May 20, 2007

Getting To The Fine Print Of Immigration

As CQ readers know, I stressed the importance of keeping an open mind about the new immigration-reform compromise. With a minority in Congress and a legalization advocate in the White House, we would be lucky to get something that included any kind of border security at all. Jon Kyl and other conservative Republicans fought to get us the best deal they could, and their recommendation (especially Kyl's) should carry a lot of weight. That doesn't mean we have to just accept whatever is thrown at us, but it does mean we should examine it carefully before rejecting it out of hand -- and see if we can use this as a good start, because the status quo is unacceptable.

A few details have arisen over the weekend, however, that make me more uncomfortable with the compromise. The Bush administration insisted on removing a requirement to pay back taxes on money earned before legalization:

The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said.

An independent analyst estimated the decision could cost the IRS tens of billions of dollars.

A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes.

This is a huge mistake. It's one thing (and not a good thing) to put illegal immigrants ahead of those waiting in line legally to enter our country. It's another entirely to put them ahead of US citizens. Should we declare an overall amnesty on back taxes? If not, then why do illegals get preferential treatment?

The Bush administration claims it would be too difficult to determine what wages were paid while operating in the black market economy. Really? Perhaps the better solution would be to penalize the employers for whom these people worked if they cannot produce records of wages paid, in the amount we could recover for back taxes. If not, then we should come up with a standard penalty based on years in the US. After all, applicants for Z-visas will have to undergo a background check, which should reveal how long they have resided -- and worked -- in the US, and the penalty can be determined from that.

I also have to take notice that the men and women who secure our border, or at least attempt to do so, don't like this bill either:

The leadership of all 11,000 nonsupervisory U.S. Border Patrol agents yesterday criticized an immigration compromise by senators and the Bush administration as "piecemeal" legislation that invites future terrorist attacks and fails to secure the nation's borders.

"Every person who has ever risked their life securing our borders is extremely disheartened to see some of our elected representatives once again waving the white flag on the issues of illegal immigration and border security," National Border Patrol Council President T.J. Bonner said.

"Rewarding criminal behavior has never induced anyone to abide by the law, and there is no reason to believe the outcome will be any different this time," he said.

I don't think that their opinion should be conclusory, but it certainly bears attention. If the professionals on the border don't like the compromise, it behooves us to find out what they don't like and see if it can be fixed. If they don't see the border-security provisions as tough enough to make a difference, then we should insist they get strengthened. On the other hand, if they object to normalization as a concept, then perhaps they should also take a look at the composition of Congress and give us an idea how to do better. I think this objection has elements of both, but is more the former than the latter -- and that means we should take it seriously.

Hugh Hewitt is taking a hard look at the nuts and bolts of the language. Hugh's very much an advocate of the opposition on this, but he is finding even more objective reasons to be so. One very large problem is a waiver for processing Z-visas where background checks do not get completed in a single day. I'm not sure that any checks could possibly get completed that quickly. Does that mean that we have effectively eliminated them? Will we be giving Z-visas to MS-13 gangsters?

These problems amount to deal-killers, in my opinion. I'm on board conceptually, but this compromise needs a lot of work and amending in the Senate. National security requires that we find a solution as quickly as possible, but we need to peruse every single clause in this bill to make sure it matches the description given to the American public last Thursday. So far, it appears to fall short.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Getting To The Fine Print Of Immigration:

» Illegal aliens from Mark My Words
...Judging from the continuously revised text being developed in the back alleys of the U.S. Senate, their method of dealing with the matter is to merely use different words. [Read More]

» Immigration Week from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
**Note*** The MacRanger Show yesterday with Harold C. Hutchinson was about all things immigration bill. If you haven’t listen to it yet, click on the BlogTalk Radio link on the left! As you all know tomorrow begins the battle royal over the prop... [Read More]

» Mending and Amending from Big Lizards
I've been increasingly ebullient today, in response to what I've heard on Hugh Hewitt's show: Out with the truculent vows never to vote for "amnesty;" in with the determination to use this compromise as a starting point, then offer a... [Read More]

Comments (89)

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | May 20, 2007 12:53 PM

My wife - a legal immigrant - is liable for taxes on any wages she earns. As a native-born American, the same is true for me.

So why do felons get a tax holiday?

Keep in mind that an alleged Republican president is pushing this! Bush won't defend our borders, he won't hold Democrats accountable for their irresponsible position of cut-and-run in Iraq - has Howard Dean taken over the GOP?

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 12:54 PM

I don't know what the agents might be referring to unless it is the amount of fence. I know the bill calls for 18,000 more agents than are there now so maybe the issue has to do with training as well. Or maybe they want to make sure their part of the bill is really done before the rest kicks in.

As for the tax issue, I wondered myself how they would really figure what these people owed, especially if work for low wages. Americans making below a certain level of income don't have to pay so it is hard to figure on low wages. Perhaps a penalty would be better.

This bill is a compromise and so there will be things both sides don't like. The left does not much care for it and Pelosi might not even bring it up for a vote. I am not sure this problem is soluble. I used to think that if grown people wanted to come up with a rational compromise to a situation they could...but this issue makes me wonder.

People should think about this the next time they complain about the Iraqi politicians not being able to settle their differences.

Hopefully this week there will be some improvement in the situation. More penalties and enforcement, but if they fail it will not be the Democrats who get the blame. The Republicans will and while that might be fine with the hardliners I am afraid a lot of Americans out there just want a solution they can tolerate and an end to this divisive and depressing debate.

Posted by Carol Herman | May 20, 2007 1:10 PM

Did this thing pass, yet? Or is it still just smiling politicians getting their minute of coverage?

I read someplace that the DONKS are bolting! Not just some of the less cowed GOP members, who'd get along just so they can get dismissed early. (It's a habit some men cart around since their high school days, I think.)

If I was TWO PECENT away from going bankrupt, I'd be pretty upset. Yet, in politics, this is like that horse's nose. WHen the picture was taken at the preakness. One horse a winner. ANd, what had looked like the "TRiple Crown" in site, tanked. Ah, if "Street Smart" only had a Jewish nose. What can I tell ya?

Ya get to feel bad when you want something BIG, and you come up "short."

While McCain just "blew up."

There's a phrase on Wall Street. When an investor is hot. And, he reaches the heights of success. Well, like gamblers in Vegas. They can't stop. ANd, then there's the role where they go bust.

I wonder if Fred Thompson will do, soon, another 38-second video?


Because that video, PURPOSELY, I think out of sinc with 30-second spots. A one-take deal. That rode to higher visibility than anything on the nutworks' news. PROVES you can do things differently, than the politicians, who've been trained like rabbits, to expect.

But what do I know? Ted Kennedy could be taking a whole slew of people on another Oldsmobile ride, though?

Who gave him the keys?

And, why did McCain use the "F" word, out loud, TO another senator? He got angry, huh? You think this reflects well on the "deal makers?" You placing bets?

How many more steps ahead are needed to turn this fiasco into another lost war? For one side.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 1:13 PM

The left does not like it and the AFL-CIO does not like it.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 1:16 PM

BTW, the firefighters pres came out against Rudi. So does that mean that if I like firefighters I can't vote for Gulliani?

I wonder sometimes when the head of something or other comes out against something how indicative that is of rank and file. I lived with a Teamster for years and he never agreed with the union bosses.

Posted by Mike C. | May 20, 2007 1:37 PM

This bill is a predictable disaster. Enforcement needs to come first. You don't mop up the floor before you've turned off the sink.

Tony Snow's comments to Hugh Hewitt about the inability of immigration officials to prevent this amnesty from applying to illegal immigrants with no known criminal offenses (other than sneaking into the country illegally) but with identifiable jihadist connections as well as this whole business about a "one business day" provision for Z visas are evidence that Bush simply doesn't give a damn about national security.

Posted by Nessus | May 20, 2007 1:37 PM

Someone mentioned this earlier and they are right on target...many Mexicans believe we lack the will to stand up for our country and they are right to a large degree - many Americans lack the will to enforce the law for fear of "looking mean-spirited". Mexicans think, if the gringo don't want to stand up for their country, we'll gladly take over.

Then there are the farmers who sound more and more like 19th century plantation owners from the deep south. What they want is cheap, illegal labor and they cry the "economy will suffer" if they don't get 'em - same thing the plantation owners told Abe Lincoln long ago.


Only a small percentage actually pick fruit and veggies - most have flooded into other occupations, driving down wages with their fake ID's, fake or stolen social security numbers, driving without licenses, etc.

Jorge Bush, Jeb Bush, Gonzales, Martinez, Guiteriez....hmmm, do I detect a pattern here?

Posted by Carol Herman | May 20, 2007 1:41 PM

So far, Terrye, the "front runners" are looking like a bunch of midgets. (Thanks to Fred Thompson for pointing out why he's not anxious to jump up and be the tallest guy among them.)

As to Guiliani; he has the businessmen in the GOP all sewn up. Giving him California, Ohio, Pennsyvania. And, probably New York State, already. Doesn't do ya much good if you're not generating VOTERS with your machinery. (Though I think the donks work a system where the voters don't count. It's all "machinery.")

While if I only could, I would give Fred Thompson another idea for another video. Should this "bill" with Bush's "blessings" come down the pike for votes. As I don't think Bush is all that popular. And, I know Ted Kennedy is just a hot shot in massa2shits. Where they picked dukakis, as well. And, not to forget: John Kerry. Like the Edsel, a lot of this stuff stays stuck on the showroom shelves.

But I digress.

One of the ideas I'd like Fred to use; in order to beat TWO DOGS with ONE STICK, is to take this Saudi "idea" ... that what they say ... "You Can Take It Or Leave It," is a dumb selling technique.

And, that's the start-off point for a spot Fred could make if he was thinking about using videos that grab lots of people's attention.

Why are we told that when Bush and Kennedy and McCain get together, that they can then push an agenda down lots of throats?

By the way, the DISLIKE for the amnesty package is not just a "right wing wheel" on the bus. It runs into resistence in lots of places. Of course. Not massa2shits. They're worried the russians are coming into their ports. Or flotsum. Or jetsom. But the illegal thing? Mostly at haarvard. Where the Saud's pick up the tabs. And, education has already gone down the toilet. In case you didn't know.

But HOW to defeat this dumb idea? Let alone how Bush approved the "Visa Express" in Riyadh, which enabled 15 out of the 19 hijackers to get here on 9/11.

There were supposed to be 100 planes! Perhaps, you don't remember? But we STOPPED ALL AIR TRAFFIC in and out of the USA, for a few days. Following 9/11. (Except, of course, for the Saud's. Where Bandar got Bush to give green lights to Osama Bin Laden's family. From here. To there.) I guess we were supposed to be fooled? Because Bush didn't land in any one place, after he left Florida. It was a way to deflect what was really going on. As the press couldn't figure out what mountain hideaway Bush was using, then.

Are you still confused?

Anyway, THIS amesty thing resembles the Saudi's approach to Israel, with a take it or leave it "piss" package.

Pick up that stick, Fred. Beat your enemies. SHow them that Americans don't like stuff that's stuffed down our throats, as if all political sausages taste the same.

Ain't over. And? McCain flamed. If the "F" WORD worked, Winston Churchill would have used it. Kapish?

Posted by TERRY | May 20, 2007 1:41 PM

In 2006 there was a vote. That vote approved
a fence.

After "my" fence is completed we can talk
about who stays and the particulars.

Posted by Gary Gross | May 20, 2007 1:42 PM

I said here that this legislation would collapse once it started getting amended. I think I'm wrong because I think it might collapse sooner than that.

Posted by quickjustice | May 20, 2007 1:43 PM

We've been through this before, Ed. It was called "Simpson-Mazzoli", and President Reagan signed it into law in 1986.

It had three components: (1) a national identify card (later killed by Congress); (2) serious sanctions for employers who employed illegals; (3) amnesty for those 12 million illegals then in the country.

Items 1 & 2 never were adequately funded or consistently enforced. The only thing that happened was item 3, amnesty.

