June 26, 2007

Doing What Clay Pigeons Do (Updating Through The Evening)

Michelle Malkin has the "clay pigeon" legislation in PDF format on her site right now. I've just downloaded it and started reviewing the document. I'll spend the evening perusing it after dinner, and I'll update the post as I find items of interest.

One point I find interesting -- it's a searchable PDF. That will make it easier to find key points to see what changes have been made. I'd encourage CQ readers to read through the document and list your concerns, along with page and line references, in the comments. Let's see whether we can outdo Congress in reading legislation.

POINT 1: Page 21, lines 12-16, apparently reinstated the 24-hour limit on probationary background checks. Remember when they promised to fix that so that no one would get a probationary card without passing the full background check? I guess they broke that promise.

POINT 2: Page 29, lines 12-end: The Z-visa has unlimited 4-year terms. I don't think this is a change, but shouldn't the immigrant at some point actually immigrate?

POINT 3: Page 33, lines 19-25: Z-visa non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US. Again, why would they be here if they're not working and not applying for a regular immigration status?

POINT 4: Page 48, lines 8-14: Interesting method here to ensure that Z-visa non-immigrants don't get preferential treatment. The regulations set up a timing mechanism so that no Z-visa immigrants can file for permanent residency until 30 days after eligibility for those who applied for normal immigration on May 1, 2005. That means that illegals can't "cut in line" ahead of anyone who applied on that date or before, but can be put ahead of legal immigrants who applied in the last two years.

POINT 5: Page 61, entire page: The language has changed in this section to allow access for all law-enforcement activity to the data gleaned from applications. Before, it was restricted to just immigration enforcement and national-security activities.

POINT 6: Page 67, lines 7-11: 80% of all penalties paid by the applicants will come through installment plans. I understand the need for this, but it puts the federal government on the hook for managing a payment system for 12 million new people, along with all of the other mandates in this bill.

POINT 7: Page 69, line 20: The DREAM Act, providing scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, still exists in the bill.

POINT 8: Page 89-90, lines 22-04: The 24-hour limit on background checks still holds within the Ag Workers section (the temporary guest worker program). If it takes longer than 24 hours, they get their credentials. (h/t: commenter Redherkey)

POINT 9: Page 92, lines 14-15: Do I read this correctly? The new limit on guest-worker visas is now 1,500,000 -- not counting dependent Z-A visas? Wasn't this originally 400,000 and reduced by half later?

POINT 10: Pages 169-170: The employer fines seem rather daunting. The first tier fine for employing an illegal will be $5,000 per occurence. If an employer has been fined in the past for employing an illegal alien, it escalates to $10,000, and on up to $75,000 per occurence. If the ICE decides to enforce the law on employers -- still a rather open point -- it could get very expensive. I wonder if that applies to corporations as a whole, or each location separately.

POINT 11: Pages 227-8: The temporary worker program gets fleshed out more specifically here, and it appears to have a limit of 180,000 for "Y-visa nonimmigrants." If so, what are the Z-A visas, and why do they have a cap of 1,500,000?

POINT 12: Page 276: This is an amendment that forces any probationary status to wait until after the security triggers have been met. It seems to me that this is another example of the many cross purposes of this bill, and it will serve to confuse both backers and opponents of this bill.

I'm done for the evening. If you want to take a look through the bill, check with NZ Bear, who has a searchable HTML version up at his site.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Doing What Clay Pigeons Do (Updating Through The Evening):

» Stevens, Murkowski- Going Fishing? from Juneau Blog
“SEC. _. H-2A STATUS FOR FISH ROE PROCESSORS AND TECHNICIANS.Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration andNationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)) isamended by inserting ‘’for employment as a fish roe processoror fish ro... [Read More]

» Amnesty Bill Blogosphere Round-Up from Iowa Voice
The talk across the conservative blogosphere is, of course, about yesterday’s amnesty cave-in and… ... [Read More]

Comments (74)

Posted by Carol Herman | June 26, 2007 5:27 PM


Plus, today, Bush wrapped himself about a lot of American flags. And, still said AMNESTY. Leaving the mess to Tony Snow to clear on up.

Oy, on the part of re-instating the ability to get paperwork without a complete background check!

Are the senators that suicidal? I'm gonna bet Brownback will be gone from the GOP presidential menu choices, even before McCain goes down. (Since it's McCain's job to crash the GOP ship. He has friends among the democraps. And, right now he's racing for a cabinet chair in hillary's Bonkey presidency.)

Well? It IS like a horse race! Just because there's moolah bets, doesn't mean your horse wins. Some, ahead, may even get scratched.

While, if nothing else, there's more reality in the HOUSE. Given the way voters vote.

And? We may see INDEPENDENTS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK. Heck, Lieberman won his race that way. The nutters on the left weren't able to change his seat in the senate.

I'll also guess that collecting money from the peasants is also off. And, once people snap their pocketbooks shut? They get to keep their money. Getting them to spend it again is tough.

Harry Reid's just the "pa" part of the Ma & Pa Kettle Show.

