demanding prevailing wage.

And who is going to pay the additional costs of labor when the democratic congress next tackles an increase in the minimum wage to all of our "new citizens"?

I think you misunderstand my objections; but I'll continue to play the pragmatic round as I did on my last response to one that found the ascendence of their favored sporting team more important than the concept of a 'nation of laws'.

You ask me to prove my assumptions and offer your own unfounded. A little smug on your part perhaps; but I'll offer this first tidbit that Google coughed up from the intertubes with nary a complaint in 0.14 seconds.

You'll note that the bulk of the sample were non-Hispanic. That is, those that are not a poor, ethnic minority from a culture that favors socialist policies. I think I need provide
no further proof on the voting patterns of the latter addenda.

It unfortunately stands that you are still on the wrong side of your own argument. (And apologies for the late reply)

Captain ..........you stated ..................."Many people firmly believe that Congress (and George Bush) will ignore the border-first, employment-first triggers and skip right to normalization. In this regard, they use the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty plan, but they forget that Simpson-Mazzoli didn't have any border-security provisions. Congress promised to add them later, and never did".

This isn't the case at all ..........the Simpson-Mazzoli 1986 Illegal Alien Full Employment Act did have a trigger in it that was not met. This was verified by the governments bi-partisan 9/11 report ................which summarized that Simpson-Mazzoli had a trigger for a system to account for the expiration of visas and the coming and goings of immigrants in and out of the United States. This auditing system was to be used at all border crossings ............which was a way to protect and secure the border.

The amnesty was not to be given until this system was in place up and running. Because this trigger was not intended to be met ...........congress came back and amended the act to dismantle the auditing system.

In addition ...........I don't believe that most Americans think illegal aliens will self deport (some may) ............we believe that over time these illegal aliens will be caught up with ...........by their participation in our social institutions .....and ............Americans will deport them.

i am really impressed...

thanks for the sound insight Captain!

in my experience out East, the illegals will not deport themselves, but sink futher into the shadows, growing a black market alternative society.

i must say, i am really disappointed at the level of vitriol on this subject, and feel many Conservatives learned nothing from 2006.

it would be nice to see the same level of outrage, at the Democrats trying to force the US to Surrender for personal political gain, and their failure to fund US TROOPS in harms way.

btw .....................are these Zeta Visa Cards named after the organized criminal syndicate in Mexico known as the ........."Zetas" ............???

johnny,

the fence does what it does--it stops millions from walking across the border as they currently do now. this fence prevents that:

http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg

the pathetic fences currently built do not. after the fence is built i'm open to any suggestions--work force rules, id cards, green cards(although i'm against the spousal/children provision turning 12 million into 40 million--if you want to be with your wife and children, go home where you should be and reform your country) etc. What we have to do, that we have not these last 40 years, is seal the border so as to prevent the problem getting continually larger.

and finally, there is no need to shoot anyone.

The border fence doesn't work. Yesterday, I mentioned seeing on U-TUBE, a segment done by Penn & Teller. Where they hired illegals to build a segment of wall all day long; and for the finale, challenged them to get OVER, UNDER, and THROUGH the fence. (Built just like the stuff going up by the patriotic group, which, yes, does get funded by lots of angry Americans.)

Took under five minutes for all six illegals, broken into 3 teams, to get OVER, UNDER and THROUGH the fence. That's how easy it was. Penn & Teller call their offerings "BULLSHIT" detectors. Or something close to that.

As to "triggers," and whatnot, the only other lesson I've learned. Which comes from history. Is that the WHIG party died on the mistakes made by one man: HENRY CLAY. How long did it take? From 1824 to 1860. Where the party of conservative protestants did what they do best. Antagonize everybody else.

Even with Lincoln, who was the best politician to ever occupy the White House; these lessons aren't taught much, anymore.

Nor is Benjamin Franklin's autobiography a book used in our schools, anymore. (Franklin called the American Indians "savages." And, in his time, there were lots of indians, around.) Would take about 400 years of terror, for this to finally come to a close. And, when it did, it wasn't pretty, for the indians.