Twenty years later, we're back to this proposal for a combination of enforcement and amnesty for the next 12 milllion illegals. Given the past track record of the Congress, why should we believe any of them, when amnesty is the only thing that happens, over and over again?

Posted by patrick neid | May 20, 2007 1:45 PM

it always circles back to the original problem---while we sit around discussing what to do with the illegals already here the border remains open, as it has for 50 years, allowing well over one million illegals a year unfettered access to all things american.

if bush and company really wanted an immigration solution he would order the army corp of engineers to build a double wide fence now. after the fence is up all things are possible.

the bush and dem apologists and other excuse makers here and at other sites want everything but a secure border. year after year, excuse after excuse, hard fences become electronic, they wrap themselves in compassion, fairness, comprehensive plans, anything to avoid the obvious---build a double wide fence to stop the mass migration of tens of millions of illegals.

here's an idea. put it on the ballot in very simple terms:

"should the US build and complete a double wide fence across the entire border before enacting any other provisions?"

it would pass in a landslide............

build this fence and the problem starts to resolve itself.

Posted by Carol Herman | May 20, 2007 1:52 PM

The "fence" going up is not the kind of fence you see the Israelis using. The Israelis use cement. Above 12 meters high. We're using corrugated. That you can cut through. Jump over, and dig underneath. Ain't gonna even stop ferrets.

The other reality? Just like the Isrealis know; there's a lot of digging that goes on with long tunnels. You don't think they have them from Mexico? How about starting one mile out, in Mexico. While their police watch it built. To about one mile in? INSIDE THE PARAMETER OF THE FENCE.

So, yeah. You got your "vote." But it's like building a fence out of bullshit.

We also print everything in SPANISH! WHY? What happened to English?

As to the tax issue, I think the politicians are on a different planet. I think, up ahead, we'll go to VAT. Value Added Taxes. SO everything you buy will generate paperwork. Even when you buy it from eBay. Or go into the post office to buy stamps.

In liu of? Perhaps, in the beginning. But I wouldn't bet on that, either.

Some day, ahead, a lot of confused patriots will wonder how they ever supported Bush. They'll forget he promised that women wouldn't be able to get abortions. (NOT SELLING TO THE UNDER 30 CROWD.) And, then? He thought Harriet Miers competent enough to be offered Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

No, it wasn't the right that made enough noise. It was inside the White House; when those who were told to "help" her pass her confirmation hearings, knew enough how bad she was. And, how embarassing she'd be to the president.

How embarassing, you ask? If you think Alberto Gonzales is confirmable; there's nothing I can teach you, here.

Bush is just the Realtor to the House of Saud. And, the bets are going against his White House, now. Let's hope we get through the next six hundred days, or so, without watching the entire GOP cave into the minority. Where will choices come from after that?

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 1:56 PM

Jorge Bush my behind. That is so stupid. Unproductive. Useless.

George Bush won two terms as president without ever lying about his attitudes towards issues like the guest worker program. It was not a big deal in 2000 when Buchanan got less than 1% of the vote. We went decades without any serious effort in regards to this and if the GOP wanted a hardliner for a nominee the rank and file who are frothing at the mouth today should have nominated one. But they did not, so don't blame Bush for not doing your bidding when you knew full well where he stood on this all along. Go nominate Tancredo and if the hardliners are right he will win. So far his numbers are not that impressive. So the noise has not translated into votes. Maybe it will.

It is a lot easier to tear apart a bill like this than it is to create legislation that can actually pass and be implemented. And sooner or later people on both sides of the issue will start wanting to see some real results. All this yelling and screaming might be fun but eventually people will want to see something tangible and that might mean giving an inch.

Where is your fence? The same place the Iraqi war funding is.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 2:02 PM


Well Fred Thompson took some flak for saying we needed to more bipartisan cooperation. Well this is bipartisan cooperation, like it or not.

My guess is that Fred will be the ONE until he fails to satisfy the loud people. He will say the wrong thing, after all he is a friend of McCain's. {boo hiss} Maybe they will wait until Fred is president to eviscerate him.

I want to see the border secure but I really think that is not enough. We need to make it more difficult for people to get work, to blend in etc and that requires a broader approach.

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 2:03 PM

Agree with Terry. The *first* priority is putting up a physical fence. Then we can haggle about amnesty and taxes and being born in the USA.

And I don't want to hear about virtual fences and computer databases either. If the Russians could shoot at people trying to flee the USSR, then the least we should do is to shoot at people trying to invade us.

I'm heartened that - finally - the pols in DC seem to be hearing the outrage. I just can't understand why they didn't know it was there threatening to rise up and impeach them in the first place.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 2:15 PM


Actually in some places a virtual fence is not bad. In the mountains or even in the desert using technology can actually do better. Look at a map this is a vast area and just building a fence in the desert will not stop people if no one is watching the fence. And fencing rivers etc is difficult. A combination of things should be used. Phsical barriers are more useful in dense population areas. Drones and other technology can be more useful in other ares. The fence should fit the terrain. More people will be the key. But if they kill this bill, that is not going to happen.

Posted by DaMav | May 20, 2007 2:17 PM

I'm glad to see that Captain's Quarters is willing to consider a departure from the Ted Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party.

While there are numerous problems with this bill, the worse IMO is that it will grant immediate amnesty to anyone applying for the probationary status who says they were here before Jan 1, 2007. They may not be citizens, but they will be here legally. This effectively ends all interior enforcement. It also sets up a persuasive argument for full benefits.

Since the federal apparatus cannot possibly be set up to verify claims, it is basically a full open borders bill. People can pour in a year from now, say they were here in 2006, and receive immediate legalization. Not citizenship, granted, but legalization.

The devil is not in the details on this one. It is standing right there in the middle of the room waving its arms, jumping up and down, and screaming.

Posted by patrick neid | May 20, 2007 2:23 PM


we have had this discussion before. virtually no one gets through this fence.

in fact combat engineers will tell you that with the cameras mounted along the way a couple of border patrol personel can cover several miles with the access road in the middle. walk in illegal immigration would virtually stop as it has anywhere similar fences have been employed. the key is it has to cover most of the entire border. so let's please stop all the strawmen in regards to the fence.

the problem with the fence is the apologists on this site above and in washington don't want it. they doublespeak about wanting secure borders. they want nothing of the sort. the past 40 years proves my point.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 2:26 PM

I have never been a fan of Ted Kennedy's, but I figure if Senator Coburn can work with Obama on ear mark legislation then every now and then both parties can and should work together. Fred Thompson even said that.

But having said that if being a Republican means I have to support NahnCee's suggestion that we do what the Soviets do and just shoot these people...well all I can say is I am glad I am an Independent.

If this was so important to conservatives why didn't Newt deal with back in the day? I have ask this question and it has never been answered. I think that Ed's earlier posts on pipe dreams still applies, however many problems people will find with this bill they have no as of yet come up with a viable alternative that can actually pass into law and be implemented.

And gunning down people is not a viable alternative. Neither is mass deportation. Neither is land mines at the border.

In fact I think that if you just make it enforcement only there will be a rush of people coming in so that they can be trapped here and since the enforcment only people do not want to bother with ID or registering people or anything they will just blend into the existing communities.

Whatever, I have really gotten to the place where I think this is useless. There is no pleasing people on this and the constant fighting and bickering just paralyzes the process and makes it that much more difficult.

It is no use.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 2:30 PM


That is not true. This is not an open borders bill and if it is killed without an alternative being put forward that will be a failure for both sides. I swear to God anything short of mass deportations and land mines at the border is just an open borders bill to some people. Like I said it is no use.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | May 20, 2007 2:39 PM

These problems amount to deal-killers, in my opinion. I'm on board conceptually, but this compromise needs a lot of work and amending in the Senate. National security requires that we find a solution as quickly as possible, but we need to peruse every single clause in this bill to make sure it matches the description given to the American public last Thursday. So far, it appears to fall short.

Ed, even without going over the number of deal-killers, much less describing them, again, just observe the way this "deal" was manufactured. The President has been consulting with advocates for amnesty (along with himself), with special interest groups like La Raza (via Kennedy so it has been reported), without critics who might figure security and law enforcement was important (Tancredo), and out of view of the public. No public hearings with input from DHS, ICE, Commerce, FBI, IRS, Border Patrol, prison systems, etc. to the impact of this legislation. Public committee hearings have been neglible. (Have there been any?) The current version was assembled to the extent that it has out of critical and wholesale review. It has been put on a fast track because it is now considered "critical" (though it's been critical for years) and the proponents are pushing for a vote for next week on a far-reaching and vitally important bill that isn't even completely written, much less read.

Doesn't that just scream "sham"? If it's such a great solution, why not disclose it and let the public - you know, the taxpayers and legal citizens - who will actually have to live with the long-term consequences provide input? We all know the answer. It's an awful bill that does not have the public's support, that does not do what it's being promised to do, but that Congress hopes it can pass so that they can get it off the table and kick the can... again.

I understand Congress being tired of dealing with it. It's a contentious issue and political football. However, this is an issue that crosses party lines. Legal Americans do not want amnesty. They do not want to be saddled with yet another middle-class tax burden. They dislike law being selectively applied. The dislike even worse law being ignored. They resent being ignored by an arrogant elected government that is, in return, resenting the critics who keep tearing them down. I appreciate their dilemma, but they are beholden to us and our opinions since we foot the bill.

Having prefaced with all of that, the main culprit to this failure is the Executive branch and not just the one we're under now. Enforcing the law is the Executive's Constitutional obligation. However, the fact that previous administrations screwed up does not entitle Bush to an even worse one. He is the major malfunction here. He has provided token action merely as a facade to deflect deserved criticism of his policy. Now, he is pressing to get his amnesty passed, pressing to include meaningless benchmarks that will be ignored or waived, playing rhetorical games to conceal his intent, and thumbing his nose at a frustrated constituency while trying to hide behind Congressional skirts via new law.

Further, note how local governments are starting to actually write and pass (overwhelmingly) new anti-illegal alien ordinances to do the job our federal government and President won't do? Executive and Commerce want none of that because it actually would discourage illegal activity and might illustrate how law enforcement does work without saddling it with amnesty. In one deceptively conceived and promoted act, local ordinances will become de facto null and void to federal law, again trumping the desires of the constituency.

This is a pathetic and dishonest bill being fast-tracked to keep the public out of the decision tree. And Bush is the worst offender.

Posted by Shannon | May 20, 2007 2:44 PM

Z visa's = Zetas. named after the Org crime syndicate in Mexico, known as the Zetas?

Makes one question.

Posted by DaMav | May 20, 2007 2:45 PM


Based on multiple sources that I have read describing this bill, illegal aliens can achieve probationary status making their presence here legal simply by applying for it and claiming to have been here prior to January 1, 2007. If that isn't amnesty, what is? If that isn't open borders, what is?

I agree that they will not become full citizens. But they will have legal status.

Is it possible to argue your case on the merits? Perhaps not, which is why you villify the opposition by claiming we advocate mass deportations and land mines when we do not.

Most people opposed to this amnesty bill are not opposed to legal immigration, argue for a fence, not land mines, and feel that strong border and interior enforcement, removal of free benefit incentives, and employer sanctions will over time reduce the problem through attrition. You may disagree as is your right, but there is no need to paint a false picture of the opposition unless your case is too weak to stand on the merits. Which, perhaps, it is.

Posted by Shannon | May 20, 2007 2:47 PM

Z visa's = Zetas. named after the Org crime syndicate in Mexico, known as the Zetas?

Makes one question.