Anyway, this is a pretty good test for the Internet. I've gone nowwhere else for news. And, the pundits don't have me as a customer. You think the old media is ahead, here? I think they can't deliver.

And, I think Harry Reid just stuck himself inside a hornet's nest.

Posted by The Plumber | June 26, 2007 6:14 PM

I like to go through these things backwards.

What I found especially amusing, so far, starts on page 354 with the creation of a "Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent".

This commission will ultimately give (probably) reparations to Latin Americans of Japanese descent who were interned, or deported to Axis countries, between the years 1941-1948.

What a hoot, huh?

Posted by Ann | June 26, 2007 6:28 PM

non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US

Retirement: A job American's won't do!

Posted by crossdotcurve | June 26, 2007 6:29 PM

Why would they be here is they're over 65 and not working?

Uh....perhaps because they've been working here for twenty or thirty years, have raised families, and have homes and grandchildren.

Posted by redherkey | June 26, 2007 6:35 PM

The 1-day limit on background checks ("end of the next business day") is reason enough to torpedo this nightmare. Even if the provision was for two weeks, it is no different than saying "no background check will be conducted - we will take the applicant's word for everything claimed."

I work for one of the largest financial processors worldwide in the information security group. As we handle confidential IRS data, I had to undergo a background check with the U.S. Government. Understand that as a born U.S. citizen with a legit social security number, drivers license, white-bread upbringing, college degree, established banking accounts, whife & two kids & a dog, and a 100% verifiable history, it still took the Feds 9 weeks to conduct my check.

Throw in bogus SSN's, foreign birth, stealth work history from under-the-table cash payments, zero legitimate financial history and association with criminals providing false documentation and smuggling services and one would expect the process to be much longer. Under the stress of processing 12-50 million applicants, I can't even imagine how they'd carry them out.

The answer is the obvious one: unlike the IRS, applicant information will be accepted without question. Punitive measures in the bill are toothless as the government has no means nor intent of verification.

Posted by redherkey | June 26, 2007 6:43 PM

Just a note... .page 89-90 ("Agricultural Workers") also has the one-day background check maximum issue.

Someone needs to slip in a provision for one-day passport service while they're so attentive to first-class speedy governmental customer service.

Posted by spaceneedleboy | June 26, 2007 6:45 PM

Reading the "clay pigeon" amendments, I'm at a loss for words. How does this legislation make America safer?

Posted by Larry J | June 26, 2007 6:52 PM

POINT 3: Page 33, lines 19-25: Z-visa non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US. Again, why would they be here if they're not working and not applying for a regular immigration status?

Hmmm, what happens to someone when they turn 65? For one thing, they become eligible for Medicare. Would these people qualify for Medicare? If so, then Medicare (already a massively overburdened program costing several hundred billion dollars a year) will suddenly have a lot more people on the roles. Medicare is pretty well broken now. This will either kill Medicare or force young people to pay even higher taxes for it.

Posted by Captain Ed | June 26, 2007 6:55 PM


Then they should apply for legal residency, rather than renewals of non-resident workers' visas.

Posted by RBMN | June 26, 2007 7:27 PM

The 24-hour limit is only for getting a piece of plastic--a card. Whether that piece of plastic gets you anything in the future depends on what's in the database related to the card number. Your Z-Visa can be made invalid just two weeks later, twenty weeks later, or ten months later--whenever new information comes to light that makes you ineligible to have one. That piece of plastic in your wallet is as worthless as a stolen credit card if the database doesn't accept the card as valid. It'll have to be checked every time it's used. That's how Chertoff explains the process. I know nobody cares what Chertoff says, but he really did say it. Chertoff calls the 24-hour period just the "first cut."

Posted by Weight of Glory | June 26, 2007 7:34 PM

Page 17; Line 8:
ok, someone help me with this one. Is this really in there? Are they serious? Who is going to do these interviews? I have very little experience wading through legislation, so if i am not understanding this requirement, please correct me.

Posted by Phil | June 26, 2007 7:37 PM

The Dream Act is hiarious.

Posted by Realist | June 26, 2007 7:37 PM

Why do all you people continue to let them make fools of you? It doesn't matter what is in the bill. The game is over.

Personally, I want to know what Paris Hilton has to say about the bill. Her opinion is far more valuable than any of yours.

Viva El presidente compasivo, Jorge bin Jorge al-Bush!

Posted by Weight of Glory | June 26, 2007 7:48 PM

pg 94, line 23:

I wonder what constitutes a "just cause"

Posted by heatrave | June 26, 2007 7:51 PM

It seems that the government is encouraging fraud regarding the establishment of security clearance. This WILL open a pandoras box of large scale mortgage theft and other such operations. The savings and loan scandal + the mission millions in Iraq will pale in comparison. Why would the US government condone this? To "tank" the American dollar and introduce the "Amero"?

Posted by Bill Faith | June 26, 2007 8:02 PM

Haven't heard much from the VP during all of this. Could it be he's being held in an undisclosed location to keep him from coming down hard on Jorge in public? Clay pigeons, huh? Maybe he needs to take some key senators skeet shooting. I added a link to my 2006.06.26 "No Illegal Left Behind" Roundup.

