Immigration Reform — The Hard Thing, but the Right Thing

Immigration Reform is an issue that has sparked much debate on this site. Unfortunately, in my view, many people who have talked about it have been horribly misinformed.

This evening, the Senate could not reach cloture and the immigration reform deal has been pulled from further consideration.

This bill was not perfect, but it was a heck of a lot better than the status quo. Opponents offered NO solutions other than they were opposed to what was in the immigration bill. That’s irresponsible and is a total lack of leadership.

The no-nothings better be happy with the status quo of the immigration issue because that’s what they are stuck with for now.

111 comments

  1. Jeff Emanuel says:

    True, Bull. I just find that it is usually advisable to have seen or read something before heading off to fight for it.

    You know, that way I actually know (a) if it’s worth fighting for after all, and (b) what the heck I’m talking about.

  2. Holly says:

    Where did I say you weren’t reasonable? My point is that there were plenty of people who weren’t misinformed who were against it.

  3. Know Nothing says:

    I seriously doubt anyone excpet for the lawyers who wrote it have read the bill. It is over 400 pages in length and it had it’s final publishes today. Anyone who has the time to read a 400 page piece of legislation needs to find a girl, at least for an hour or two.

  4. Bill Simon says:

    So, Bull…

    I take it YOU wanted cloture because you think debate should be limited and a bill…ANY kind of bill…just shoved through the Senate and down our throats?

    Yeah…I see a LOT in common between you and your hero, John McCain.

  5. Your meme about opponents offering no other solution is a canard.

    LISTEN CLEARLY —> SOLUTION:

    Enforce the laws on the books already! Secure the borders and ports! Build a reliable employee tracking system. PROVE that the guv’ment is remotely seriously about stopping the bleeding at the borders and ending visa overstays. THEN, we can talk about those already in the country.

    If a patient is bleeding profusely, you must stop the bleeding before you can address the underlying problem.

    STOP THE BLEEDING!

    Is that clear enough?

    And your boy (McCain) is toast at this point. He either has a tin ear or an absolute disregard for what the people want. Neither is an attractive trait in a candidate.

  6. ToddH says:

    If Malkin and Kos both hated the bill, then it must have been a good bill.

    Bill Simon,

    “I take it YOU wanted cloture because you think debate should be limited and a bill…ANY kind of bill…just shoved through the Senate and down our throats?”

    Over forty amendments were voted on, from the Republicans and Democrats, and Reid was willing, on the last day, to vote on eight more and even allow amendments to be offered after cloture. How is that shoving it down anyone’s throat?

  7. debbie0040 says:

    I am very happy that Georgia’s Senators started voted against Ted Kennedy and other pro amnesty Senators.

    Sen. Chambliss and Sen. Isakson do listen to the people and I honestly believe there were misled about what the bill contained.

    The bill contained provisions that were negated by other provisions. Very deceptive.

    http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html

  8. debbie0040 says:

    John McCain might as well throw in the towel. This Immigration Bill was his “Waterloo”. He will not be able to recover from it.
    GOP voters are very angry about the bill.

  9. ToddH says:

    rightonpeachtree,

    “And your boy (McCain) is toast at this point. He either has a tin ear or an absolute disregard for what the people want. Neither is an attractive trait in a candidate.”

    McCain doesn’t have to do a darn thing the people want. This is a Republic and not a democracy. McCain is a representative of the people who can do what he darn well pleases. Sometimes these reps. have had to buck the will of the people, like LBJ and others during the civil rights struggle. The people have a voice and it comes every election cycle.

  10. ToddH says:

    debbie,

    “I am very happy that Georgia’s Senators started voted against Ted Kennedy and other pro amnesty Senators.”

    So it seems they supported it before they didn’t support it. Why does that sound familiar? And governing by polls, it seems as though that was a bad thing when Clinton did it.

  11. Federalist says:

    Jeff Emanuel always begins his immigration commentary with “I read the bill.” Good for you Jeff, I am glad to see that there are still a few kids that take the time to read 300+ pages of legal gibberish. It is not enough, it is still…what are the words?…Racist and anti-free enterprise. If you disagree, Jeff, please explain. How do you think we should “punish” those immigrants that are not here “legally,” anybody.

  12. debbie0040 says:

    I think they were misled in what the bill contained. All along, they said it must meet certain criteria in order for them to support it. It did not. Even D.A. King with Dustin Inman said he believes they were misled.