Posted by RBMN | May 20, 2007 3:03 PM

I believe Secretary Chertoff said that at least 20% of illegal immigrants would be excluded at the point of the background check. How they know that, I don't know. I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

Posted by patrick neid | May 20, 2007 3:11 PM

"Actually in some places a virtual fence is not bad. In the mountains or even in the desert using technology can actually do better. Look at a map this is a vast area and just building a fence in the desert will not stop people if no one is watching the fence......Drones and other technology can be more useful in other ares. The fence should fit the terrain. More people will be the key. But if they kill this bill, that is not going to happen."

what a bunch of Orwellian doublespeak. terrye stop making excuses. you have never been for closing the border. the electronic fence, which you claim to favor now, does not stop illegal immigration. why don't you tell folks about the footnotes in the previous bill about electronic fences. they are simply to alert authorities where illegal immigrants are crossing the border. they are not for enforcement. absolutely no provision is in any of the bills to apprehend the illegals. this bill has four, count them, four drones for the entire border. you have been pushing these bad bills since they came out. you have an entire agenda that has nothing to do with securing the border.

here, i put it to you very simply. would you agree to secure the border with a double wide fence before any other legislation gets put in motion. I'll answer for you. you would not, not unlike so many other open border advocates hiding out as apologists for bad legislation.

this bill, like the others, has no chance and bush is proving to be the village idiot the left has been calling him these last six years. its OK to be for comprehensive immigration reform but not when it includes leaving the border open. this bill, as all the prior ones, promises enforcement but only after amnesty has been granted. this time the sleight of hand invovles claiming that the homeland czar will certify that plans are in motion for 200 miles of "real fencing" versus the original 800 signed last fall with much fanfare with 14000 border patrol to follow over the next several years---meanwhile another 5 million illegals will be streaming into this country like so many army ants.

then there's you final piece of claptrap about the fence:

" But if they kill this bill, that(the fence) is not going to happen."

never going to happen? what a bunch of disingenuous tripe. of course its not going to happen. it was never meant to happen. that's the Orwellian threat to get people to vote for a bad bill--a bill i might add that you have not even read!

you want a bill that would be passed tomorrow by the american electorate. build a complete double wide fence for the entire border. however i know one vote it would not get.

enforcement first. save the other bullshit that you constantly champion for after the fence is completed. then i'll give you anything you want. how's that for bipartisan!

Posted by marinetbryant | May 20, 2007 3:19 PM

Why not use some of the signs they have posted in Nevada?

Posted by RG | May 20, 2007 3:20 PM

Sorry but we conservatives didn't get what we wanted last year and the year before that and the year before that....why? Cuz Jorge Busheron DOES NOT WANT TO ENFORCE THE BORDER OR IMMIGRATION LAWS, that's why. Border Patrol agents and police officers are being prosecuted left and right, while illegal Latinos are being given new "border passes", social security cards and the school lunch program for little Jose and Maria.

Since January 2001, Jorge has been talking about this issue and how important and urgent it is to him. Why? Why is it so frickin urgent? His inaction has caused a "surge" across the border for six years now and now the "elites" (including Snow-job, Medved, Hewitt, etc.) tell us it's the best we can hope for.

If Jorge would have enforced existing laws six years ago, it would have discouraged the flood across the border today and the situation would not be as dire as it is now. We have AT LEAST 20 million illegals, maybe more.

The "plan" is to ship another 20-30 million Mexicans to the USA and get them into social security. Do we want another 20-30 million Mestizo here? They ARE NOT bad or evil people; I'm just saying they come from a very different culture and it will (and has already) changed us into becoming North Latin America (or should I say North American Union?).

Ignore those Mexican trucks coming to your hometown, ignore Spanish language showing up everywhere, ignore the identity theft, ignore the social security fraud…naw, as that jackass Medved says, any talk of a NAU is just kooky talk! ......The plantation owners want more servant labor......LoL

Posted by Cindi | May 20, 2007 3:21 PM

From Mark Steyn: " if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus......Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. "

Build the fence, enforce existing laws, cut off the entitlements. No land mines or mass deportations needed.

We either do this now or the change to this country will be irrevocable.

How we gonna get 15 million Mexicans to self-deport? The same way Mexico did.

Posted by Sourdough | May 20, 2007 3:24 PM

How do you hire and train 18000 new border patrol agents when you have a 60% turnover rate in the now sworn border patrol agents. The answer is you can't. The reaction among frontline homeland security agents of all agencys to this legislation was near mutiny. They feel betrayed by the congress and the President.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | May 20, 2007 3:26 PM

Look at this new Immigration Bill and the fallout in the short time since it appeared and remember, these Congressmen and Senators actually have the GALL to criticize the Iraqi Government for "lack of progress!"

If any of us was on a cruise ship being run like Pelosi is running the House of Representatives or Reid is running the Senate, not only would we have double checked the life boats, we'd already be sitting in one with our life jacket on.

Posted by brooklyn | May 20, 2007 3:28 PM


* this is the objective, strong Captain we greatly appreciate.

a tough issue, but the Captain helps us understand it much better...

undstandable no one trusts the Senate anymore.

*** but to abandon the GOP, giving the Presidency to Hillary is pure suicide.

Conservatives like Kyl and Cornyn deserve Our thanks and support.

well written Captain.

i have no judgment about the Bill as of yet.

doubt it will go anywhere, mostly because the Lib Base won't allow Democrats to be seen working with their enemy 'GW BUSH AND REPUBLICANS'.

i highly doubt, if this is the beginning of some good reform, the likes of Nancy and Harry would have the ethics to let it pass, and give GW a signing moment.

however, the extreme vitriol on the Right, embracing fools like Ron Paul, vilifying the GOP, threatening to abandon the only Party serving their interests is childish.

politicians embrace what wins elections, and last NOV. 2006, the Conservatives who failed to defend the Republican Majority, only have themselves to blame for the potential of this immigration proposal.

we shall see...

Posted by Fight4TheRight | May 20, 2007 3:33 PM

Also, I need some help, some education on this - i'd appreciate the input from anyone. I am reading over and over and over on the blogs that we have sufficient laws on the books to deal with the porous borders. I read that we have a "fence" already enacted but it hasn't been built...and I have read that we have the laws on the books to round up illegals but they aren't. My question is who has fallen down on this?

Please be specific. If we aren't rounding up illegals, is that the role of the Dept of Justice? The fence hasn't been constructed, is that Congress' fault for not appropriating the money? If our border agents are not arresting more illegals, is that the fault of Homeland Security?

Who is accountable and why aren't their feet being held to the flames?

One last observation. If it was determined that there were 12 million muslim terrorists in the United States at the moment, would every lawmaker in Washington shrug his/her shoulders and say, "we can't possibly find 12 million and do anything with them!" ??????

Do we concede that the IRS has NO POSSIBLE WAY of locating 12 million people who cheated on their taxes?

Posted by Pierre | May 20, 2007 3:51 PM

Hilarious....I mean really Captain is there anything at all that President Bush can do that won't like? Does that lipstick on that pig of a bill actually make pretty?

I just wish I could have Democratic Politicians with Republican principals since it is obvious that there are NO republicans who know politics as well as the Democrats. When the Democrats were in the minority they out manuvered the Republicans and now in the majority they are making the Republicans out to be children. Republicans are incompetent...

And this just about cuts it as far as my tolerance for that pampered rich boy Bush. Who has absolutely no problem giving away a country HE didn't have to work for. God how I absolutely loath his presidency. He will go down in history as perhaps one of the most incompetent Presidents of modern times.

Sure he was great in starting the war...too bad he didn't think it was important to increase defense spending past the bottom of Clinton. Too bad he doesnt think its important enough to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq from Iran and Syria. Incompetent...but not so incompetent that he has forgotten to legalize the them a tax break I cannot have.

Y'all warn me that oh my if you stay home the Democrats will get into power...yea that would be so much worse than watching this nonsense. Republicans do not deserve to be in power. THey are incompetent.

Posted by Maverick Muse | May 20, 2007 3:55 PM

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has so much right, as you can read her response to constituents below.

Thank you for contacting me regarding illegal immigration in the United States. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Congress substantially revised our nation's immigration laws in 1996, including the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, expanding the Border Patrol, imposing significant penalties on immigrant smugglers, and establishing expedited deportation procedures. In the wake of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, we have been forced to reexamine our immigration laws and policies in order to eliminate vulnerabilities in our national security while continuing to meet the intent of the Constitution and the demands of international commerce.

Since 2001, Congress has addressed many immigration and border security concerns in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the REAL ID Act of 2005. Key provisions have included a systematic plan to monitor the southern border with unmanned aerial vehicles, authorization for an increase in the number of personnel devoted to enforcing immigration laws, and requirements that all applicants for state-issued identification and drivers' licenses prove their lawful presence in the United States.

In October 2005, I introduced S. 1823, the Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Empowerment Act, which would grant state and local officials expanded authority to arrest, detain and prosecute illegal aliens. The legislation would have created a Volunteer Border Marshal Program. In addition, I met with U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to discuss broad immigration reform measures and the new provisions outlined in my bill. I also led Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) on a tour along the U.S.-Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley to highlight the need for more agents, technology and funding to secure our borders. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have worked hard to secure more than $322 million in additional appropriations over the past year for border security, including funding for 1,500 new Border Patrol agents (bringing the total number to 14,819 Border Patrol agents), 50 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators, 168 detention officers, and almost 2,000 detention beds. To this date, we have ended catch and release and accelerated the deportation process. I strongly supported provisions for an additional $1.9 billion in immediate funding for border security to cover the first 1,000 of 6,000 new Border Patrol agents who will be deployed to the border in the next two years. These funds, as provided in the Fiscal Year 2006 Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill, will assist with the temporary deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops aiding the Border Patrol with surveillance and logistics. Though S. 1823 was not considered by the full Senate prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress, I understand that more needs to be done.

The United States has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, and I am aware of the important contributions our immigrants make to our nation. Temporary work visas play an important role in ensuring U.S. companies have the workers they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. However, U.S. immigration policy must ensure American workers have every opportunity to compete for available jobs. In the areas of our economy where voids of talent and skills exist, we need to invest the resources necessary to fill those gaps. For example, I believe we need to increase our country's skills in the areas of math and science, and in 2006 I cosponsored an amendment to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 to assist in this effort by increasing our funding for Advanced Placement courses.

I support the development of a guest worker program that would allow foreign nationals to work in the United States in industries where labor is in critical demand. For this reason, I have been joined by Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) in proposing a new visa category. Our proposal would create the Secure Borders, Good Neighbors and Secure Authorized Foreign Employees (SAFE) Visa program. The program would grant visas to authorized nationals of NAFTA or CAFTA-DR countries who receive employment offers in job areas in the United States that have been certified by the Secretary of Labor as having a shortage of workers. The Good Neighbor SAFE Visa is a positive step in the right direction. This plan puts border security first and addresses those who knowingly hire illegal workers, but it also recognizes the need for a temporary worker program that operates without amnesty and harnesses the power of the private sector to avoid creating a huge new government bureaucracy.

I believe that granting citizenship or lawful permanent residence status to those who entered our country illegally would only encourage others to break our laws in the future. For these reasons, I opposed amnesty provisions set forth in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. I voted against S. 2611 because I believe that any legislation addressing immigration must first address the safety and security needs of the United States. In a world where terrorists continue to seek to harm Americans, we must protect our citizens. We have every right to know who is in our country, who has crossed our borders, and the purpose and the length of the visit. We are negligent if we do not know these things.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 was passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006, by a 62 to 36 vote. Though S. 2611 passed the Senate, it was not considered by the House of Representatives prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress. I will keep your views in mind as the Senate continues to consider this important issue in the 110th Congress.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 3:56 PM

George Bush has put more people and resources on the border than any president in history. It is just not fair to blame decades of neglect on one president. Maybe you should have voted for Gore.

Da May:

What are you talking about? Do you want to deport them all? Lock them all up? Or just ignore them and how is that enforcing the law? it is a sort of amnesty in and of itself.

I think that as long as there are millions of people using bogus documentation with no way to verify who they are it will only encourage more people to come in. They will know that once they find a way here they will not be processed. There will be no biometric cards. I am not talking about giving people the right to vote, I am talking about trying to keep track of at least some of these people and unless we have some form of ID that employers can look at and that can be easily forged it will always be easy for people to come in and blend in. Even with ID there will be people slipping through the cracks in a country with a population of 300 million.

I don't give a damn if they vote or are ever become citizens, I have concerned with the security issues.

And so far the hardliners are good at bitching about anything and everything anyone else comes up with but I think the idea that we can just build a wall and voila problem solved is simplistic.