Posted by flenser | June 26, 2007 8:56 PM


I know nobody cares what Chertoff says

I'm trying hard to think of a reason why I should care about what our phoney head of Homeland Security thinks, given as how his top concern is the plight of Americas starving lettuce farmers. I have to admit, so far I'm drawing a blank.

Posted by Stephen | June 26, 2007 9:07 PM

The reason for Point 3 sure looks like basis for extending Social Security to "non-immigrants".

Posted by tgharris | June 26, 2007 9:28 PM

"The DREAM Act, providing scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, still exists in the bill."

Wow. As a taxpayer who wrote a number of college tuition checks for his kids, that just makes me feel warm all over

Posted by vamoose | June 26, 2007 9:52 PM

The word 'repeal' or variants appear 23 times. That's worrisome to me. What exactly is being repealed? For example, page 131, line 2: "Section 306 of this Act is repealed."

Posted by keepitreal | June 26, 2007 10:07 PM



(A) PROHIBITION. - No alien issued a Z-A visa may be terminated from employment by any employer during the period of a Z-A visa except for just cause. (pp. 93-94)

Does this, in effect, give ag workers holding Z-A visas, more rights in employment than the person who works in a factory? Or do they have more rights than a citizen does holding an agricultural job? Does this preempt the doctrine of employment at will (but only for those ag workers holding Z-A visas)? What happened to equal treatment under the law?

Posted by km | June 26, 2007 10:08 PM

vamose - You need to look at the current provisions of the United States Code. "Section 306 of this Act is repealed" means that the currently Section 306 that was previously enacted is being wiped out.

Posted by Consul-At-Arms | June 26, 2007 11:27 PM

Let's assume that they're talking about Sec. 306 of the current INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) which is Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

Which is:

Sec. 306, 8 U.S.C. 1406 "Persons Living in and Born in the Virgin Islands"

(a) The following persons and their children born subsequent to January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25, 1927, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927:"

It goes on for another half a page spelling out exactly who it applies to, as well as para. (b) covered by another time period.

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 26, 2007 11:45 PM

Is there any provision to welcome Muslim Arabs of Mexican ascent, and not to offend their little feelings by doing any checkiing on them at all, whatsoever? Will we also give them free welfare benefits while they are flitting about the country concocting their latest terrorist attack? Fix their lousy Arabic teeth for them for free, so they can go to their 72 virgins after the explosion(s) without a toothache ...

Posted by jackwhite | June 26, 2007 11:53 PM

Really, the reinsertion of the 24-hour deadline tells the tale. This is meant to be a universal amnesty even for felons, no matter what lies Chertoff has told. I also question whether the employer fines are just fig leaf amendments since a bought-and-paid-for Senate wouldn't dare pass steep penalties. I wish alternative media types would ambush senators and ask them about these specific provisions while cameras roll; the blank looks would make priceless attack ads.

At the end of the day, the Clay Pigeon Amendment is just another assault on the intelligence of everyone but United States senators and this White House.

We will face a bloodbath in 2008 and I don't know if we will ever recover.

Posted by jaeger51 | June 27, 2007 12:49 AM

All these pols are banking on the fact that the average American doesn't pay attention. The average person may wonder in the future why their taxes are so high, what's with all the Spanish signs, and why is it impossible to get a good job unless you are highly educated or connected...but meanwhile they've been distracted with celebrity "news" and spend their thoughts on whether they should hate or love Barry Bonds. We may all be appalled here and plan to get revenge on these pols by voting them out...but in the end, the celebrities win. Why else would Teddy Kennedy still be a Senator? Joe Average recognizes his name. It's very sad. And these pols know it, and that's why they are relentlessly trying to get this bill passed despite the fact that 85% of the public don't like it. By next fall, they figure most people will have forgotten about it. Republicans figure they're safe because, honestly, if your choice is McCain or Hillary, who would you really vote for? I'd hate it...but I couldn't vote for the socialist even if I didn't trust the so-called Republican. We desperately need a Reagan conservative third party that WILL NOT back down, and has no interest in compromise. I'm still amazed at the Republican tack that well, Dems have the majority so we have to give in and get the most we can...bogus! Have they forgotten the Dems stalling and sabotaging practically everything? We couldn't even get the judges confirmed. Pathetic!

Posted by dennisw | June 27, 2007 1:05 AM

POINT 3: Page 33, lines 19-25: Z-visa non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US. Again, why would they be here if they're not working and not applying for a regular immigration status?

Are you serious???? It's to retire here in some way shape or form. With SSI disability, subsidized housing, free medical, food stamps etc etc. If they cannot score the complete package they'll take what they can get. They come as part of an extended family. Cook and babysit perhaps while scarfing down welfare dollars

You are truly innocent and naive up in Minnesota. Elderly immigrants have been coming here for years to retire, of course they have never paid a dime into SS or other taxes

Posted by redherkey | June 27, 2007 1:13 AM

Chertoff calls the 24-hour period just the "first cut."