    There were both Democrats and Republicans that changed their minds about supporting the bill once they read it. They found out it did not contain what they wanted. The supporters of illegal immigration and amnesty stopped at nothing to get this bill passed. They even misled Senators that trusted them.

    McCain is a representative of the people and the people can decide they no longer want McCain representing them…

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0607/McCain_loses_an_SC_county_chair_over_immigration.html

  13. ToddH says:

    I found the bill here, but I’m not sure if this is the current bill b/c I don’t know if the various amendments that were agreed to are included. But, I will warn you that it is like reading stereo instructions. Hats off to Jeff if he actually read this.

  14. debbie0040 says:

    Federalist, you take away the incentives for them to be here and they will leave. That has already happend with SB 529. They are leaving Georgia.

    You take away the jobs. You go after the employers that knowingly hire illegals and give them stiff penalties and jail time. You take away non-emergency health care. You start taxing monies sent to Mexico by those that can not prove they are here legally. You make landlords start verifying their tenants are here legally using a Social Security number and verification line.

    Illegals are a burden to our society and to the tax payers.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst052107a.cfm

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm

    What to Do With the Unlawfully Present Population? A Fair and Practical Strategy
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1487.cfm

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1476.cfm

  15. ToddH says:

    Federalist,

    There are many Malkinese who won’t admit it, though she will, and say that all illegals should be deported and a Great Wall built, no matter how illogical that actually is. They are anti illegal immigration for the sake of being anti illegal immigration, without offering a rational plan to fix the problem. They say they are only anti illegal immigrant and are open to legal immigrants, but they sound remarkably similar to Bill the Butcher. Never let it be said that nativism is not alive and well in the United States of America.

  16. Holly says:

    Bill, I read the text from the Heritage Foundation, found here.

    Federalist, I think it’s important to read huge bills like this when there’s a controversy so that I can be informed about what I’m arguing for/against. How do I really know what’s there if I don’t take the time to read it? How can the lack of knowledge from not reading the bill make my arguments anything but ineffective?

    Surely you, as someone who must have read a ton to get all the way through school to a Ph.D., can appreciate the value of that kind of research. I’d agree with you that Senate bills are boring to read. It took me several days to get through it because I couldn’t keep my focus on it (though, let’s be fair, I’m the poster child for ADD, so my attention span is probably less than most other folks’). But the point is that I didn’t want to rely on the opponents or the proponents because both sides had conflicting information.

    Therefore, I suffered through the reading and was able to make my own conclusion. I don’t think that makes me a “good kid”; it makes me informed.

  17. Holly says:

    ToddH, I’d challenge you to do some reading on the bill. If you don’t want to read the entire text, I understand. I would suggest reading the president’s bullet points on the White House homepage for a pro-legislation overview. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss also sent out explanations back when they were for it. As opponent positions, the Heritage Foundation has some good reasons for not supporting the bill. So does Senator Cornyn in his news section of his senate site. Hope that helps.

    I’m not a “trailer park raids now, plz!” person, so not everyone who opposed this bill was foaming at the mouth to send everyone home yesterday.

  18. debbie0040 says:

    If you take away incentives, the illegals will leave. That has already happened with SB 529. They are leaving Georgia.

    We should punish employers that knowing hire illegals with stiff penalties and even jail time. There is a verification system set up where they can verify the social security number.

    We should reform our legal immigration system and drastically shorten the wait time for Visas, green cards and increase the quotas, etc. I believe that if an employer needs temporary workers, unskilled workers, then they should have to pay for health insurance for them and their families. Why should the tax payer foot the bill for healthcare so the employer can fatten their pocketbooks?

    Temporary workers and green card holders should have to learn English within one year or they should have to leave our country. Immigrants should assimilate to our socieyt not the other way around.

    There should be cooperation between government agencies to find those in this country illegally and deport those in this country illegally. If an illegal goes to a hosptial emergency room and can not prove they are here legally, the hospital should notify INS and so should other government agencies.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst052107a.cfm

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst052107a.cfm

  19. Doorknob says:

    “If an illegal goes to a hosptial emergency room and can not prove they are here legally, the hospital should notify INS and so should other government agencies.”

    Tell that to the harried doctor trying to stop a man from dying or the nurse pulling a double shift dealing with the rest of the lower priority cases.

