Okay, I’m very tired of every thread getting hijacked on immigration so consider this your daily immigration thread.  I’ll start with some comments that I’ve collected from various media sites.  I hope that you will make some effort to be informed on this matter.  There is A LOT of distortion on this issue by various groups promoting their own unrealistic agendas.  I hope that Georgia’s leaders, both Republicans and Democrats will see through these games and stick to the facts. 

From David Brooks in the New York Times: 
Under our current immigration system, most people get into the U.S. through criminality, nepotism or luck. The current system does almost nothing to encourage good behavior or maximize the nation’s supply of human capital.  Which is why the immigration deal reached in the Senate last week is, on balance, a good thing. It creates a new set of incentives for immigrants and potential immigrants. It encourages good behavior … It rewards the bourgeois virtues that have always been at the heart of this nation’s immigrant success, and goes some way to assure that the people who possess these virtues can become U.S. citizens … The Senate bill reduces that incentive for lawlessness. If you think it is light on enforcement, read the thing.  It would not only beef up enforcement on the border, but would also create an electronic worker registry. People who overstay their welcome could forfeit their chance of being regularized forever.

Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard:
The most striking gain is the “trigger” proposed by Republican senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia. It requires that all measures to secure the border be in place and functioning before any other immigration reforms are implemented, such as bringing in 400,000 temporary foreign workers and issuing visas to illegals. Chertoff said it might take 18 months to get all the security improvements in place, but that’s wildly optimistic.

[Sorry for the pasting of quotes but I think they are good snapshots of reality on this issue]


  1. UGA Wins 2006 says:

    I want one person to give me a reason we should trust the government to get it right this time. We have good laws on the books now that Bush and Comapany refuse to enforce. We have had “reform” several times in the past that have only generated more illegals. Now this bulls***. that stands to bankrupt the country and reward illegal behavior.
    Hear my words, I have been Republican all my adult life but will never again vote for Saxby, Johnny or any other office holder who votes for this bill.

  2. Bull Moose says:

    Senator Johnny Isakson has been working to secure our nation’s border since the minute he got to the U.S. Senate, and there would be no chance for border security in the new immigration bill if Johnny didn’t have a seat at the table.

    Last year, Johnny tried to ensure that border security would be the first step of any immigration reform, but he was defeated by a Republican-led Senate that chose instead to grant legal status to illegal immigrants without securing our nation’s borders. Thankfully, both of our senators in Georgia voted against a bill that was bad for Georgia and bad for this country.

    Even though the Democrats now control the Senate, Johnny Isakson is still fighting to secure our borders. His border-security-first “trigger” prohibiting a temporary worker program until key border security items are fully funded and operational is a key item in this immigration bill. Those items include more Border Patrol agents, more detention beds to end the practice of “catch and release,” more fences and underground sensor systems, more unmanned aerial vehicles, and a biometrically secure ID program so employers can instantly verify whether an immigrant is legal.

    Senator Johnny Isakson is fighting for what is right and for what is in the best interests of Georgia.

  3. RJL says:

    UGA – Just a few questions, the answers to which I won’t be able to see for 4 hours:

    1. If not the government, who would you trust to deal with the issue?

    2. What aspect of illegal immigration bothers you most; the “illegal” or the “immigration” part.

    3. Would you support a plan to raise the limits on numbers of immigrants so long as they had a job commitment and applied through normal work visa processes?

    4. If all the illegal immigrants were rounded up and deported today, who would fill the jobs (the number is slightly higher than our number of unemployed)?

  4. I Am Jacks Post says:

    For the record, my favorite provision is the provision dealing with violent criminal illegal immigrant gangs like MS13, etc:

    “Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a “renunciation of gang affiliation.”

  5. Bull Moose says:

    Oh, John Boehner, yeah, trust him! Isn’t he the guy that appointed corrupt Member of Congress Ken Calvert to the Appropriations Committee?

    And, just because The Heritage Foundation says it doesn’t make it true… Step back from the edge friends!

  6. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Heritage has gone to great lengths to cite specific provisions within the legislation, for example:

    “Under Section 602(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty.”

    I’m far more inclined to believe a conservative think tank that has provided research and citation than I am to believe some politician’s hyperbole, whether they be for or against the legislation.

  7. matth says:

    I think, and it pains me to say this, Chertoff said it best when he said that he’d rather spend time tracking down terrorists and drug traffickers instead of nannies.