Unfortunately the bill appears to leave the actual interpretation to the rules committee, having been intentionally vague in its language. Subsequently it does not matter what Chertoff says, and for that matter, Chertoff has had quite a history of legislation telling him specifically to implement policy and has disregarded those as well.

My understanding of the process is that following ratification and the President's signature, it will then move to a rules committee for the fleshing out of the policy instructions "pursuant to the legislation's intent." In this manner, we've seen Ag bills that promised to provide incentives for rural broadband instead be written by the committee to provide slush funds for the incumbent local exchange carriers (aka local monopoly). This stage of the process seemed to be completely owned by lobbyists made earmarks look legit.

The strongest message this bill and its process communicates is that our Senate believes we're all a bunch of unimportant fools who are politically irrelevant. I've heard the same commentary from Sen. Harkin's people on the delusional netroots leftists who they mislead into thinking they're relevant. They simply don't believe any of us will defect to independent candidates of sufficient volume to ever impact the process.

Posted by Steve39 | June 27, 2007 2:38 AM

My God. They really are trying to destroy the country. I'm depressed over this and despairing for what it means for my descendants. I've done what I could, called my senators and rep numerous times, I feel helpless still. I swear it may take a second civil war to get the nation back on track.

Posted by daytrader | June 27, 2007 2:43 AM


Ok lets assume they got the card and months down the road the card is invalidated.

Questions arise here.

Does the registered employer of the person with the card get notified?

If the holder has a job the next time the card will be used is for the next job which could be years down the line.

If the card holder is notified of the rejection he just goes back underground how are you going to find him?

Posted by daytrader | June 27, 2007 2:47 AM

Why would they be here is they're over 65 and not working?

Uh....perhaps because they've been working here for twenty or thirty years, have raised families, and have homes and grandchildren.
Posted by: crossdotcurve at June 26, 2007 6:29 PM

Nope how about they are chain migration authorized under the bill for the card holder being allowed to bring in spouse and kids and PARENTS of both sides.

Posted by Panentheist | June 27, 2007 4:59 AM

Thanks Ed,

I do not believe Harry was expecting someone, anywhere, to let the average Joe know what is in his amendments.

Maybe someone in the near future will have a "blog" (somehow supported by the readers) that will make this type of information about important legislation going thru the legislature. Up until recently I have believed that our elected reps will do what is right and best for the country first and fill their pockets later.

Posted by Charlie Foxtrot | June 27, 2007 5:22 AM

OK, someone please educate me if my view on this is wrong, but does it really matter what the fine points of the bill are at this point?

Am I right in thinking that any good items that were put in in order to try and sway us from the anti-illegal immigration crowd can be taken out when the Senate and House bills go to conference? I would think that the same goes for any bad items that the Dems want to put back in. They can just wait for the Conference since they control both houses.

If I am right, then the bill that comes up for final consideration will be devoid of any thing good, and much worse than anything we are talking about right now.

Please some one tell me I am wrong about this.

Posted by quickjustice | June 27, 2007 6:18 AM

By parsing the bill, you're conceding the larger point. The larger point is that none of the "enforcement" provisions will be funded or enforced, because Congress has no intention of doing any of that.

The only thing that this bill will accomplish is an amnesty, with the pretext of a slap on the hand.

Today's Wall Street Journal makes the contrary argument, which is that illegal Hispanic workers will be very, very angry at Republicans if we don't give them amnesty. Hispanic rage will consign the GOP to minority status for two generations, says the Journal.

I have news for the Journal: the only way Gore won a majority of the vote in the 2000 presidential campaign was for the Clinton Administration to aggressively push for citizenship for immigrants, regardless of criminal records, background checks, or anything else. The Clinton Administration totally politicized the immigration process just before the 2000 election to eke out a popular majority.

In addition, the Journal says that "pandering to the GOP base" by leaving the issue until next year will divide the GOP during an election year. Huh? Enact an enforcement provision, and fund it. That will satisfy the base.

We can revisit a "path to legalization" once we have an enforcement mechanism in place that actually works.

Posted by crossdotcurve | June 27, 2007 6:54 AM

Well, I've learned a lot about this particular corner of wingnuttery. Someone calls for a "civil war" as a response to a piece of immigrant legislation and it goes uncommented on.

Another person bemoans using "welfare benefits" to "fix their lousy Arab teeth". Again, no comments. Just a silent inner chuckle from the CQ community and the C himself.

Pathetic. What a bitter and sad bunch.

Posted by Immolate | June 27, 2007 7:08 AM

Democratic demurral on this bill is a red herring. They know, as anyone with an ounce of sense should know, that naturalization of 12-20 million illegals gives the Dems a lock on national elections for a very long time.

Parsing the amendments is a waste of time. The concept of the bill is unacceptable on its face. There is no way something this large in scope and complexity can be understood, properly implemented, or sufficiently monitored for compliance. That is why a systematic approach that seeks to implement only the highest priority step first (border control) is crucial to success. Without border control, nothing else matters. You can neither stop new illegals from entering, not get rid of undesirables if you don't control the borders.