But bitch away, it is cheap and easy.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 4:03 PM

I hear that border crossings are down 10% this year and food is rotting in the fields in California. I was just sure that Americans would do that work. I guess not.


I don't think the point is about just supporting Bush no matter what. The point is all these raving conservatives have had ample oppurtunity over the years to deal with this and they did not. They had oppurtunities to nominate people to office for whom these issues were a priority and they did not. And now they stand back accusing and obnoxious and outraged and act as if they are shocked! shocked! I tell you to discover there are Mexicans in California. How could this have happened?

Puhleaze. I am sure that I would not be happy entirely with any bill that both parties had a part in passing. But I would rather see some progress than none. I would rather see an imperfect bill than the status quo. That is why nothing ever gets done.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 4:07 PM

That should be ID that can NOT be easily forged. Freudian slip there.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | May 20, 2007 4:07 PM

RE: Fight4TheRight (May 20, 2007 3:33 PM)

That's a huge request you've got there. While not directly addressing your whole question, I'll offer up some specificity you might find useful. However, the failure is systemic with numerous agencies having given up on procedure and going along to get along just to operate one more day, and a public that has trusted an unwieldy and comprehensively dysfunctional behemoth of bureaucracy. Many of those agencies have conflicting interests and pressures, each of which is a friction to reform.

See United States Code for an approximately current version.


for a broad overview of immigration code.

See Sec. 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens. for law on handling the unlawful employment of illegal aliens and subsequent penalties.

Generally, however, Executive is inadequately pursuing justice in this arena.

Hope this helps and don't blame me for the text at the end of the links. ;)

Posted by richard mcenroe | May 20, 2007 4:08 PM

We need more prison cells for nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents. That will solve the problem...

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 4:18 PM


That is not true. Orwellian double speak my ass. FIne, build a wall, put a moat around it. Land mines. tactical nuclear weapons. Whatever. But if you just slap up a wall in the desert without any kind of electronic surveillance it will not be enough.And if you think you can just put a wall across a river or through mountainous terrain without worrying about any silly stuff like geography, well fine then do it. I am past the point of giving a rats ass.

And how long before they find a way around it? And you know what? I am tired of people assuming that if I don't agree with them on every damn little myopic detail then I must be hispanic or want open borders or whatever. Sometimes I feel like I am at Kos, being accused of all sorts of things for failure to conform. Talk about Orwellian.

I am 55 and I work for a home health care agency constantly looking for help and only hiring Americans. Well except for the Polish and Filipino Physical therapists. We can not find people to work. They quit on a moment's notice and are unreliable. But we only hire legal. Too bad there are not more people in this country who actually want to work.

Posted by stilicho | May 20, 2007 4:34 PM

"I hear that border crossings are down 10% this year and food is rotting in the fields in California. I was just sure that Americans would do that work. I guess not."

I am sure lettuce prices have gone up an entire cent. Or two.

"We can not find people to work. They quit on a moment's notice and are unreliable. But we only hire legal. Too bad there are not more people in this country who actually want to work."

Considered paying more?

As for the bill itself, it is indeed the GOP suicide bill. Both because of the immidiate rift that it causes in the party, but also because of the importation of tens of millions of poor, guaranteed-Democratic voters that will follow. Hence, if the GOP is going down, we might as well take the wreckers down with us.

Posted by Theway2k | May 20, 2007 4:48 PM

I am no expert so when I say the proposed illegal alien Bill is a good thing even if it has flaws as consdered by Conservatives.

I am for the big bad "A" word for hard working illegal aliens and a metriculation into the tax system with a path to citizenship. I even think it is good to offer mercy on back taxes. Most illegal aliens will not be able to afford or have access to money to pay back taxes. In effect back taxes will an illigal alien with Amnesty into a criminal that would remove him/her from a tax paying job.

Honestly the biggest issue about illegal aliens is two-fold: 1. Greater security to slow or prevent a continued influx of undocumented aliens. 2. brutal criminals and Islamofascist terrorists that plague America with violence in gangs and terror cells.

Securing the border and going after the criminal illegal aliens at the border or in America should be the preeminent future course.

Posted by onlineanalyst | May 20, 2007 4:49 PM

Sen. Jeff Sessions summarizes in detail just some of the reasons why the amnesty bill is "worse than you think":

This boondoggle is a lawyer's dream, written for lawyers by lawyers, with plenty of loopholes to provide employment for our justice system to further break down our rule of law.

Futhermore, the financial implications that this "grand bargain" entails will break our solvency sooner rather than later.

Posted by dpat | May 20, 2007 4:50 PM


Posted by Fight4TheRight | May 20, 2007 5:13 PM


First off, I appreciate the links and the offer of help!

Perhaps if I make a couple of statements that will help make it easier for me to see if I have a "handle" on all of this.

Statement 1: The fact that President Bush does NOT want tougher border restrictions in place to stem illegal immigration, that is the primary reason why a fence has not been built and that less support has been given to border agents in their mission to crack down on flow.

Statement 2: Due to the fact that the majority of Congress does NOT support stronger illegal immigration remedies (fence, border patrol, employer investigation), there has been little question of the enforcement of laws already on the books.

Do I have it about right with those statements?

And finally, would it be safe to say that the majority of Americans wish NO AMNESTY for illegal aliens yet the majority of Congress supports amnesty, at least in practical theory?

Posted by Carol Herman | May 20, 2007 6:25 PM

What's the real test?

Now we know the bill is out there; while the language wasn't actually shown to the congress-critters when the votes were being taken.

But then, I read that there was "behind the stage" complaints coming from donks, to the Ma and Pa Kettle Show. That there are certain fears that somehow elections, ahead, can be frought with dangers. Not just on election day, itself. But prior. When the primaries give you these choices. And, sometimes, someone can come out of left field and unseat a member on the bench.

Now, in one test I heard of; scientists use human hairs. They say human hairs are quite strong. And, can hold its own in comparison with other stuff.

Party politics has such a test as well. Is your front runner running like Jimmy Carter? While he held office very few democraps lined up to shake his hand. And, when he left office, the sighs of relief came from everywhere. Including Donkey's breath.

How would a better president handle this?

No. I'm not going to answer my own question. I'm going to wait and see what the 2 of the Front Runners in the GOP race towards the nomination, are gonna do. Given that McCain already flamed out. (The "F"F word wasn't fitting.)

That leaves ya with Guiliani. And, Mitt Romney.

While off to the side? Who knows? But Fred Thompson made a shambles of Michael Moore's invitation to debate. And, he PURPOSELY did it on his own. His own words. And, without using the "30-second" clip for TV. His statement lasts 38-seconds. And, while I have no idea how many people come here; let alone how many peope then read comments; I'd still be willing to bet all of ya have seen the clip. Which was given to Breitbart. Whose close to Drudge. Was on Drudge. And, then up at InstaPundit.

In the future, we're gonna see this happening more, I think.

Stuff that flows, or trickles down, from the media. Met by the "new way."

In 2004, Joe Trippi found the mother lode. But then Dean tanked. And, yes, the donks tanked. They needed John Kerry to "lead them" out of Boston, like the Brits needed to fight over tea tax.

After events happen, they're there to analyze.

One reason Fred Thompson may come up with something smart? He's not donning the straight jacket all the other condendah's wear. It seems they're too frightened to strike out on their own.

And, Bush? He's not even holding up by a hair.

It's just a wonder, after his dad's presidency collapsed, that this fool still thinks in terms of James Baker. And, the Saud's. And, an America that just doesn't exist. Beyond the inside's of his lame brained mind.

Cure this one with photo ops, will ya? Huh?

Now, if this passes, though. All those 200,000 troops in Iraq? Can join a host of politce departments, as we build our way out of the mess. Because we can't "catch 12-million illegals."

With Bush in office, giving free tickets to the Saud's, we can't even catch the terrorists. It looks funny, too, fighting this crap with "conventional warfare," where we tell our troops don't shoot unless you see guys in uniform. And, then? Only shoot if you get permission.

If you can find anything you think Bush does well, good luck to ya. Because just as John Kerry hurt others, who couldn't get elected because of the NAME on the top of the ticket in 2004. This holds true, only worse, NOW.

Yes, you've got to find somebody else for the 2008 race. And, ya know what? Ya can't pick a guy that sells only one flavor, to a very small group of right wing people who've joined a cluster.

Ya know, congress isn't loved either! But the problems are kept contained within states' borders. It's the prez that's a national failure, though.

What am I watching? I want to see Tony Blair trying to get into the World Bank position; because I think Bubba also has his eyes on it. And, when you start to fowl balls? And, can't connect to a hit? You're looking at Bush, every time he's gonna go up to bat in the next 600 or so days. Just like Jimmy Carter. No thanks for the memories.

Posted by Azygos | May 20, 2007 6:38 PM

Will the illegal aliens be able to file back tax returns and claim things like "Earned income credit" or "Head of household" and many of the other tax breaks the poor get? I know many families that get thousands of dollars back on taxes they never paid.

Perhaps this is where the fine money is going to come from?

Posted by burt | May 20, 2007 6:45 PM

Some sectors of the border already have very good virtual fences. The border patrol says they can sit in their offices and get a good count of the number of illegals coming across, but of course they have no ability to apprehend the illegals.

The bill calls for a total of 18000 agents not an additional 18000, but the number doesn't matter since we have been attempting to hire like mad for over a year, and now we have fewer agents than a year ago. This is because they are quitting wholesale due to the incredible lack of support they get from this administration.

AnonymousDrivel at May 20, 2007 2:39 PM, fine post.

The Washington Times says that Rassmussen has Bush's approval rating at an all time low of 34% for his poll but not for other polls. The poll was taken since this bill was announced.

I have voted for Bushes for president four times because I thought they were lesser evils than the Donkeys. I don't mean lesser incompetents or lesser stupidities, I mean lesser EVILS. I am thinking I may have miscalculated.

Terrye, you got one thing right: Bush has always been a RINO.

Posted by trapeze | May 20, 2007 7:00 PM

Captain Ed said, "National security requires that we find a solution as quickly as possible..."

Let me be succinct: BUILD THE FENCE

Posted by Jeremy Abrams | May 20, 2007 7:34 PM

I'd be happy to pay more for produce and pick up and drop off my towels at the hotel desk, in exchange for living in a country that respects and enforces the rule of law for all. And I'd be particularly happy to see entry level working class people, many of them black, paid a better wage for their labor.

Is there some crisis going on I'm not aware of that requires such sudden massive legislation? Let's see how many stay here, and how prices and services are affected, after we begin enforcing the laws.

Heck, let's even begin a guest worker program for which only foreign citizens living in their foreign countries can apply. That I think would fix the problem. Basically, let's respect ourselves and our national identity.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 7:36 PM


Have we considered paying more? Let me explain capitalism to you, there comes a point when the cost of the labor is greater than the return on the labor. Then it is kind of pointless. Especially if they are lazy.

For people who are always complaining about the minimum wage I have noticed some folks on the right are awfully cavalier about telling other people what they should pay the help. Maybe the labor market is so tight that people don't feel like they have to try all that hard. But then again, since I work in health care I am sure everyone would agree that we need to raise wages and increase the cost of health more. It is sooo cheap here.

I am part of that largest group of voters, the 37.5% Independents. I lean center right. I have voted for Republicans for some time. I even voted for the doomed John Hostettler of the 8th District in Indiana, the man was a hardliner and a fiscal conservative. Unlike most conservatives who said they supported cutting entitlements Hostettler actually supported private accounts in Social Security. The Republicans abandoned him. So....the Democrat who I did not vote for, the moderate Brad Ellsworth, won, in a conservative district.

But I could change my voting habits if it gets to the place that I am no longer allowed to have an opinion of my own on the right. Republicans can talk about RINOs all they want, but if the only people they will tolerate are people who think exactly the way certain people on the right say they should, then they can kiss a majority good bye. Republicans are simply not that large a group.

They can probably kiss the White House good bye too.

But what the hell, the true believers do not want or need the votes of the likes of me. Just kick us right on out of here. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Who knows if they bully enough people they might kill this bill, for all the good it will do them. This is just about as helpful to Republicans as troop funding is to Democrats.