    Having millions of people off-the-grid is a threat to our security, so we need to find a way to get people to get back on the radar. The best way to do this is to give people an incentive by offering a path to citizenship.

  8. Holly says:

    I’ve found the Heritage Foundation to be a great source of information time and time again, particularly on issues that are really difficult to understand.

    Before you ask, no, I haven’t finished reading the entire draft of the bill, but I’m working my way through it.

  9. Doug Deal says:


    I am more likely to trust a Republican who is speaking against the President’s line than say a blogger who seems to base his “core” philosophy entirely on what his candidate for President supports.

    I have no final opinion on the immigration bill because I have not the time to read through 600 pages of legalese. It could be the greatest thing in the world, but passage should be defeated until the proponents do a sufficient job convincing people that it is the right way to go.

    Negotiating in secret, keeping the bill out of the judicial committee and trying to schedule final passage before people have had a chance to read it is irresponsible. This process should make everyone skeptical that Congress is trying to pull a fast one.

  10. UGA Wins 2006 says:

    I trust the individual states to deal with this since the feds have defaulted. If a state wants to be a sanctuary and be over run with illeagls, let em at it. If a state like GA does not, thats good too. In the absence of a strong federal government on this issue, the states should be able to fend for themselves.

    Illegal bothers me, no one in this country, even the Indians, cant say their ancestors didnt come from somewhere else.

    I would support a plan to enforce the laws we have right now before we write more.

    Americans filled the jobs before these people came. Americans would fill them when they left. If I have to pay more for lettuce to get control of our borders, I am happy to do that.

    You didnt tell me why we should trust a federal government that refuses to enforce the laws we have now. Why trust them with more laws?

  11. Cotton Boll says:

    UGA – you know nothing about this immigration legislation and nothing about the role immigrant labor plays in our economy. Evry American that wants to work is already doing so and we need these immigrant workers to fill the void – harvesting your food, building your house, paving your raods, etc. States have no authority on this matter….it is a federal issue. There is NO AMNESTY in this bill! They pay a fine and get certified to work here – they do not get to become citizens. If they break the law, they get deported – I wish we could deport US citizens that violate some of our laws. The whining of the right-wing anti-immigration zealots like you is growing very old, very fast.

  12. joe says:

    And, just because The Heritage Foundation says it doesn’t make it true…

    But apparently if the New York Times or The Weekly Standard says it, it is true.

  13. Holly says:

    Indians are from India.

    But for the record, no, Joe, you’re right. Just because the Heritage Foundation said it doesn’t make it true. However, I find that they’re usually well thought out and well researched opinions that tend to coincide with my own opinions.

    Back to reading. . .

  14. RJL says:

    Well, UGA, assuming you are one who believes in the rule of law, you have a problem: Georgia is not a sovereign nation and, thus, has no laws regarding immigration. It can enact statutes regarding certain aspects of the effects of immigration, but not the policies or limits of immigration. Thus, you’re pretty much down to the federal government or a posse. And a posse can’t deport 12mm people.

    I am a Democrat — and in this instance it is amusing to watch Republican fratricide, and I would like to see two new Democratic Senators from Georgia — and there are a few provisions of the bill that I have a (opposite) problem with, but overall Chambliss and Isakson have acted responsibly on this issue. In a political sense I encourage your absolute opposition and threats to leave the Republicans, but in an intellectual sense I know that you are off base.

    The United States is a nation of immigrants, with the “how’s” and “how many’s” changing from time to time. Nonetheless, if the fear of this motivates you and others to make this the ultimate litmus test, then I can only add ” it’s all you.” Have at it.

  15. UGA Wins 2006 says:

    You pro North American Union types still havents answered my question: Why should we believe this new law will be enforced when none of the previous have been? What is it about this particular law that gets so much trust from you?

  16. RJL says:

    Sorry; us pinko,commie,surrendering,
    aborting,weak-kneed,atheist,socialitic,stem-cell-exploiting, gay-tolerant way left liberal wussie Bronze-Star-combat veterans are not in charge of enforcing the existing federal laws on immigration.

    Call your boy, George W., whose admin is promoting the so-called Union you reference and super highway.

    Go get ’em.

  17. Bull Moose says:

    Doug, get a grip buddy and get with the reality of how legislation is written. Bills are not put together on the floor of the Senate or House for that matter.