The reason that a comprehensive plan is preferred by the Senate is simple: only a large and complex bill can possibly provide cover for the wealth of completely suicidal provisions that they want to sell us. It is all about framing, and they want to frame it as the bigots vs. the warm and open-armed people. I reject that frame. This is about sovereignty, security and economic strength.

Posted by memomachine | June 27, 2007 7:14 AM


And yet these are the **Republicans** that many of you were demanding that conservatives support and vote for.

Well you voted Republican and now the Republicans shanked you in the kidneys.


Posted by LuckyBogey | June 27, 2007 7:24 AM

crossdotcurve: We are not only a bitter and sad bunch but we are also bigots. Viva America!!!

Posted by Immolate | June 27, 2007 7:40 AM


I don't endorse a call to civil war, nor do I have any particular predisposition to arabs with bad teeth, but an insinuation that Ed is responsible for disagreeing with commenters on his blog who have radical opinions, or even more specifically comments made at 11:45pm and 02:38am respectively, doesn't seem too reasonable.

Furthermore, if wingnuttery were a capital offense, we'd see a lot more Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers at the death row parking lot than Bush/Cheney. Just sayin...

Posted by Mal Carne | June 27, 2007 7:51 AM

Folks, I'll be blunt: Grow up.

Tossing the millions of illegals currently in the country out is utterly and completely unrealistic, even if we pulled the National Guard out of Iraq to do it. Can you even imagine what that will look like? Think Emilo Gonzalez looked bad? Try that a million times over and tell me that's America.

Build a wall to keep the immigrants out? Oh, yeah. That concept worked great for East Germany. (All right, the flow of traffic was the other way, but the analogy holds. Walls stink to high heaven when it comes to keeping borders sealed.)

I've yet to see anybody come up with a rational, humane alternative to the bill Congress is considering. "Round 'em up and toss 'em out" is not humane, the current policy is not rational.

Upset that Congress isn't listening? Stop acting like children who need to let the adults come up with real answers.

Posted by bethl | June 27, 2007 7:57 AM

actually the east german wall worked quite well--we would be fortunate if we had one that worked as well.

Posted by Immolate | June 27, 2007 8:08 AM


I'll be blunt. That milling crowd of peasants with pitchforks that is screaming for the expulsion of all Mexicans from the United States and disturbing your cricket game is all in your head. No doubt many feel that way, but that does not accurately characterize the movement that opposes this bill, nor the reason they oppose it.

Further, there may be legitimate practical arguments against the effectiveness of a border fence, but the Berlin wall is not a good example to use in debunking it. That's like arguing against capital punishment because it doesn't kill people dead enough.

Blunt enough for ya?

Posted by Mal Carne | June 27, 2007 8:34 AM

I'm not using the Berlin wall as a *practical* argument, you ninny. I'm using it as an *ethical* argument.

Do you really want America to look like East Germany?

Posted by The Plumber | June 27, 2007 8:36 AM

Mal Carne? Bad Meat?

En Espanol, the adjective comes after the subject. You had better learn that now or be left out of the 21st Century workplace in Meximerica.

Posted by The Plumber | June 27, 2007 8:41 AM

BTW Bad Meat,

Do you want the US to look like the Balkans? How about Latin America?

Posted by Angry Dumbo | June 27, 2007 8:44 AM

Fence or no fence, the most overlooked portion of the immigration bill is what happens to the 8 to 20 million undocumented aliens currently living "illegally" in the united states. What happens is overnight they become legal or rather better than legal because they don't have to pay taxes (so much for the "fixing" social security argument) and they can't be deported. How many illegals do you think will willingly come "out of the shadows" and be forced to contribute 2/3 of their paychecks to pay taxes?

Thats what I love real world thinking from the folks in Congress. : ))

Posted by Cousin Dave | June 27, 2007 8:53 AM

Immolate, let me be a bit blunter: Mel, screw you and your elitist attitude. We know that your people would love to overthrow the current citizenry and elect another one more to your liking in its place. Don't give me any arguments about how difficult it would be to deport 12 million illegals, becauses we know that your people would relish the opportunity to deport 100 million conservatives and libertarians. We know you're eagerly anticipating a civil war, one that your side thinks it can win, and have a cowed and docile population afterwards.

We know that you regard people like us as not worthy of existience, and that you'd send us all to the gas chambers if you had the means to do it. So stop pretending that you care. We know better.

Posted by Herkeng | June 27, 2007 8:55 AM

Mal Carne
Thank you for your bluntness. I will be polite and say " keep your judgment of others to yourself".

Want to inflame the board, write something demeaning like: "Upset that Congress isn't listening? Stop acting like children who need to let the adults come up with real answers."

Are you in the Beltway? You must be if you think the US Congress is acting as Adults and that "We the people" are misguided children. I take serious offense to anyone who comes in here and tells me and my fellow readers that we have unrealistic approaches to this fiasco called immigration.

"I've yet to see anybody come up with a rational, humane alternative to the bill Congress is considering. "Round 'em up and toss 'em out" is not humane, the current policy is not rational." Since when has the Captain said round 'em up and toss 'em out?
Quote please!