I am not asking people to agree with me, I just want people to realize that it is possible to have a different opinion and still want to do the right thing.When I say that building a wall will not take care of the problem all by itself that does not mean I don't want to see a secure border or that I would oppose building a wall. That means I don't share the almost religious reference for physical barriers that some people seem to have. I am still concerned about the 50% of the illegals that came in another way.

I agree with The Anchoress when she said the following:

I left the Democrats when it became clear that I was no longer allowed to have my own opinions, that I was expected to simply fall in line with the conventional wisdom of the left. I won’t “fall in line,” for the right, either - indeed, there is no reason why I should have to. The center-right has always seemed to me to be a place willing to allow people some freedom of thought, appreciating that differing opinions are valuable................

I will be very sad to see the right turn into the same bunch of screaming reactionaries the hard left has become, brooking no dissent. But I won’t be moved simply to be accepted. I should think all of you conservatives who stayed home last November “on principle” (and in doing so helped us get to where we are today) would respect that!

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | May 20, 2007 7:42 PM

RE: Fight4TheRight (May 20, 2007 5:13 PM)

I think you have provided fair statements.

On point one, I'd add that the President mouths the right words on the stump, but his words are well parsed and focus-group tested. Further, his actions belie his speeches. He wants amnesty, free trade, and all the cheap labor he can get. Keep that in mind every time you want to consider his motivations.

As a bit of a proof of this, consider what his pressing for amnesty now with a GOP minority Congress indicates. He had a majority GOP Senate and House. He dallied until a minority Congress replaced it. He added a few temporary National Guard soldiers to serve as administrative backup to BP just prior to the mid-term elections as a superficial show, and they will be scaled down. He had a post 9/11 domestic atmosphere to focus on border security. He did practically nothing. He appointed an inexperienced crony (Julie Myers) to head ICE. He called the Minutemen, legal Americans doing the job our government won't do, "vigilantes" even though they have followed the law to a T and have provided desired help for a beleaguered Border Patrol agency. BP agents remain understaffed even though Congress allowed him a larger force and provided the extra funding. Now, BP agents are being cannibalized by State to serve in Iraq since the mid-terms have concluded. The fence approved last year is being assembled at a snails pace and now will be halved in length if superceded by new law. Immediately after the midterm '06 loss, the first thing out of Bush's mouth was that he was eager and looking forward to working with the Democrats to pass "comprehensive immigration reform". Before the election, he backed the Senate version of the Immigration Reform Bill with little enforcement while criticizing the stronger enforcement House version.

Remember also that Bush was very friendly with Vincente Fox, loved NAFTA and CAFTA, and is working in some capacity with the SPP, a North-American Union initiative of sorts with the blessing of Commerce.

Why would Bush do all of this when it will split the GOP and push it into a generational minority since those getting amnestied will vote Democrat 3:1 or worse? Some have reported Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in '04 (the main beneficiaries of an amnesty) but that is probably an inflated number. Those on the lowest end of the socioeconomic ladder overwhelmingly vote Democrat since it is the party most receptive to nanny-statism. Nevertheless, even if it was 44%, that means the GOP will lose ~56% of a demographic with a higher population growth rate. The GOP will lose a growing number of votes for decades. Why would any Republican support such political suicide?

The only answer I can fathom is that Bush is bought by big business and willing to overlook everything because his family's lifestyle is covered. Maybe there's something else worse, but one cannot responsibly speculate without more information. Still, he is willing to destroy the middle class, or damage it severely, in spite of the political stupidity of it all and in spite of his supposed regard for law.

As to point two, I'd add that some Congresspersons want amnesty (via less enforcement) for ideological reasons, some don't for the same ideological rationale, but that most are fence-sitters just trying to keep their powerful and ego-stroking jobs. Like you observed, why stir the pot of enforcement when it is primarily the duty of the Executive to enforce it? They sure don't want to be near anything that is filled with such emotion and passion. It's a hot potato, er, tamale.

On your final point, I'd be inclined to say that Americans do not want amnesty that doesn't have absolute and proven enforcement first. Congress by and large just wants to respond to the group that will keep it employed. It's hard to gauge who really wants pure amnesty, but no one wants to sell it by itself, which is why the enforcement carrot is always included even though very few care to see this part carried out in the end. Notice how the Democrats eagerly invite Republicans to the stage to sell this "deal". Democrat leadership wants Republican cover so that if such a bad bill passes, it can avoid the blowback and proclaim that Republicans and Bush supported it. It's politically smart just as it is politically transparent.

Sorry about the added comments. You made great, concise points I probably should have left alone.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 7:46 PM


Well you know something? Most of these people do not work for large farms or meat packers. Most of them work for small businesses, regular people and a lot of those regular people do not know if they are legal or illegal.

As for paying more for produce, I think people are dreaming if they believe that Americans are going to work like migrant workers for any price. They will not do it. You can not pay them enough. Not so long ago fruit and vegetables were seasonal and there were even small and sometimes local growers who picked their own, but those days are gone. It would be more likely to see the industry become more automated and to see more of the farms go south of the border. There are large growers down there. It would hurt the southwest economies though if those big producers went under. Too bad they did not keep the Bracero program, that kept the labor coming in but not so many stayed. Then ofcourse subsidized water came to the southwest and everything got so big. The towns and cities and farms. Not so long ago that desert was our wall. Water changed a lot of that.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 20, 2007 7:53 PM

Anonymous Drivel:

Oh yes, blame Bush. It is all about Bush. I stubbed my toe, it is Bush's fault. The Republicans fritter away their majority it is Bush's fault and on and on and on.

Posted by daytrader | May 20, 2007 8:04 PM


I have seen you do this on more than one site. Yes there are a very few who say fence only and chase them out. But you seem to want to paint everyone into that corner.

Polls and the vast number of commentors say fence as part of the solution. A solution without a fence is not one. I agree it does not all have to be physical fence.

Right now we are at the point the only thing that is going to stop the inflow is pure saturation of the market by illegals.

They will eventually cut throating each other for jobs and fighting over territory and we will be caught in the crossfire.

Florida has a large immigrant population. Mainly first stocked by the Cuban boat lift which has grown many times over in time due to birth rates. We have many other nationalities present under legal immigration quotas that have self selected to move here. We don't have a fence and a very large border to cover. Daily we catch all sorts trying to sneak into the country. Some we only find the bodies to count. We have illegals here also and the number is growing.

Posted by Pierre | May 20, 2007 8:05 PM

Oh yes, blame Bush. It is all about Bush. I stubbed my toe, it is Bush's fault. The Republicans fritter away their majority it is Bush's fault and on and on and on.

Well yes it is exactly that way terrye..see thats why Truman said the buck stopped with him.

Bush could have:
Increased Defense Spending to 6% GDP from its current 3.6% which is near the lowest it was ever during Clintons years.

Went into Iraq with no warning and rounded up the WMD's that are now floating around the Middle East.

Destroyed the threat of Iran, Syria and made certain that the world understood that after 9/11 we would no longer ask for permission prior to defending ourselves. He could have made it clear that we were not apologizing for being alive. That would have stopped a bunch of nonsense...

He could have NOT passed No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit, and a whole raft of other liberal nonsense. One need only look to see that the woman killer Kenneday was his ally to see how wrong he was.

He could have NOT signed the McCain/Feingold monstrosity.

He could have hammered the Democrats on their cowardice.

He could understand that his attempt to lie us into amenesty is dishonest and a betrayal of the work we did to elect him.

But he chose not to and he has destroyed the Republican party because of his arrogance.

Posted by daytrader | May 20, 2007 8:19 PM

AnonomousDrivel said

They resent being ignored by an arrogant elected government that is, in return, resenting the critics who keep tearing them down. I appreciate their dilemma, but they are beholden to us and our opinions since we foot the bill.

The only weak point of your whole position.

That premise is history. Now they work for the lobby interest, big contributors, the Pacs and all the sources of funding and perks that play to their power and ego.

Us voters are just a necessary evil they have to do a dog and pony show for and throw sound bites at to keep us out of full revolt.

If the proposed schedule to have this bill voted on by the end of next week isn't proof of that to you check your vision prescription.

I have already seen estimates of over 2 billion dollars to do the admin related to this bill to register everyone. I have seen estimates that the final bill will be over 1000 pages in size.

Posted by patrick neid | May 20, 2007 8:22 PM


only you say stupid stuff like this:

"That is not true. Orwellian double speak my ass. FIne, build a wall, put a moat around it. Land mines. tactical nuclear weapons. Whatever. But if you just slap up a wall in the desert without any kind of electronic surveillance it will not be enough.And if you think you can just put a wall across a river or through mountainous terrain without worrying about any silly stuff like geography, well fine then do it. I am past the point of giving a rats ass."

past the point? you have never gotten to it yet. you are not, nor have you ever been for closing the border. you are an apologist for bad bills and you either overtly or covertly support open borders.

you argue your points by ignoring what others say. no one, and i mean no one has said anything about fencing without border guards or any of the silly stuff above. you always create strawmen. no one ever says shoot people or put land mines. only you.

folks such as myself have provided links, videos, personal testimony, previous immigration bills, a constant litany of facts concerning the failed immigration bills of the past. what i don't provide are links to biased political opinions or stupid analogies.

i'll say it again--you and many others are against sealing the border and preventing millions more illegal immigrants from coming here uninvited. why? i have no idea. again i ask you and the others--would you be willing to build and complete a wall/fence that prevents 99% of cross border illegal immigration before anything else is approved or discussed. i know bush, kennedy and mccain would not. how about you? i did not think so. so stop pretending and looking for excuses.

Posted by Labamigo | May 20, 2007 8:25 PM

I've been ranting on here for 6 months that the GOPs only hope for 2008 . . . both for the White House and Congress, is to distance ourselves from Dub Yuh as fast and as far as possible. As a Texan, and as someone who voted for him 2x for govenor, and 2x for President (and who consistently voted for his father every chance I got) this man, W, is a total betrayer and disaster for the GOP. He should be shunned at every chance and mocked and made a fool of. The electorate needs to know that in no way does this idiot reflect the views of the mainstream GOP.

Posted by Laura | May 20, 2007 8:28 PM

"I think people are dreaming if they believe that Americans are going to work like migrant workers for any price. They will not do it. You can not pay them enough."

My husband's brothers picked lemons in Oxnard during summer break from college in the late '70s or early '80s. It was hard work, but they have always said it was a valuable experience and taught them the value of a dollar. I don't see any reason why more Americans, just like them, wouldn't pick produce.

One of the problems about saying illegals are the only ones to do jobs like pick produce: either we're condemning the current illegal immigrants to be a permanent underclass with no hope of upward mobility -- also possibly "ghettoized" and dangerous as has happened with immigrants in countries like France -- or, if current migrants are going to eventually move up the socioeconomic ladder and we insist that only migrants will pick the crops, then we're going to *always* need more illegal aliens to pick the crops. Which means that the current bill isn't going to solve the problem.

Best wishes,
Laura's Miscellaneous Musings

Posted by patrick neid | May 20, 2007 8:46 PM

here's Senator Jeff Sessions early review of parts of the bill that Bush et al are supporting

you can't make this stuff up!

Posted by Carol Herman | May 20, 2007 8:47 PM

Migrant workers did not fly the 4 planes on 9/11.

And, the bigger problem? Here, you're watching your tax dollars at work, getting wasted. (Which is a topic that crosses state lines!)

While how many border states are there with Mexico? California. Arizona. New Mexico. And, Texas. And, all there IS NOT EQUAL!

Besides, Mexicans have been going back and forth. It used to be, men would come this way to work and get money. To send to their families back home. They'd also leave, go down to Mexico. And, visit their relatives. Including for weddings and funerals.

This changed. We've gotten waves of workers. From yes, at first, the migrants. To what we have now. THE DOPE PUSHERS.

You probably don't hear how bad it is in ganglands. But it's terrible! And, all those schools? Gone to hell in a handbasket, too. So the kids of the illegals aren't getting educated. What do they get? FREE MEALS.