    Additionally, it amazes me that such a significant number of the membership of the party of free enterprise is engaged in a campaign to stop illegal immigrants from working for what are arguably market wages in their trades. It seems illogical to me to be in a party that opposes minimum wage hikes on principle and generally supports free trade and not accept the appropriate consequences of these positions on the labor market given the rapid pace of globalization.

  20. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Bill Simon: Here’s the bill, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.

    Know Nothing — as much as I’d like to agree with you, sadly, it’s my job. Yes, I’ve read it and several of the amendments. No, I’m not happy about the use of time. 😉

    ToddH: I really don’t think Reid wanted it to pass any more than some Republicans did. However, what made the bill untenable in the end was the addition of two amendments — one by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) and one by Sen. Wayne Allard (R) — which were “poison pills” designed to make the bill itself unpassable. They did their job well, and it’s now a dead issue for the forseeable future.

    Federalist: Incoherent as always, and not worth my time. How old are you?

  21. debbie0040 says:

    I diid not say the hospital should stop what they are doing to prevent someone from dying. After the fact, they should notify INS.

    You are out of touch with reality if you think the majority of illegals that frequent hospital emergency rooms actually have life threatening conditions. Most use the emergency rooms as doctors to treat everyday illnesses.

  22. Carpe Forem says:

    -First posted at jasonpye.com-

    Get Rid of the carrot, not the stick.

    The illegal immigration solution is pretty simple. No welfare for illegals, no free education, no medical care, except for life threatening emergencies (see, I have a heart). Then enforce the the current laws, especially the hiring of illegals. I don’t understand why they make such a big deal about how much it would cost to deport so many. I didn’t pay for their transportation here. Just get rid of the carrots and use the stick… they’ll find their own way home, just like they found their way here.

    ps. No need for an Iron curtain. They tend to work in reverse.

  23. ToddH says:

    debbie,

    “Most use the emergency rooms as doctors to treat everyday illnesses. ”

    You perfectly describe what many low income Americans are forced to do b/c they can’t afford adequate healthcare. So, does this mean that you are in favor of universal health insurance, or should we eat the poor?

  24. Doorknob says:

    “You are out of touch with reality if you think the majority of illegals that frequent hospital emergency rooms actually have life threatening conditions. Most use the emergency rooms as doctors to treat everyday illnesses.”

    Then you must share a similarly skewed viewpoint to think that overworked medical professionals in the ER have any desire to act as border security.

  25. ToddH says:

    Carpe Forem,

    “The illegal immigration solution is pretty simple. No welfare for illegals, no free education, no medical care, except for life threatening emergencies (see, I have a heart).”

    Does this include children?

  26. ChuckEaton says:

    Carpe Forem I agree with you. We can’t even keep drugs out of prison, some half ass wall isn’t going to keep the illegals out.

    If this country is serious about greatly reducing (I don’t know if it’s possible to elminate it) illegal immigration then it has to do something about the demand for illegals (the carrot).

  27. Demonbeck says:

    “Does this include children?”

    ToddH,

    Do you actually believe that illegal immigrants come over to America so that the adults can receive a free education?

  28. ToddH says:

    Demonbeck,

    My point was that by eliminating welfare, education and medical care that the government typically provides to the disadvantaged then the main group that will be affected by this is children. You can harp on about common sense solutions and ideology all you want, but in the end it is flesh and blood human beings that are affected by these words and ideas.

  29. Bill Simon says:

    ToddH,

    I guess my comment had to do with the first vote for cloture on Wednesday evening…that was when Reid was trying to hand-pick amendments and that was when the first vote for cloture was taken.

    Also, in that case, I think Ted Kennedy voted alongside Saxby and Johnny against cloture.

  30. Bill Simon says:

    ToddH – Part 2

    “So it seems they supported it before they didn’t support it. Why does that sound familiar?”

    They supported what was agreed upon in the negotiations for the “contract.” They didn’t support the written version of the contract.

    Ever heard of “fine print?” The senators (okay, let’s just say it here, Johnny Isakson did the thinking and Saxby just did the following) wanted amendments to the bill that covered what they wanted in it. Reid didn’t allow THOSE amendments to be voted on.

    Don’t give us this crappola about “Gosh, gee, Harry allowed 50,000-million amendments to be voted on, but didn’t allow these paltry 3 over here in this pile” to go forward argument, when it was those 3 that contained the Republican demands for border security and monitoring.