I do believe that most of us here are in step when the Captain said a few days ago “Secure the border. Fix the visa program and the passport system as well. When those tasks have been completed, then we can talk about how best to normalize those remaining in the US and how best to incentivize them to come forward." Open your eyes Mel, what is not rational about this stance? Is it mean and inhumane? No it is not. It is a heck of a lot better than this Amnesty agenda that has failed twice in my life time. Yes, twice it has failed (1986-1996) and our "Enlightened Congress and POTUS" are saying it will work this time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

"Build a wall to keep the immigrants out? Oh, yeah. That concept worked great for East Germany. (All right, the flow of traffic was the other way, but the analogy holds. Walls stink to high heaven when it comes to keeping borders sealed." Walls stink to high heaven when it comes to keeping borders sealed? A wall does not work?"

I take it that you never read about the wall Israel is using? yup, what a failure that is...for the people attacking Israel. Oh, and that wall you mention in East Germany, unfortunately for many a German looking to escape from communism, it worked to keep them in. Failure, nope.

Why was it that most of Europe had walled cities over history? to keep people and invaders out. Worked pretty good for most of them. How about your property, got a fence? got a wall? What is the purpose? The keep trespassers out and other things, IE..dogs, small kids, etc in.

Using your argument I come to the realization that you must think that this legislation and it's provisions will stop the flow of illegals. You must believe that without a fence or wall that this will be enough to convince the illegal aliens to rush over to the consulates and start applying for their A, B, H and Z visas. This was played on the public in 86 and 96, we are not buying it.

Mel, I'll be blunt: Grow up, the public is not buying what the Congress is selling. Secure the Border first!

Herkeng USAF (Ret)
2nd Generation Legal American

Posted by Mal Carne | June 27, 2007 9:06 AM

Heh. I love the assumption of how I must be a Beltway politico...

"Mal Carne" was my nickname in the kitchen. I'm a professional cook.

I work with these people every day. Puerto Ricans, Argentinians, Venezuelans, only rarely Mexicans. (Why not just go ahead and call all the Latinos "wetbacks"? It more or less what you seem to be thinking anyway.)

If you want to have any realistic idea of how idiotic it would be to toss all the illegals out of America all at once, look into the kitchen of your favorite restaraunt. Micky D's, Ruth Chris's, it doesn't matter. Shout "Que pasa!". See how many look up.

If all the Latinos left, America would starve.

You're being children. Pretending that we can throw these people wout without becoming a police state is ludicrous. Building a momument of barbed wire and guards to replace the Statue of Liberty is a joke.

The border cannot be secured as long as there's a reason for huge numbers of people to cross it. We either absorb them or bring our own economy to Third World standards so no one wants to come here either. We have find a way to make them Americans, folks. That's the only answer.

Oh, and by the by - those peasants with pitchforks?

Those are the Latinos. No Anglo uses a ptitchfork anymore, if you hadn't noticed.

Posted by The Plumber | June 27, 2007 9:27 AM

I used a pitchfork yesterday. I'm an Anglo as well.

One more thing Bad Meat, In the First World, there should be no need for humans to even touch the food in the fields. The modern plantation that you're so enamoured by has prevented R&D with regard to farm implements.

Who does the work that American's won't do where there are no illegals to do it?

Posted by MarkW | June 27, 2007 9:29 AM

The Berlin wall was used to keep people in.

Like they do in prison.

The proposed Mexican wall will be used to keep people out.

Like they do in country clubs.

By claiming that a Mexican wall will make the US look like Berlin, is the same as claiming that East Germany was the equivalent of a country club.

If you can't see the difference, it must be because you are trying hard not to.

Posted by Herkeng | June 27, 2007 9:32 AM

Mal Carne
Thank you for missing the point. I guess your house will never be secure as long as there are numbers of people willing to cross into it. Yes, there are people willing to break in and take your property or even become squatters. So with the "Mal theory" you can throw your stuff out or you can absorb the trespassers. Glad you are a Chef, you'll have a lot of meals to make.

Mal, if someone continually keeps breaking into my house, demands I feed him and his family, educate his children and provide for his welfare, I darn well better fix my door. If someone is invited into my house & I know who they are, I let them stay as guests, I help them in anyway possible. Big difference from a trespasser to being an invited guest.

Herkeng USAF (Ret)
2nd Generation Legal American

Posted by gobigred | June 27, 2007 9:37 AM

Mel Carne:

So what if 1/2 of the restaurants closed up? I guess we are learning that some of them are being propped up by illegal immigration anyway, so they are not truly necessary. And since Hillary Clinton and gang are so concerned that Americans are getting too fat (from eating out too much?) that should make them happy.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your industry is being propped up and might pop soon....it is amazing to me to find nearly empty restaurants in the evenings...I always wondered how some of those places were staying open. Now I know...cheap labor.

Posted by Mal Carne | June 27, 2007 9:37 AM

...and if someone comes into your house, cleans your carpets, fixes your doors, cooks your food, cleans your windows, and generally keeps the place from falling down...

The Plumber - were you *paid* to use that pitchfork?

Posted by Mal Carne | June 27, 2007 9:44 AM

gobigred -

Restaraunts like that close a lot faster than you think. There's no way to "prop up" a restaruant - the business doesn't work that way. If you can't buy new product on Wednesday, you're dead on Friday.