Moms who send their kids to school to EAT. Because otherwise there's a bit of starvation in the diets; feeding the kids they have.

Who learn NOTHING in the schools.

And, where the gangs are rampant.

Bush isn't doing anything, here; except "getting along with the donks."

I'd guess he's aware of his bad press. And, worse, that his ratings went down the toilet. Just like they did for Jimmy Carter.

So, Bush threw out a life raft for himself. He also doesn't want to get impeached.

Though I gotta tell ya, the impeachment game is THROUGH. Tossed out. Fowled. Not gonna be tried by the TWO PERCENTERS.

While what's freaking out the8 contendah's? How come all see suited up in George Allen's straight jacket? Taking a turn, and talking the truth, in an atmosphere where "what could happen?" Those who want to prevent women from having abortions are, today, left with what?

What weight do these social hypocrits carry?

And, why can't the GOP fix what's broken?

Up ahead? Things get worse. If they ever get better? Dunno. You need to be a party of IDEAS.

And, preventing abortions, or interferring with stem cell research, hasn't really given the GOPsters an edge.

Let alone how we've handled Iraq! Where the people want to shove the sunnis into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Cairo. And, Bush remains clueless.

First, to serve your customers, ya gotta know what they want!

Did you know, before Detroit "lost it?" They were providing gold plated drinking cup holders in Cadillacs. I kid you not! In the 1950's and 60's, as engineering STOPPED, what the managers called for was MORE CHROME.

And, McCain tossing out the "F" word should'a fried him like toast.

You think the insiders are gonna pick the nominee for ya?

While the straight jacket around the 8 contendahs is a sad specticle, to boot.

The illegals are a problem because the gangs are a problem. And, the language barriers that exist; where you can't even convince people that to become Americans means NIGHT SCHOOLS. And, learning American History. Well, then. Where do you start?

The problem, here, is huge.

The solution? It involves politicians from ENDING THEIR AMNESTY FOR BUSH. Let me tell ya. That bozo should have disappointment you enough, already.

Posted by the tapper | May 20, 2007 9:17 PM

I completed a comment and posted it but it didn't come through. I read this blog daily and periodically, I post a comment. The Captain is usually spot on in his analysis and i read also with interest the comments to his postings they too are very eyeopening...Thanks for a good post....

Posted by the cannuck | May 20, 2007 9:44 PM

If it's a cramdown its a farce. If Kennedy likes it , its amnesty. If there is another attack involving border violaters , Bush is impeached.

Posted by G. Moore | May 20, 2007 9:48 PM

The proposed "compromise" has a fundamental flaw. It is unenforceable. I've sent the following letter to 97 senators. It pretty well summarizes the problem.

Dear Senator:

Please oppose the amnesty compromise announced Thursday by Sen. Kennedy. The proposal is unrealistic and unenforceable.

My understanding is that illegal immigrants would be invited to step forward, obtain a "Z visa" and, after paying fees and a $5,000 fine, get on track for permanent residency. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first.

The plan relies on voluntary compliance, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that voluntary compliance will not happen.

The criminal element (robbers, rapists, murders, etc.) in the illegal immigrant population will not step forward because … well, because they’re criminals who would be found out, and the rest of the law-breakers (people who enter the country in violation of our laws) will not step forward because they (a) cannot afford the fees and fine or (2) will not want to pay the fees and fine. Heads of households also would not step forward, because they do not want to be returned to their home countries.

Rep. Bilbray said: “The ‘compromise’ announced today by Senator Kennedy will reward 12 million illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship – what part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty. You would think that the Senate would have learned their lesson after the 1986 amnesty debacle, but it looks like their idea of a ‘compromise’ is to repeat the failed policies of the past.”

Please oppose the plan. Your political future hangs in the balance.

Thank you.

George and Marilyn Moore
Merced, Calif.

P.S. This from the Associated Press: “LOS ANGELES - David Guerra wants to be legal, but he says the path to citizenship offered by the Senate on Thursday would be too risky and too expensive, and could end up driving him deeper into the shadows.”

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | May 20, 2007 10:13 PM

RE: Terrye (May 20, 2007 7:53 PM)
Oh yes, blame Bush. It is all about Bush. I stubbed my toe, it is Bush's fault. The Republicans fritter away their majority it is Bush's fault and on and on and on.

Spare me the hyperbole, Terrye.

I've defended this President on many things and you know it, but his position on this issue is damnable and you selectively ignore that with which you disagree. You act as if this is the only issue upon which I comment and that I unfairly blame Bush for everything, nevermind my numerous links and contemporary evidence to back my position. You on the other hand want to be his sycophant and defend him on every issue. That's representative of a party hack and not some critical centrist you claim to be. Your response is emotive noise littered with strawmen which is why I've quit responding to your posts. For you the debate is either amnesty and practically open borders or minefields, "gunning down people", and mass deportation just to get in the subtle whiff of fascism. Bah.

Help yourself to licking his boots, but don't expect me to join in. I find that to be bad for the sole.

And to conclude, it's Bush's fault.

Posted by Carol Herman | May 20, 2007 10:23 PM


This bill was supposed to pass. But it hasn't.

And, the INTERNET has made the difference!

Let alone, Drudge, tonight, putting up the BOO's that came to a rep or senator who went out speaking to constituents.

Now? A number of congress critters are slowing things down. And, the Bill won't be out the door in a week.

Let alone, how you're gonna get "blurbs" from pelosi, saying this bill isn't about amnesty.

Once? It took a long time for the public to register disapproval.

Not on this one! I think the next week should prove to be a lot more interesting, though.

It also means this wasn't a topic that affected a small group on one side of the aisle. This one flew to the top of the charts. Across the board.

Including, I'd bet Mexican neighborhoods, where people are legit. And, the incoming aliens? You know who gets robbed first? Whose schools go down the toilet, first?

It used to be in politics, the guys in the smoke-filled rooms set the rules.

But if they get stuck with merchandise on the shelves that doesn't sell? It's pink-slip-ville.

Remember. It's only a TWO PERCENT difference. The race ain't over. You can't call this one "on a nose," yet, either.

Posted by grey_whiskers | May 20, 2007 10:41 PM

I am reading the text of the new immigration bill.

Just as the Patriot Act was a grab bag for every illegal and unconstitutional fantasy on the part of law enforcement, this bill is a grab bag for the globalists, those who wish to destroy the American middle class, and those who want amnesty.

The site I am reading from is here.

Here are some of the horrible things in the bill.

It allows for the elimination of existing backlogs (apparently by fiat), section 501. From 501(b)(2)(A):

”(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN- `(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1). ”

Here is another goody, about drunk drivers (Section 225):

(a) In General- Section 101(a)(43)(F) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F)) is amended by inserting `, including a third drunk driving conviction, regardless of the States in which the convictions occurred or whether the offenses are classified as misdemeanors or felonies under State law,' after `offense)'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall--
(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply to convictions entered on or after such date.

Get that? They are empowered to do something (anyone want to look up Section 101(a) (43) (F) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (43)(F) – after a

Ted Kennedy must have insisted on this personally ;-)

Let’s grab another tidbit:

(a) Immigrants- Section 204(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking `Any' and inserting `Except as provided in clause (vii), any';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
`(vii) Clause (i) shall not apply to a citizen of the United States who has been convicted of an offense described in subparagraph (A), (I), or (K) of section 101(a)(43), unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the citizen poses no risk to the alien with respect to whom a petition described in clause (i) is filed.'; and
(3) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
(A) by striking `Any alien' and inserting the following: `(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), any alien'; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(II) Subclause (I) shall not apply in the case of an alien admitted for permanent residence who has been convicted of an offense described in subparagraph (A), (I), or (K) of section 101(a)(43), unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence poses no risk to the alien with respect to whom a petition described in subclause (I) is filed.'.
(b) Nonimmigrants- Section 101(a)(15)(K) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)), is amended by inserting `(other than a citizen described in section 204(a)(1)(A)(vii))' after `citizen of the United States' each place that phrase appears.

I don’t know what this means—but WTF aren’t they concerned with protecting citizens from illegal aliens who are sex offenders? There is no Megan’s Law in Mexico.

Oh, and Sanctuary Cities are A-OK:

(a) In General- Title II (8 U.S.C. 1151 et. seq.) is amended by adding after section 240C the following new section:
`(a) Authority- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, law enforcement personnel of a State, or a political subdivision of a State, have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody (including the transportation across State lines to detention centers) an alien for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws of the United States in the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such personnel. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by a Federal law. .
`(b) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require law enforcement personnel of a State or a political subdivision to assist in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States..

Oh, yes, at the end of this section is the funding:

”(b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Detention and Transportation to Federal Custody of Aliens Not Lawfully Present- There are authorized to be appropriated $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and for each subsequent fiscal year for the detention and removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et. seq.).”

This means less than 1 billion dollars a year for detention.

By contrast, section 643 mentions training in English for those who want to become citizens.

(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Strengthening American Citizenship Act of 2007'.
(b) Definition- In this section, the term `Oath of Allegiance' means the binding oath (or affirmation) of allegiance required to be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, as prescribed in section 337(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (h)(1)(B).
(c) English Fluency-
(A) ESTABLISHMENT- The Chief of the Office of Citizenship of the Department (referred to in this paragraph as the `Chief') shall establish a grant program to provide grants in an amount not to exceed $500 to assist legal residents of the United States who declare an intent to apply for citizenship in the United States to meet the requirements under section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423).
(B) USE OF FUNDS- Grant funds awarded under this paragraph shall be paid directly to an accredited institution of higher education or other qualified educational institution (as determined by the Chief) for tuition, fees, books, and other educational resources required by a course on the English language in which the legal resident is enrolled."

OK, so I agree that English fluency is an important step to assimilation. That is good. (Even though to first appearances, it looks like we are trying to help illegals *become citizens* -- which is amnesty.) But $500 per person times (let us hope for the best, that they *all* want to assimilate) 12 million is $6 billion. So they will potentially pay $6 billion to train in English, but less than $1 billion for deportation. This is not "revenue neutral" as I believe the saying goes. How will you pay for this? And who will score and administer the tests of fluency?

And the preferences for the government for illegal immigrants over US citizens does not stop there. Look at the National Crime Information Center, illegals can get their names removed when put there in error:

(a) Provision of Information to the National Crime Information Center-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (3), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the head of the National Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice the information that the Secretary has or maintains related to any alien--
(A) against whom a final order of removal has been issued;
(B) who enters into a voluntary departure agreement, or is granted voluntary departure by an immigration judge, whose period for departure has expired under subsection (a)(3) of section 240B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) (as amended by section 211(a)(1)(C)), subsection (b)(2) of such section 240B, or who has violated a condition of a voluntary departure agreement under such section 240B;
(C) whom a Federal immigration officer has confirmed to be unlawfully present in the United States; and
(D) whose visa has been revoked.
(2) REMOVAL OF INFORMATION- The head of the National Crime Information Center should promptly remove any information provided by the Secretary under paragraph (1) related to an alien who is granted lawful authority to enter or remain legally in the United States.
(3) PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF ERRONEOUS INFORMATION- The Secretary, in consultation with the head of the National Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice, shall develop and implement a procedure by which an alien may petition the Secretary or head of the National Crime Information Center, as appropriate, to remove any erroneous information provided by the Secretary under paragraph (1) related to such alien. Under such procedures, failure by the alien to receive notice of a violation of the immigration laws shall not constitute cause for removing information provided by the Secretary under paragraph (1) related to such alien, unless such information is erroneous. Notwithstanding the 180-day time period set forth in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide the information required under paragraph (1) until the procedures required by this paragraph are developed and implemented.
(b) Inclusion of Information in the National Crime Information Center Database- Section 534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: `(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of violations of the immigration laws of the United States; and'.

Got that? If an illegal gets on the bad list accidentally, they have the opportunity to petition for removal. Compare that to the TSA’s no-fly list, where you don’t even have the right to know how you got ONTO the list.

And the overt shafting of US citizens continues in employment, too.