    For that matter, do you even have any basic level of how the Senate works? This bill will be debated at length and amendments will be offered.

    I support this bill because it is the best chance for real immigration reform. And I do not support this bill because it It is stupid and short sighted to suggest that my only reason for supporting this is because McCain also supports it.

  18. RJL says:

    Since the Senate operates on the key principle of Unanimous Consent, and since the argument is frequently made that Democrats who are opposed to the war should simply vote to cut off funds immediately, here’s the challenge: see if you can get Chambliss or Isakson to simply object to the motion to call the yeas and nays on the immigration bill.

    Go get ’em.

  19. Bull Moose,

    You’re the McCain backer, right? Face it, you backed a loser on this issue and it will cause him to go down in flames.

    Importing poverty is a recipe for national bankruptcy. And no one can reasonably argue that this bill does anything other than import poverty.

    And about the devastating impact on our economy if we lost most of the illegals — that’s nonsense. Do we really need a Waffle House every half-mile or a McDonald’s every half-mile? Do we really need our landscaping done every week? Why not every two weeks? Why don’t people cut their own grass? Lord knows we need the exercise. Without the slave labor, businesses would adjust and some would go out of business. So what? That’s the free market.

    Besides, a lot of labor demands for illegals is self-sustaining. Illegals come here and start working at restaurants and other business that cater to other illegals. It would be no loss to Americans if those businesses go away.

  20. RJL says:

    Quite, righton. Those ghastly waves of impoverished English, the Italians choking NY harbor, the Germans, the East and Northern Europeans, not to mention the starved Irish, the Japanese we later coralled, the Chinese we kept an eye on and the rescued Vietnamese boat people who so quickly monopolized valedictorianism — yes, each has provided their unique imported poverty ingredient for the recipe for national bankruptcy you assert.

    And, following your lead in the name of the free market, I shall suggest to the neighbors (some of whom I’ve noticed a bit portly) that they should take to their own landscaping so as to hasten the demise of those businesses with all the trailers.

    Do you recall if there will be entertainment with dinner at the Club on Saturday?

  21. UGA Wins 2006 says:

    RJL: Although we seem to have an answer and or name for everything/one else, you still havent answered why we should trust the government to enforce this new immigration law when none of the others have been/are being enforced.

    And the immigrants you mentioned from Europe and elsewhere in the last two centuries went through a very strict entry process. They didnt swim across the harbor and disappear into the city. I would have thought a guy a bright as you would have known that.

  22. Doug Deal says:


    It is clear that it is you who does not understand how our government works.

    Bills are supposed to be examined, debated, amended, and reported out of a committee. The more complicated and far reaching a measure, the more it needs to be examined and debated in committee.

  23. jsm says:

    RJL, the main issue here is number. We can’t just take every immigrant that wants to come here. We don’t have the infrastructure or finances to handle it. Therefore, we must manage the number of people we accept. The Germans, Irish, and other Europeans you mentioned immigrated here within set guidelines that are managed by our government. Without managing numbers of immigrants, we will be bankrupted by the importation of poverty (only exacerbated by Congressional spending on programs which many immigrants abuse).

  24. RJL says:

    Sorry, Doug, Moose is partially and technically correct on the legislative process. Each body (House and Senate) operates on different rules to reflect the nature and protections of each. In the Senate, anything can be done by unanimous consent, including drafting a bill on a napkin for immediate consideration to adjourning and leaving town. The remaining procedures are rooted in tradition and courtesy.

    Almost every legsilative day, the Senate conducts “Morning Business” when bills and resolutions of no conflict are moved very quickly, with little comment except for a few “without objection” utterances from the presiding officer. This keeps the pipes open.

    In the case of the immigration bill, the Majority and Minority leaders are viewing it as a compromise version of previous bills and they have reached agreement on the debate schedule and the amount of time allocated to each side for that debate.

    It sort of goes like this:

    Doug: Mr. President (meaning the Presiding Officer) I move that the Senate stand in recess until November 15, 2008 at which time it shall continue debate on Sxxx, the Immigration Reform Bill.

    Minority Leader: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a Quorum.

    Officer: The Clerk will call the roll.

    Clerk: Mr. Akaka….Mr. Alexander…

    This is where you and Moose go out in the hall and have at it over the committee process “shoud be’s” versus “is’s.”