Americans, are by nature, a very tolerate "voting block." They tend to cancel out the raging lunatics on the right. And, on the left.

And, here? It seems Bush has lost "something." (I keep thinking, pelosi changed her earings from wearing Tom DeLay's testicles, to now sporting a new pair. Like the letter "W.") One part for each ear.

Why is it possible for a TWO PERCENT majority in congress, to get Bush to sign onto the democraps' agenda? No wonder Teddy Kennedy is happy. And, he's from Massachusetts. Where the biggest threats facing his homes come from the Atlantic Ocean. Not the Rio Grande.

I have no good answers. Mostly, because, we don't press on the newcomers that they speak English to get to the status of citizen. How come? It only takes four years for a school to teach a child enough skills that they can read and write in English. And, even handle numbers. Here? We seem to slip to satisfying everyone in a language spoken "abroad." Why is that?

Why do we pay the bills when illegals show up? How far would they get if we treated them, the way American tourists get treated in Mexico? (In Mexico, the police will drive ya to an ATM machine, so you can withdraw money. Why? So that cops don't kill ya.)

And, if you get sick, and go to the hospital, no doctor in Mexico will give treatment, unless you pay for it up front, and in advance.

Let alone another reality. From here? The GOP is in danger of fading into a real minority. Unlike the WHIGS, where Lincoln jumped ship into a new republican party; there are no lifeboats on this ship.

Both Bush's have been disasters. Both are too dumb for the jobs they got; by tearing apart the GOP nomination system.

Yes, the donks are also a mess. But those are the choices. The donks, by the way, not minding that people hold their noses when they vote.

Whatever others have learned; especially since November 2006, I've learned that both Bush presidencies will go down IN INFAMY.

Captain,
After your update (White House position paper):
So what are the benchmarks and who will declare they are met? We know already what the fines will be, so why not the benchmarks? As usual, the devil is in the details.
But I also have to admit: On paper it looks fair. Just hope it is worth more, than just the paper it was written on.

carol,

the penn and teller piece is the pathetic fence that is currently being used, not the fence i have long championed

http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg

this fence works.........that's why it is not being built!

Secure the border. Congress authorized 700 miles - only 2 have been built.

Issue tamperproof ID cards for US citizens. If you don't have one, you don't get government provided services. You don't have one, your employer can get enormous fines. No jobs, no freebies, illegals go home.

I haven't been in favor of a national Identity card, but I think it's time.

Ordinary Coloradan: It's not Ted Kennedy's *rear* that Captain Ed has his lips planted on.

Ed, like every other blogger supporting this TURD of a bill, is an ass in elephant's clothing.

I'm tired of hearing the 'Hispanics have traditional family values' canard. They're having illegitimate kids far exceeding the black population and this has become multi-generational.

The first wave of illegals do have a decent work ethic; that declines with succeeding generations, however.

After seeing the illegal 'immigrant' demonstrations aka foreign-nationals- demonstrate-for-"rights", they have thoroughly convinced me what they 'deserve' is nothing. We owe them nothing and I don't care how 'unfair' or 'immoral' our immigration laws are.

How fair and moral is foisting 10% of another country's population on American citizens?

At the rate of chain migration apparently included in this bill, how long before ALL MEXICANS will have dual citizenship in the US?

Geistmaus:

When I am wrong I say so. I was wrong on my facts, but still think I am right on point. See below:

You are correct and I have been hoist somewhat on my own petard - I spoke prematurely. Check back in 20-30 years, and the demographics should reflect my earlier assertion.

Brief correction of my facts (which validate my argument, I think):

Hispanics are not yet the majority, but they are heading up, whites down. In Texas, whites are now 49.1% of the population. Hispanics are now 35% - source: http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/051707kvuecensus-cb.7b11c0c3.html

As for voting - look at the trends, here's an interesting article from 1993 here: http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/proceedings/papers/1993_166.pdf

Note the percentage voting Dem from 1984 to 1992 was decreasing though still more than 50% of the vote.