  31. Federalist says:

    72, Jeff. I do commend you for reading the bill. I just disagree with the idea that a person’s existence within the borders of a country can be illegal. they crossed a border…big deal. They crossed a border to work in a country that has economic opportunity. Would you want to live in South America, Central America, or Mexico? I understand that people worry about terrorism, and the simplicity of crossing the border. Strengthen border security. If you want to find out who is the U.S. though, a different approach is necessary. The only way to do this is to provide an incentive for undocumented immigrants to come forward, or make the process nonthreatening enough that if Immigration officer’s approach and undocumented immigrant…that they won’t just run away, or live in the shadows of our underground economy. People do not want to be apprehended for breaking the law, so….decriminalize it. As long as an employment and housing market exists, there should not be any government intrusion into these respected markets. Gaining legal residency should be easier than getting a Blockbuster membership or a library card.

  32. Bill Simon says:

    ATTENTION All Left-Wingers

    “Free enterprise” only works in a Rule of Law state or country. If there are no laws in place to enforce certain conditions, then “free enterprise” might include the following:

    – Robbing banks
    – Printing counterfeit money
    – Committing fraud
    – Theft by conversion,
    – etc., etc….

    Employing illegal labor is lot like printing counterfeit money. Know what happens when you flood the market with illegal currency? The value of all other currency decreases drastically.

    Thus the reason why “printing more money” kills an economy and devalues the currency.

    So, in a similar vein, flooding the market with illegal labor decreases wages across the board and depresses the job market.

    Again, free enterprise only works where the Rule of Law is in place and enforced. Otherwise, “free” isn’t “free.”

  33. JRM2016 says:

    Doorknob says:

    “Additionally, it amazes me that such a significant number of the membership of the party of free enterprise is engaged in a campaign to stop illegal immigrants from working for what are arguably market wages in their trades.”

    When did being the party of free enterprise mean signing off on criminal activity? Lest anyone forget, coming into the country without going through the procedure prescribed by law is a crime. I do agree that the government action of setting a minimum wage has led to a black market in labor which is the essence of the immigration problem. We must severely punish those employers that choose to participate in this black market. Once a few go to federal prison, I feel confident the opportunities for illegal laborers will significantly diminsh.

    And of course, if the illegal immigrants cannot earn a living, they will return to their home countries.

    ToddH, is taking the position that all illegals should be deported de facto make one a racist and uncaring? I am here to take the radical position that those who violate our laws should be punished accordingly, regardless of the color of their skin of country of origin. Its called The Rule of Law. Look it up.

    I agree with ChuckEaton that some half *** wall is not going to keep illegal immigrants from streaming over our border.

    It will take:

    a)–aggressive enforcement of our laws by ICE, to include more raids and deportation actions;

    b)–aggressive prosecution by the Justice Department of employers that hire illegals;

    c)–construction of the 700+ mile border security wall which should be built along the lines of walls for SuperMax Federal detention facilities; and

    d)–withdrawal of federal funds from any municipality or county that declares itself to be a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants

    What do all of those action items have in common? None of them require action in Congress.

  34. debbie0040 says:

    Take away the carrot/incentives and they will leave on their own.

    I also believe we need to do something about anchor babies. We need to ammend our Constitution. If someone is in this country unlawfully, then their babies born here should not become citizens.

    American children suffer because of illegal’s children. The schools have to spend money teaching the illegal’s children English and to bring them up to standard. How much money is spent doing this that could be used for other purposes?

    How much money would be available to help disabled childrenthat are in this country legally if we did not have to pay the healthcare of children in this country illegally? It is not their fault their parents broke the law, but why should our children have to suffer because their parents broke the law?

    I do not think we should provide pre natal care for pregnant women in this county illegally. They need to be deported.

    There are children suffering all over this world. We can not help all the children in the world. It is a fact of life. We need to take care of those legally in this country first.

  35. Carpe Forem says:

    Amen DoorKnob, except for c.) the wall. I do not want to be a prisonor of my own country. Remove the incentive and there is no need for the wall that could lock-in as lock-out.

    ToddH,

    “Does this include children?”

    Of illegals, yes. You make it sound like government provides the only available charity services. I’ll donate to the “sack lunches and bandaids for their trip home” fund.