Oh, and the much vaunted Employer Verification System? Read this from Section 305:


(a) Application of Prohibition of Discrimination to Verification System- Section 274B(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(1)) is amended by inserting `, the verification of the individual's work authorization through the Electronic Employment Verification System described in section 274A(d),' after `the individual for employment'.
(b) Classes of Aliens as Protected Individuals- Section 274B(a)(3)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
`(B) is an alien who is--
`(i) lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
`(ii) granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 210(a) or 245(a)(1);
`(iii) admitted as a refugee under section 207;
`(iv) granted asylum under section 208;
`(v) granted the status of a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c);
`(vi) granted temporary protected status under section 244;
or `(vii) granted parole under section 212(d)(5).'.
(c) Requirements for Electronic Employment Verification- Section 274B(a) (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(7) ANTIDISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEM- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity, in the course of the electronic verification process described in section 274A(d)--
`(A) to terminate or undertake any adverse employment action due to a tentative nonconfirmation;
`(B) to use the verification system for screening of an applicant prior to an offer of employment;
`(C) except as described in section 274A(d)(3)(B), to use the verification system for a current employee after the first 3 days of employment, or for the reverification of an employee after the employee has satisfied the process described in section 274A(d); or `(D) to require an individual to make an inquiry under the self-verification procedures established in section 274A(d)(8)(E)(iii).'.
(d) Increase in Civil Money Penalties- Section 274B(g)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1324b(g)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(iv)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking `$250 and not more than $2,000' and inserting `$1,000 and not more than $4,000';
(B) in subclause (II), by striking `$2,000 and not more than $5,000' and inserting `$4,000 and not more than $10,000';
(C) in subclause (III), by striking `$3,000 and not more than $10,000' and inserting `$6,000 and not more than $20,000'; and
(D) in subclause (IV), by striking `$100 and not more than $1,000' and inserting `$500 and not more than $5,000'.
(e) Increased Funding of Information Campaign- Section 274B(l)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1324b(l)(3)) is amended by inserting `and an additional $40,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010' before the period at the end.
(f) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to violations occurring on or after such date.

Get that? The next-to-last paragraph. Forty MILLION for the Information campaign about this. Jon Edwards probably spends that much on hairspray alone.

Oh, and section 7 says it out loud.



EMPLOYERS CANNOT USE THE VERIFICATION SYSTEM (except as described in a completely different document) AFTER THREE DAYS EMPLOYMENT.

Kennedy and Bush are dallying the idea of destroying one of the few remaining American professions which cannot be offshored (and a finger in the pie to destroy the others). But Section (d)(1) on domestic nurses gives me some scant hope. Why can’t they do the same thing for IT staff?

(a) Exception to Direct Numerical Limitations- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(F)(i) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and ending on September 30, 2017, an alien--
`(I) who is otherwise described in section 203(b); and
`(II) who is seeking admission to the United States to perform labor in shortage occupations designated by the Secretary of Labor for blanket certification under section 212(a)(5)(A) due to the lack of sufficient United States workers able, willing, qualified, and available for such occupations and for which the employment of aliens will not adversely affect the terms and conditions of similarly employed United States workers.
`(ii) During the period described in clause (i), the spouse or dependents of an alien described in clause (i), if accompanying or following to join such alien.'.
(b) Exception to Nondiscrimination Requirements- Section 202(a)(1)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking `201(b)(2)(A)(i)' and inserting `201(b)'.
(c) Exception to Per Country Levels for Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 202(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)), as amended by section 502(1), is further amended by inserting `, except for aliens described in section 201(b),' after `any fiscal year'.
(d) Increasing the Domestic Supply of Nurses and Physical Therapists- Not later than January 1, 2007, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--
(1) submit to Congress a report on the source of newly licensed nurses and physical therapists in each State, which report shall--
(A) include the past 3 years for which data are available;
(B) provide separate data for each occupation and for each State;
(C) separately identify those receiving their initial license and those licensed by endorsement from another State;
(D) within those receiving their initial license in each year, identify the number who received their professional education in the United States and those who received such education outside the United States; and
(E) to the extent possible, identify, by State of residence and country of education, the number of nurses and physical therapists who were educated in any of the 5 countries (other than the United States) from which the most nurses and physical therapists arrived;
(F) identify the barriers to increasing the supply of nursing faculty, domestically trained nurses, and domestically trained physical therapists;
(G) recommend strategies to be followed by Federal and State governments that would be effective in removing such barriers, including strategies that address barriers to advancement to become registered nurses for other health care workers, such as home health aides and nurses assistants;
(H) recommend amendments to Federal legislation that would increase the supply of nursing faculty, domestically trained nurses, and domestically trained physical therapists;
(I) recommend Federal grants, loans, and other incentives that would provide increases in nurse educators, nurse training facilities, and other steps to increase the domestic education of new nurses and physical therapists;
(J) identify the effects of nurse emigration on the health care systems in their countries of origin; and

(K) recommend amendments to Federal law that would minimize the effects of health care shortages in the countries of origin from which immigrant nurses arrived;
(2) enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine to determine the level of Federal investment under titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act necessary to eliminate the domestic nursing and physical therapist shortage not later than 7 years from the date on which the report is published; and (3) collaborate with other agencies, as appropriate, in working with ministers of health or other appropriate officials of the 5 countries from which the most nurses and physical therapists arrived, to-- (A) address health worker shortages caused by emigration; (B) ensure that there is sufficient human resource planning or other technical assistance needed to reduce further health worker shortages in such countries.

Did I mention IT workers? They’re covered too under section 508. Those with advanced degrees, who have been on green cards during three years, don’t count against the limits. Neither do their spouses or children!

And the limits are raised to 115,000 per year—for starters. And go up 20% a year after that.

(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
(2) APPLICABILITY- The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply to any visa application--
(A) pending on the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(B) filed on or after such date of enactment.
(b) Labor Certification- Section 212(a)(5)(A)(ii) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking `or' at the end;
(2) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; or';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(III) has an advanced degree in the sciences, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited university in the United States and is employed in a field related to such degree.'.
(c) Temporary Workers- Section 214(g) (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking `(beginning with fiscal year 1992)'; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (vii), by striking `each succeeding fiscal year; or' and inserting `each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007;'; and
(ii) by adding after clause (vii) the following:
`(viii) 115,000 in the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this clause; and
`(ix) the number calculated under paragraph (9) in each fiscal year after the year described in clause (viii); or';
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking `or' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; or'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(D) has earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math.';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), and (11) as paragraphs (10),
(11), and (12), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
`(9) If the numerical limitation in paragraph (1)(A)--
`(A) is reached during a given fiscal year, the numerical limitation under paragraph (1)(A)(ix) for the subsequent fiscal year shall be equal to 120 percent of the numerical limitation of the given fiscal year; or
`(B) is not reached during a given fiscal year, the numerical limitation under paragraph (1)(A)(ix) for the subsequent fiscal year shall be equal to the numerical limitation of the given fiscal year.'.
(d) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (c)(2) shall apply to any visa application--
(1) pending on the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) filed on or after such date of enactment.
(e) Worldwide Level of Immigrants With Advanced Degrees- Section 201 (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting `and immigrants with advanced degrees' after `diversity immigrants'; and
(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
`(e) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants and Immigrants With Advanced Degrees-
`(1) DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS- The worldwide level of diversity immigrants described in section 203(c)(1) is equal to 18,333 for each fiscal year.
`(2) IMMIGRANTS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES- The worldwide level of immigrants with advanced degrees described in section 203(c)(2) is equal to 36,667 for each fiscal year.'.
(f) Immigrants With Advanced Degrees- Section 203 (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `paragraph (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)' and inserting `paragraphs (2) and (3), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(1)';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and
(4), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
`(A) IN GENERAL- Qualified immigrants who hold a master's or doctorate degree in the life sciences, the physical sciences, mathematics, technology, or engineering from an accredited university in the United States, or an equivalent foreign degree, shall be allotted visas each fiscal year in a number not to exceed the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2).
`(B) ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS- Beginning on the date which is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor, and after notice and public hearing, shall determine which of the degrees described in subparagraph (A) will provide immigrants with the knowledge and skills that are most needed to meet anticipated workforce needs and protect the economic security of the United States.';
(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, by striking `this subsection' each place it appears and inserting `paragraph (1)'; and
(E) by amending paragraph (4), as redesignated, to read as follows:
`(A) DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS- The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, occupation, education level, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under paragraph (1).
`(B) IMMIGRANTS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES- The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, degree (including field of study), occupation, work experience, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under paragraph (2).'; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking `(c)' and inserting `(c)(1)';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
`(3) Immigrant visas made available under subsection (c)(2) shall be issued as follows:
`(A) If the Secretary of State has not made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B), immigrant visas shall be issued in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.
`(B) If the Secretary of State has made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B) and the number of eligible qualified immigrants who have a degree selected under such subsection and apply for an immigrant visa described in subsection (c)(2) is greater than the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2), the Secretary shall issue immigrant visas only to such immigrants and in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.
`(C) If the Secretary of State has made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B) and the number of eligible qualified immigrants who have degrees selected under such subsection and apply for an immigrant visa described in subsection (c)(2) is not greater than the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2), the Secretary shall--
`(i) issue immigrant visas to eligible qualified immigrants with degrees selected in subsection (c)(2)(B); and
`(ii) issue any immigrant visas remaining thereafter to other eligible qualified immigrants with degrees described in subsection (c)(2)(A) in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.'.
(g) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsections (e) and (f) shall take effect on October 1, 2007.

Oh, finally, about all those illegal criminals, rapists,murderers, and the like? The Feds care about that. They have authorized less than 1 billion dollars a year for it, nationwide. Section 218:

(a) Reimbursement for Costs Associated With Processing Criminal Illegal Aliens- The Secretary shall reimburse States and units of local government for costs associated with processing undocumented criminal aliens through the criminal justice system, including--
(1) indigent defense;
(2) criminal prosecution;
(3) autopsies;
(4) translators and interpreters; and
(5) courts costs.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations-
(1) PROCESSING CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS- There are authorized to be appropriated $400,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out subsection (a).
(2) COMPENSATION UPON REQUEST- Section 241(i)(5) (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)) is amended to read as follows:
`(5) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry this subsection--
`(A) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008;
`(B) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
`(C) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
`(D) $950,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2011 and 2012.'.
(c) Technical Amendment- Section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1365) is amended by striking `Attorney General' each place it appears and inserting `Secretary of Homeland Security'.

Got that? That is for ALL costs, including defense, prosecution, autopsies, translators, interpreters, court costs.

I hereby dub this bill "The Globalist Wet Dream and Mexico Ass-Kissing Act of 2007."

This bill is treason.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | May 20, 2007 11:02 PM

RE: grey_whiskers (May 20, 2007 10:41 PM)

Excellent work, grey_whiskers.

Now the devil in those details is rearing its horns. Is it any wonder Congress and the President tried to float the trial balloon of jolly, bipartisan cooperation over this bill and speed it through unreviewed? The public outcry via internet communication has rattled their cages. Make no mistake, if the outcry had not been as loud, that bill would have been law by the end of next week. To what degree the cages still shake remains to be seen, but this abomination is deplorable, deserving of every jolt.

Anyone voting McCain for President now? This is his baby, one where he managed to quit campaigning after weeks of missed Congressional votes only to "parachute" in and step in front of John Cornyn to take credit for his primary sponsorship.

Can a Republican poll into negative numbers?

Posted by Rose | May 20, 2007 11:02 PM

Hey Capt - glad to see you come around!

And to: Maverick Muse at May 20, 2007 3:55 PM


Don't get so impressed with Kay Bailey Hutchison over HER OWN PRESS - she was McCain's RIGHT HAND for years - until about 2004 when she let the Texas GOP leadership know she ws interested in running for Governor of Texas in 2006 against FELLOW GOP and INCUMBENT, Rick Perry - at a time when you couldn't find a Texan who would speak well of her for her constant voting with McCain, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, et al.

They politely let her know she best not think of that contest, but content herself to seeing IF she could hold her own seat!

I'm pretty sure the bombing of the reputation of The Minutemen resulted form THAT conversation, because they had mounted a man to run against her, and voila' - their reputation came under assault and the attack neatly halted as she won her seat back, handily!