"My industry" is the #2 employer in the entire U.S., behind only the government. Take a moment to imagine what will happen to the economy if that "collapses".

Good grief, people. The housing industry hits a brick wall, unemployment figures barely dip, and you don't stop to think who got the axe? What on earth do you think would have happened to the economy if the immigrants weren't building all those houses?

Posted by bordergal | June 27, 2007 9:48 AM

If all the Latinos left, America would starve.

No, we'd just have less crime, better schools, and more affordable health care. Check out the FBIs most wanted list, 53% are illegals, mostly from Mexico. We've lost more Americans to illegals then soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Funny how when the illegals were cleaned out of the Swift meatpacking plant, there were Americans lining up to do the icky jobs they supposedly wouldn't do. Of course, it cost the EMPLOYER a bit more and probably made the CEO put off buying his new corporate jet for a day or two.

Sounds to me like there are many employers in this country longing for the good old days down on the plantation.

American work should be done by American workers.

Posted by Mal Carne | June 27, 2007 9:56 AM


I've tried it, pal. I've hired Anglos to work for my kitchen. I tell them to come in at 7. They show at 9. I've got the kid in my store who won't shut up about his record deal long enough to learn how to make coffee.

Then I've got the sweet 18-year old kid who actually is from Mexico. She works 8 hours for me, changes shirts, goes across the street, and pulls another 8 at Taco Bell.

Every day. And is always, without fail, on time.

Which one would you hire?

Posted by bethl | June 27, 2007 10:09 AM

I guess in California and New York there are jobs that Americans won't do---I don't believe that --but here in the middle of America these same jobs are being done by citizens---except illegal immigration is reducing wages and driving companies with legal employees out of business. We even have ag jobs where "no anglos need apply"

Posted by SSG Fuzzy | June 27, 2007 10:14 AM

>>Why would they be here is they're over 65 and not working?

>Uh....perhaps because they've been working here for twenty or thirty years, have raised families, and have homes and grandchildren.

Isn't the Z-visa intended for guest-workers? I know, silly question.

Posted by Teela | June 27, 2007 10:14 AM

"Mal" - for your information, illegals make up no more than about 20% OF ANY OCCUPATION - including crop picking, restaurants, hotels, construction, groundskeeping, etc.

If you only see illegal Latinos, then you live in an area that is saturated by them but there are still (a few) areas of this country where they have not flooded into .

Their mere presence is what causes others to observe that they do all the hard work. Get it?

BTW - they're mostly all illegal, which means they are also lying, cheating and stealing when it comes to identity fraud, social security, driver license, etc.

Please explain why we shouldn't enforce our laws when Mexico and 99% of other nations strongly enforce theirs.

A nation without borders is not a nation. This is greatly about sovereignty.

Posted by SSG Fuzzy | June 27, 2007 10:30 AM

>>Why would they be here is they're over 65 and not working?

>Uh....perhaps because they've been working here for twenty or thirty years, have raised families, and have homes and grandchildren.

Isn't the Z-visa intended for guest-workers? I know, silly question.

Posted by Herkeng | June 27, 2007 11:02 AM

...and if someone comes into your house, cleans your carpets, fixes your doors, cooks your food, cleans your windows, and generally keeps the place from falling down...

Lets see, I clean my own stuff, I fix my own stuff, I cook for my family, I clean my own windows. Yes, I generally keep the place from falling down. All this done at the expense of watching American Idol or the Parris Hilton Show or supporting someone whom is not an invited guest into my country.

Gee, am I that freaking different because I am responsible for taking care of my property & family? I guess if I had no civic responsibility and was only self-centered on my bottom line, it would be OK to hire people below the minimum wage, to exploit them, to say my countrymen were slackers and cannot do the quality of work I demand. Yes, I could cheat the community by paying these workers under the table. I can undercut the competition whom hires legal workers by keeping wages down. I could drive my legal workers away with my low bottom line on wages.

Why should little old selfish me have pay taxes on these workers? Why should my workers spend money that goes into the schools, hospitals, roads, fire departments, etc., etc. Hey, they pay taxes everytime they buy something!

Well, so do I pal and I get to pay more. What a joke. It is people in the industries that exploit the illegal workers that are the real scum. You and your ilk are setting the Nation backwards with your "cheap labor." You say in a follow up "Then I've got the sweet 18-year old kid who actually is from Mexico. She works 8 hours for me, changes shirts, goes across the street, and pulls another 8 at Taco Bell. " Do you ever wonder why she is working 16 hours per day? because you and your ilk violate the labor and tax laws and are able to exploit her on the cheap.

Free enterprise has it's rules but not for you in the restaurant industry, the construction industry, the lawn care industry, the cleaning industry, the hotel industry, the Ag industry & the wonderful Meat packing industry. It is OK for you to keep wages low, and not contribute to the community. It is OK to drive out the American worker and say it is because we won't do the work. Bu%%S*#T. You undercut the wages and drive us away.