  36. ToddH says:

    Bill Simon,

    There were amendments offered, by Republicans, that reflected their “demands for border security and monitoring.”

    On May 23rd, Senator Graham presented SA 1173 which provided for minimum sentences for illegal aliens who reenter the country after removal. This was agreed to by unanimous consent. This amendment was cosponsored by none other than Senators Chambliss and Isakson.

    On May 23rd, Senator Gregg presented SA 1172 which sought “To ensure control of our Nation’s borders and strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws.” The amendment states that until certain requirements are met for staff enhancements for the U.S. Border Patrol, border barriers including fencing and radar and camera towers, then programs established by Title IV and VI will not be implemented. This was agreed to in voice vote.

    On May 23rd, Senator Cornyn presented SA 1184 which sought to establish a permanent bar to citizenship for certain criminals. This amendment failed on June 6th. The same day the Kennedy Amendment passed which increased immigration related penalties for various criminal activities.

    On May 25th, Senator Allard presented SA 1189 which “eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.” This amendment failed on June 5th.

    On May 25th, Senator Cornyn presented SA 1150 which “address documentation of employment and to make an amendment with respect to mandatory disclosure of information.” This amendment was agreed to on June 6th.

    On June 6th, Senator Vitter presented SA 1339 which would “require that the U.S. VISIT system- the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date- be finished as part of the enforcement trigger.” This amendment failed on the same day.

    On June 6th, Senator Coburn presented SA 1311 which would “require the enforcement of existing border security and immigration laws and Congressional approval before amnesty can be granted.” This amendment failed the next day.

    That’s just what I found on a quick search of the legislative process for the immigration bill. It seems to me that plenty of bills concerning border security and monitoring were presented.

  37. ToddH says:

    JRM,

    “ToddH, is taking the position that all illegals should be deported de facto make one a racist and uncaring?”

    Uncaring and illogical maybe, but where did I accuse anyone of racism?

  38. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Federalist, I understand where you are coming from. I haven’t reviewed all of my comments and posts here, so I could be wrong, but I believe that I haven’t gone on-record here about immigration — illegal or legal — since this bill came up. I think — and again, I could be wrong — that all I’ve said on the topic is that I disagree with this bill, not that I think one way or the other about immigration regulation, etc.

    Like I said, I respect where you’re coming from, and I could be wrong on whether or not I’ve said something regarding immigration; however, I don’t think that I have, other than repeating that both this bill, and the secretive way in which it was contrived and foisted upon the rest of the senate, were not good.

  39. Demonbeck says:

    ToddH,

    I was merely pointing out the stupidity of your question.

    America’s federal government is the biggest charity organization the world has ever known. Unfortunately, however, it’s funds are limited.

    What we disagree upon is the extent to which this highly charitable organization should give to the downtrodden. You believe we should give more, I believe we should give less.

  40. ToddH says:

    Demonbeck,

    “I was merely pointing out the stupidity of your question.”

    Glad to see we got off on the right foot.

    “You believe we should give more, I believe we should give less.”

    I don’t know about more or less, but that the most disadvantaged and unable to provide for themselves, in other words children, should receive all the education and medical care opportunities that can be made available to them.

    Also, I understand that by giving less more problems can be created. By denying adequate health care to disadvantaged children and adults we are creating traffic jams in our Emergency Rooms b/c they can’t see regular doctors in order to receive preventive care. So they either arrive in our ERs with minor problems that can be fixed by going to a doctor’s office, or they arrive with serious problems that could have been taken care of long ago for much, much less if they had had health insurance. Illnesses that could have been treated for cheap turn into much bigger problems that ends up costing the hospitals and government much, much more.

  41. Federalist says:

    Debbie, I am sure that those white, christian, gopers would love to make their children take a test to become citizens. Repealing that clause of the 14 amendment is ludacris. You conservatives, you all want to spend money to lose money. What do you think will happen when you start imprisoning undocumented workers and their employers? Less production, less employment. Furthermore it costs a little over $100/day to keep a person in jail. Then there are court costs, and if you want to deport them (like Bill Greene wants to do) you have to pay for that bus ticket/plane ride. That is a lot of money that you morons want to spend to make the prices of agricultural products and landscaping go up.

  42. Carpe Forem says:

    ToddH,

    Please don’t misunderstand me. I believe in the words at the feet of Lady Liberty. Just get in line and respect our laws or you and your family are not welcome.
    Once this is accomplished and the free market reveals the need for more labor (doctors to day laborers ), use the available technology to speed up the legal immigration procedures.