This is a woman who insisted that Clinton was right for slashing our military, immediately after Stormin' Norman pronounced our military to be in prime condition.

She worked hard to straighten out her record and official "report card" after getting the long face from the Texas GOP leadership.

But NOW THE PRESSURE IS OFF OF HER, for at least 5 more years.

Regardless of what you hear THAT Queen say, CHECK HER VOTING RECORD. From the beginning.

Posted by Rose | May 20, 2007 11:11 PM

I believe Secretary Chertoff said that at least 20% of illegal immigrants would be excluded at the point of the background check. How they know that, I don't know. I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

Posted by: RBMN at May 20, 2007 3:03 PM


Gee, ya think it MIGHT have something to do with how many of them are already in our Judiciary system, SERIVING TIME IN OUR PRISONS, already???



Posted by Rose | May 20, 2007 11:16 PM

I hereby dub this bill "The Globalist Wet Dream and Mexico Ass-Kissing Act of 2007."

This bill is treason.

Posted by: grey_whiskers at May 20, 2007 10:41 PM


Congratulations! YOU NAILED IT! SPOT ON!

Posted by Rose | May 20, 2007 11:37 PM

BTW, the only part of the fence that was built before this last bill was spearheaded by Duncan Hunter, was built in California and slashed illegal aliens in that district. He also wrote the bill that demanded the fence be built and provided for its funding, for the 700+ miles that was recently passed AND NOT ACTED ON.

We don't need a NEW BILL - we need the laws on the books ENFORCED.

We need some Bounty Hunters, who get paid out of confiscated illegal alien property.
The Aliens will leave toot sweet so they can take their sweet assets with them.

This weekend, I talked to a JP from a nearby town that recently lost a Deputy to the Feds prison for shooting at illegal aliens' TIRES, while they fled through fields after trying to run him down.

Looks like the FACTS according to the doctors are that a woman who was injured, they claimed was shot by the deputy while she hunkered down on the floor of the station wagon as he shot at tires, was actually injured when someone else shoved her down too hard and her face connected with the metal rail on the floor that the back seat slid back and forth on.

But the FEDS preferred to grant amnesty to all the illegal aliens and their coyotes, than to believe the duputy who was RIGHTEOUSLY trying to arrest them.

Some may think you shouldn't shoot at fleeing felons - but most American history is NOT ion line with THAT absurdity - and this area has a high murder rate at the hands of ILLEGAL ALIENS - there is no reason to assume IN OUR AREA that fleeing illegals are harmless to the resident natives ane Citizens, just because they are fleeing the Law!

Posted by Karen Reese | May 21, 2007 12:28 AM

Ummmm, the article by Sessions is very interesting, but it was from May 23, 2006.

I did read it through and I hope we'll have the opportunity to read the current bill before it gets shoved thru. If DC holds true to form, many of the
areas of concern Sessions uncovered in last year's attempt will NOT be fixed in this latest attempt; they'll just be hidden better.

There aren't words to express my anger and dismay with Bush. I've defended him over and over to my family and friends, but this tears it for me.

Up until now I was leaning toward Rudy; but he's been sounding mushy on illegal immigration. I think DC has underestimated the anger among Joe Citizen.

So many are saying Tancredo doesn't have a chance, but he's looking better to me as time goes on.

Posted by Carol Herman | May 21, 2007 1:05 AM

Drudge never lets his audience down.

From the sounds out of the senators, now; I think they've taken notice not just of the Internet, but Talk Radio, as well.

And, Drudge thinks t'marra should be interesting. Since he doesn't know whose gonna attack Bush the most. Carter. Gore. Or Rush Limbaugh, starting Monday, at noon.

It also seems that this bill wasn't actually presented to anyone in a condition that could be read, until last night. 300 pages. With the idea? Well, it seems the Iraqi parliament wasn't the only place looking to close for the "holidays." And, for the senators "with plans," it meant being out the door starting on Memorial Day . Ain't so. Not any more.

McConnell is saying that to "discuss" this bill should take at least two weeks MORE. And, the voting? Was to start the "discussion." Which is now going to occur in poisoned atmosphere.

Drudge also played a tape of a congress person down south. Georgia? Whom the crowd gave cat calls to. And, yes. Surprising that the congress critters are hearing from their "locals." And, that this noise was coming from down south. Meaning? It's not just the 4 border states with Mexico, anymore.

Bush definitely is not holding the GOP together! It looks like the troops are restive. And, heading for the hills. NOT VOTING. Not looking to catch the heat that will be directed towards Bush t'marra.

Can't wait to see if Drudge called this one; where Limbaugh also gets on Bush's case. Because he's been rather close to the Bush family. After poppy invited him to the White House; where he got to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. When it came to criticizing Bush, as far as I know, Limbaugh held back.

(While in Iraq, Al-Hakim; the minister from the sunni section; just got diagnosed with lung cancer in the USA. But is traveling to IRAN for chemotherapy.) Odd alliances, after all, where arabs look to Persians for medical care. (Chemo can last for half a year or more; so that might explain why Al-Hakim isn't coming back, following diagnosis, to one of the American hospitals.)

While way-way back, when it was the Shah who had cancer; Jimmy Carter didn't want him traveling to the Mayo Clinic.

Anyway, Curioser ... and curioser ...

As to "no chance," ahead. I think the prize will go to McCain.

Posted by abwtf [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 21, 2007 1:09 AM

Someone mentioned this earlier and they are right on target...many Mexicans believe we lack the will to stand up for our country and they are right to a large degree - many Americans lack the will to enforce the law for fear of "looking mean-spirited"

Personally, on a theoretical level, I wouldn't mind getting 20 million new immigrants per year every year if they were all honest hard-working and could speak English.

It's not so much fear of looking or being mean-spirited. It's just that in practical real world terms history has shown that it is best to have limits and a process. Those who don't follow the process should be sent to the back of the line.

Posted by Laura | May 21, 2007 1:22 AM

"Can't wait to see if Drudge called this one; where Limbaugh also gets on Bush's case. Because he's been rather close to the Bush family. After poppy invited him to the White House; where he got to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. When it came to criticizing Bush, as far as I know, Limbaugh held back."

Rush was excellent on Friday. I believe transcripts of some of the show are available on the "free" side of his website. He doesn't spend much time talking about the President directly (he said at one point the President is doing what he believes is right) but he ripped the bill to shreds, and criticism of the President was implicit in everything he said.

Best wishes,
Laura's Miscellaneous Musings

Posted by Cindi | May 21, 2007 1:51 AM

Don't forget this part:

"Sec. 702. Declaration of English.

(a) English is the common language of the United States.

(b) Preserving and Enhancing the Role of the English Language-The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the language of the United States of America. Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the laws of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English. "

Translation: The gov’t, that’s us, will continue to provide gov’t signs, documents, etc. in languages other than English, including translators and ballots, as we have been doing; no more, no less.

That’s how they intend to ‘preserve and enhance the role of the English language’. They don’t.

Posted by BoWowBoy | May 21, 2007 2:05 AM

I haven't read all the comments .......but .....has anyone mentioned the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a plan for North American economic and defense integration being a part of this "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007" legislation .............??

I am hearing that the SPP is to be accelerated in this new amnesty proposal.

Are you ready for your taxes and treasure to be heading south to Mexico without a vote ............??

I don't think Americans are ready for North American Union ...........but ......this amnesty legislation in the Senate states ......."It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration," the draft legislation states on page 211 on the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.

Posted by The Yell | May 21, 2007 2:12 AM

G. Moore is right. These guys are not going to step forward and register--but not so much because they can't afford it, or won't be punished for dodging, but because they assert a moral right to work here free of any regulation by the alien government in Washington.

We cannot long endure even 5% of the US population swearing allegiance to a foriegn power, violating whatever laws they like, and roiling 1-2% of our GDP into a black market pipeline out of the country.

Coming here to stay and participate as Americans is honorable and should be a lot more feasible. Coming here to break our laws for quick cash is despicable and should be squashed.

But absent real leadership in Washington, the country is going to have to learn those truths the hard way.

Posted by Ken Hahn | May 21, 2007 3:07 AM

Compromise is impossible on the border issue. Anything short of border control now and then we'll see about the other stuff will result in no border control at all.

The open borders side does not negociate in good faith. "Guest worker" supporters will fill any compromise with exceptions and manouvers that will make enforcement next to impossible. Any attempt to require anything of illegals will be the subject of endless media sob stories about how mean we are to those poor people. The legislative and judicial attacks on any enforcement provision will begin before the ink is dry on Bush' signature. The President has made it clear he has no heart for enforcing the law.

The elites don't want to give up their cheap labor, whether it is companies hiring at low wages or professors and journalists who might be forced to mow their lawns or watch their children or pay decent wages to those who do. A multitude of lies will be told about jobs Americans don't want to do. Americans don't want to do them for the wages the elites want to pay.

George H W Bush compromised with congressional Democrats. He had pledged no new taxes, but bargained that away for the promise of spending cuts. Taxes were raised but the spending cuts never came. Amnesty will come but enforcement never will. It does not matter what we are promised on enforcement. It will never come.

Any "fines" will be found to be excessive and unconstitutional. Any additional border agents will be highly trained, in protecting endangered lizards. Hundreds of miles of wall will be built, three feet high with gates and gaps. All provisions except amnesty will be removed, replaced, overturned or ignored.

This is a bad bill on its face and it will be terrible in its effect. This "compromise" is a wonderful cover for the open borders supporters and a total defeat for any one who wants a solution that lasts longer that five years.

Posted by stilichio | May 21, 2007 3:45 AM


"Have we considered paying more? Let me explain capitalism to you, there comes a point when the cost of the labor is greater than the return on the labor. Then it is kind of pointless. Especially if they are lazy."

Well, then don't hire - end of story. Expecting the rest of the country to subsidize your cheap labor to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars (a lowball estimate) per head is just... well, cheap.

"I am part of that largest group of voters, the 37.5% Independents. I lean center right. I have voted for Republicans for some time."

That's fine - parties (especially in a two-party system) are by nature big tents. It's just that in a coalitional party, one part of the coalition can only screw over other parts *so* hard before there is a reaction. In this case, it's really a minority of the coalition that is ready to screw over the majority - really, really hard.

Indeed, if your side wins this fight, I personally (and hopefully many others) will set out to harm those on the Republican side that betrayed the rest of the coalition and passed this monstrosity - politically and economically . The worse the better. As the old British Home Guard slogan went: "You can always take one with you!". And if you are going down, then always go for the traitors first.

"That is not true. This is not an open borders bill and if it is killed without an alternative being put forward that will be a failure for both sides. "

Yea, sure, that is why "both sides" are so eager to pass the bill. Oh, wait....

Posted by stilichio | May 21, 2007 8:05 AM

As an aside, it would seem more people than me are seeing the wisdom of the scorched-earth approach on this issue.

Rightwingnews are now launching "Project Payback". I like the name, and will support their efforts as best I can.

Posted by David C | May 21, 2007 10:22 AM

1 day background checks? My Danish wife had to miss being at her fathers deathbed because INS/BCIS/USCIS refused to grant her parole during the 3 months it took for them to do her background check.

Posted by Y.K. | May 21, 2007 3:22 PM

These problems amount to deal-killers, in my opinion. I'm on board conceptually, but this compromise needs a lot of work and amending in the Senate. National security requires that we find a solution as quickly as possible, but we need to peruse every single clause in this bill to make sure it matches the description given to the American public last Thursday. So far, it appears to fall short.
Given the current Democratic-led House and Senate, which way do you think the "amending" will go?

Posted by TyCaptains | May 21, 2007 10:05 PM

Terrye said:
I am not asking people to agree with me, I just want people to realize that it is possible to have a different opinion and still want to do the right thing.

Don't know if you're still around Terrye, but I hope you extend this lesson over to the other side of the political aisle as well.

Posted by Brett_McS | May 22, 2007 8:03 AM

Who was it who said (I've got it written down somewhere):

Open immigration,

Pick two.