Now, I invoke the patron saint of the GOP:

"Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet."

Who said it? Ronald Reagan. Where? Why, San Antonio of course. Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3777.html

They may not be Republican, but they are conservative. I suspect (will search to see) that Latino Catholics swing a lot further to the right than the poll you cite (since Latinos are on 20% of the sample).

See also this: http://www.news-tribune.net/opinion/local_story_122170256.html?keyword=topstory

If Latinos are still developing their political identity, then this is the worst possible time to carelessly alienate them, especially if only 24% tend liberal now, while 68% tend conservative.

Everyone: regarding this "they are criminals thing" Great argument, let you who is not a criminal cast the first stone. Given the mess the law is in our nation, there's not a one of you that is safe from indictment. Ex: I am a gun owner in Texas, but legally, I can't take a handgun to the range without a CCW. Should we crack down on otherwise law-abiding people solely because the current law is written and administered poorly?

See Rob Crocker's post - right now it takes years and a whole lot of hoop jumping to legally comply with the law to even visit. The higher the hurdle to comply, the more "criminals" we create.

Where's the moral wrong in wanting to work?

Frankly, everyone in the 3rd world wishes they were here. It's the ones who are powerfully motivated that actually get here, and they work so they can send money home to the rest of their family. Our current immigration situation has forced a selection of people who at least have the initiative and endurance to get here in the first place.

I suggest they are a heck of a lot more motivated than a lot of our citizen drones and crooks. Maybe we should swap: one illegal gets to stay, one murderous drug dealer goes.

I'll take technical wrong-doers over moral wrong-doers every time.

That's at least as doable as some of the enforcement ideas I have seen.

Let's be honest here. This bill will create a permanent lower class in America. Instead of deporting the illegals and forcing the market to raise wages and opportunities above what welfare provides. there will now be even less incentive for business to create opportunity for our current under employed citizens. If you are on welfare now, the odds of your family never climbing out of that situation has gotten a lot lower. Congress has screwed the US citizens on multiple levels and taken away to "American Dream" for many current Americans. Impeach Bush and jail Rove to start. Time for a Third Party.

Secure the border. Congress authorized 700 miles - only 2 have been built.

Issue tamperproof ID cards for US citizens. If you don't have one, you don't get government provided services. You don't have one, your employer can get enormous fines. No jobs, no freebies, illegals go home.

I haven't been in favor of a national Identity card, but I think it's time.

Some say that Congress will just ignore the law anyway. If so, then you can't trust Congress to do anything, so even if they passed a border-security-only plan, you still can't support it. That's an argument for futility, where one does not believe in the legislative system any more.

Let's try this a different way. Congress passes a bill to raise spending now and promises to cut taxes later. Hardliners say it's a bad idea because the tax cuts never come. Does that mean hardliners may as give up on tax cuts and just go with spending increases or does it mean this is a very poor counterargument?

The point: Give them a chance and they will contribute.

No, the point is there is a legal process to come into the United States and an estimated 12 million people couldn't be bothered.

I don't care about any debate on what they contribute, how they help our economy, how tough life is in their country, how hard it will be to deport them, how much prices will go up without them, how nice they are, how hard working they are, etc etc etc.

There is a legal way to enter the United States. Either you enforce it or we may as well go honest and declare are borders open for anyone.

Patrick, that fence diagram looks very familiar. It's not based on this one, is it?

http://www.kai-koeker.de/reisen_eu_ddr_grenzsperr1.htm

Patrick Nied, thank you for responding to my post on Penn & Teller. As you say, that's the current one, being built.

While, yes. I know there are solutions we are not using. For instance, the Kurds in Iraq, wanting to keep the arabs out, have opted for TRENCHES. Deeply cut down, into the ground, you can't fly over them. And, no bridges are gonna get built, either. Beca