We'll you'll get your way, with the help of the sellouts in DC. We'll all head back to the 1800s, sweatshops and all. Thanks a lot Mal!

Don't complain about anything in your community, ever. You don't and your fellow exploiters contribute but a drain upon it.

Herkeng USAF (Ret)
2nd Generation Legal American

Posted by James D. Huggins | June 27, 2007 11:06 AM

Without Latino farm workers...America would definitely not starve. We already import fruits, vegetables and meat from around the world...why? because it's a) usually cheaper, and b) available out of season.

Americans would have to pay the real costs of their food because the current illegal flood has distorted the marketplace....and there would be a lot more entry level jobs in every industry for our own young folks.

Laugh all you want, but it was never intended that people work for minimum wage all their lives...they have to improve themselves and learn a trade in order to move up the chain. You contribute more, and you earn more. You got no skills, you get no raise. It's called an employee incentive program.

Posted by Herkeng | June 27, 2007 11:10 AM

"it was never intended that people work for minimum wage all their lives...they have to improve themselves and learn a trade in order to move up the chain. You contribute more, and you earn more. You got no skills, you get no raise. It's called an employee incentive program."

Spot on James!

Herkeng USAF (Ret)
2nd Generation Legal American

Posted by Jay | June 27, 2007 11:25 AM

I second what James has said.......all this cheap, illegal labor has distorted the market.

Illegal labor is only cheap to employers - the American taxpayer has to foot the bill for the healthcare, schooling, as well as numerous other expenses in having 12-20 million, hard to assimilate, low-educted people here, usually pining on and on about how wonderful their homeland is.

Then ask them, why are you here?

Posted by Nessus | June 27, 2007 11:28 AM

If Latinos are such famous "hard workers" and so industrious, why are their nations such basket cases - decade after decade?


Posted by DaMav | June 27, 2007 11:36 AM

Someone needs to analyze the impact of this bill on MediCare specifically. That might bring in some fairly powerful forces in opposition; i.e. how much sooner will it bankrupt the MediCare account, jeopardizing benefits for seniors etc. Has the AARP taken a position on it?

To mix metaphors, any strange bedfellow in a storm.

Posted by flenser | June 27, 2007 11:40 AM

Shorter Mel Carme;

Hey, I'm making out like a bandit here! To hell with everyone and everything else!

Posted by brooklyn | June 27, 2007 12:04 PM


a very interesting read...

many Conservative Bloggers have lost their credibility on this issue...

but i do not believe they are seeing the big picture, at least when they employ vitriol.

i have to share some thoughts with the WSJ:
"in the run-up to last year's midterm elections, Republicans chose to make immigration their lead issue. The GOP leadership in Congress encouraged talk radio and cable news shows to inflate the illegal alien problem, and Republican candidates took a hard-line anti-immigration stance in hopes of turning out GOP voters. It didn't work. Not only did the strategy fail to help Republicans hang on to their majorities in Congress, but support from Hispanic voters fell to 29%, the lowest level this decade. If running against illegal immigration were a winner, Arizona's J.D. Hayworth would still be in Congress."

Posted by Nessus | June 27, 2007 12:24 PM

First brooklyn, Hayworth lost his race to a democratic opponent who ran on being tougher against the illegal invasion than even Hayworth was.........

But to my point - We've stopped building, stopped inventing, stopped pushing the frontiers of technology.

Instead, we've become a nation of grade-school educated illegal alien squatters. A place where laws are not enforced nor obeyed (by the new priviledged class, Spanish speaking Latinos)

All that the elite and media care about is HEALTHCARE, HEALTHCARE, HEALTHCARE - show your card and get free HEALTHCARE, little about engineering, manufacturing, inventing and exploring.

Wither the USA.......bring on Jorge's dream of the North American Union.

Scene at Home Deport every morning:

"Get your labor here.....get it while it lasts........nice n cheap, why pay more?"

Hmm, sounds quite a bit like the 18th and 19th century South.

Posted by Justin | June 27, 2007 4:57 PM

We give the Mexicans 2 weeks to go home. After that, the government should round them up, sell them as slaves, and use the proceeds to fund building a wall between us and Mexico.

Check out http://www.pardonlibby.net

Posted by Mal Carne | June 27, 2007 8:28 PM

Oh, yeah. That's realistic.

Let me ask a question of you lot. Are you willing to endure, for the sake of "throwing the illegals out:":

- A large, deep, recession? Losing that many workers from the economy all at once would cause wages to increase a great deal, which in turn would raise the price of absoutely everything.

- A huge increase in police powers of the federal government? Are you willing to prove your legal citizenship to any police authority at any time? Or should we only ask dark-skinned, Spanish speaking people to do that?

In short, do you people have any idea whatsoever of what you're seriously asking for? Or is this a case of consequences be damned?

Posted by Machiavelli | June 27, 2007 8:57 PM

Here is a list of problems I found:

Here are just a few of the 15 I came across:
Pages 18-19

LIMITATION ON REQUIREMENTS.— Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), nothing in

this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international

border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such re-

sources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over

the international border at such location.

Page 124


Got to love it: Sex offenders are only banned if they fail to register. LOL!