    And, it’s where you are informed that the Minority Leader has just cut your stationery budget by 50%.

    Without objection.

  25. Federalist says:

    oh for hamilton’s sake, where the hell did you find that rubbish debbie? no wonder you cons have zero credibility…you are all advocates not analysts. I could not find one fact on that summary.

  26. Doug Deal says:


    I know about unanimous consent, I watched enough CSPAN in my life, but that is not my point.

    Pretty much every MAJOR piece of legislation, except those involving national security is hashed out in committee. This is a MAJOR piece of legislation.

    Here is the Senates own process flow chart.

    In this case they were trying to shut off debate before the bill was even given a number.

    We live in a Republic, not an oligarchy. The people are entitled to give input in the legislative process and have a right to know what is being voted on in Congress. If they want government to work in secret perhaps they should unanimously concent to suspending the Constitution.

  27. RJL,

    As others said, it’s about the numbers and the burden. Never before have we had to deal with so many low-educated, unskilled illegals before. The sheer volume is staggering.

    And most of those prior immigrants you mentioned came in before our government started many of the current social welfare programs. They weren’t the burden on taxpayers that this (tidal) wave will be.

    As a country, we already allow more legal immigration than any other country in the world. On top of that, we have an illegal immigration problem now that is a formula for doom.

    An analogy:
    We can all agree that Evander Holyfield (or others with fabulous mansions) has a great house. However, if the entire state of Georgia tries to move in and he lets us, his house will become rundown in a hurry. It will be bursting at the seams and will be a shell of what it once was. That’s what we’re facing here. Everyone wants to come here. We can’t take them all and have to start locking the door. Otherwise, our once great house will become a shack in a hurry.

  28. RJL says:

    The only point, Doug, was that the flow chart you link can simply be set aside by unanimous consent — the aspect of “how” the process works (from your earlier tat with BM) rather “how should” the process work in a Civics sense.

    If you would really like to study Congressional sausage-making, look at the appropriations bills of the last 6 years, most of which were severely ammended and/or expanded (900+ pages) in conference only to be voted on again in separate chambers within hours.

    My thought is that you, as a conservative, would be more concerned with tax-cut-and-spend impacts (+$1trillion) than immigration nuances.

  29. Doug Deal says:

    Before anything else, I beleive any action, save temporary expediences in time of war for survival or dire emergency should be deliberated thoroughly.

    Conservative is also an abused adjective. I am definitely a conservative in the sense that I want governmental change to happen slowly and be directed with reason as opposed to passion. However, I am a bigger advocate of federalism, self rule and personal freedom.

    The patriots of the American Revolution did not sacrifice their lives and livelyhoods to have us now live by the government’s leave.

  30. RJL says:

    It would seem, then Righton, that the answer to the question I have posed on several threads — is it the “illegal” part or the “immigration” part that bothers the most about illegal immigration — is slightly tilted to the simple “immigration” part, with an emerging aspect that immigration implies importing poverty and, thus, the core issue is how much poverty, how many people, to allow to immigrate and from where and at what cost.

    Actually, there are provisions of the current bill that seem tilted toward favoring the highly skilled (and thus least potentially impoverished) in the matrix of immigration decisions. But that’s another issue.

    So, to follow your thought, if it a numbers game, how many? Would you support raising the number of work visas from targeted countries so as to lessen the aspect of “illegal?”

    If not, aren’t you really just saying that “we” don’t want so many of “them” over “here” because “they” are likely to be poor (as in Tired, Huddled Masses) and “we” can’t afford “them?”

    And isn’t that becoming memmed? Reminds me of a story George Will used back in the early debates on welfare in the late 70’s. It was about how he had heard from people everywhere he went around the country about how they had personally seen a large Black woman in the grocery checkout line with two baskets of top food, paying with food stamps, and driving off in a Cadillac.

    Will felt that the solution to welfare fraud was rather simple: just find that woman.

    Is it possible that you are searching for Manuel and blaming Congress for your anxiety over not finding him?

  31. RJL,

    It’s both the “illegal” part and the “immigration” part (in this case). I’m fine with immigration in general, but it must have its limits. And our current situation goes way beyond any reasonable limits in terms of sheer volume. Also, we must control the type of immigration. We don’t need a huge majority of our immigrants being a lifelong burden on our system.

    The illegal part of it speaks for itself.

Comments are closed.