  43. Know Nothing says:

    I have the most common sense solution, I’ll probably throw my hat in the Senate race it’s so good.

    We as Americans need to boycott companies who hire illegal immigrants. That way those companies will lose money, downsize, and the immigrants won’t have any work and will return to their home country.

    That means we all just need to stop buying homes, stop having our cars detailed, no more staying in hotels, going out to eat is surely out of the question, we need to fire our lawn guy and pool cleaner, that once weekly maid service needs to go. After we decide to stop doing all the things we as Americans love to do, we will finally have a solution to this immigration problem.

  44. Doorknob says:

    What about this for a radical policy suggestion: Revisit the NAFTA with respect to creating an integrated cross-border labor market that preserves the citizenship stipulations for each country along with a sustained immigration and naturalization control effort.

    The free marketers get the mobile and cheap labor they want, the immigration folks get the head count on the non-citizens from the NAFTA countries and a process can be created that integrates those people that want to start again here. Is this reasonable?

  45. Federalist says:

    Or decriminalize illegal immigration, and put a different system in place. Grandparents just showed up on a boat, they were allowed in with any documentation…nor did they speak english. Oh…but they were white, so I guess that is ok.

  46. Bull Moose says:

    First off, I clearly understand that this bill was not perfect. It had things that we (us conservatives) didn’t like just as it had things that liberals didn’t like. That is the essence of legislative compromise.

    We are no longer the majority party.

    Let’s be honest and clear here, something needs to be done on this issue of immigration.

    We have a border that is not secure and we have no idea who is entering this country.

    We must first secure the border. Period. End of story.

    Second, we must beef up the border control.

    Third, we have to have stiff penalties in place for those who would continue to hire illegal immigrants.

    I think that we can all agree on those three items, correct?

    From there, don’t we need to figure out what we’re going to do about the 12-20 million illegal immigrants here? Do you think it’s realistic to round them up and send them home? If you think that’s a practical solution, then I cannot even have a real discussion with you.

    I believe that the head of households for those here illegally, should have to leave this country, return to their original country, and go through immigration the hard way.

    I also believe that there should be a point system for those wanting to come in and work in our country.

    Would I have supported cloture? Darn right I would have. I think it’s careless to allow this issue to continue to fester for one single second more. I would have proposed 10 Republican Amendments and 10 Democratic Amendments to the bill and had debate last another 30 hours before a final vote.

    While I typed this message, illegal immigrants crawled over, under, and around the border trying to get in this country. The status quo is unacceptable.

    Finally, Jeff, Sorry, I didn’t see your post. I think you put your post up the same time I was writing mine to be honest with you.

    Also, yes, I do support Senator John McCain. He is a man of principle. He is honest, straight forward, and he’s sold out to no one. Those are qualities I want in a President. He will be a President who will tackle the hard problems. That’s what we should expect of our leaders.

    Don’t you think for one second though that my support for this bill was only because of my support for John McCain. I supported this bill because it was a realistic approach to solving one of America’s most pressing national security issues.

  47. ChuckEaton says:

    Federalist-

    You make a few decent points, but I think you are missing the overall point. If the idea is to ignore the laws then why have them in the first place. Your argument seems to be “let’s just selectively ignore the law because I don’t really agree with it.”

    I think there are interesting arguments to be made that we need the labor force. With unemployment currently hovering around 4% (which is effectively zero) and 12 to 20 million illegals in it, I think there is definitley a demand for the labor.

    But, it needs to be done in an organized, law abiding fashion – not some free-for-all, tidal-wave that has become an invasion threatening our sovereignty.

    If the demand for labor is still there then the government needs to issue more citizenship, visas and green cards to the citizens in foreign coutries who respect our laws. Then it can be done in an organized manner, where tests for rare TB viruses, criminal background checks can be performed, etc.. The legal workers can then be tracked, taxed and given no promises about staying here forever.

    Perhaps some could eventually apply for citizenship, but it needs to be done in a respectful law-abiding manner. I’d rather issue a million visas in Mexico tomorrow than reward the folks who ignored our laws.

  48. Jmac says:

    Just a quibble from an earlier comment … who exactly among the vast majority of those who classified as illegal immigrants are using medical services in ‘non-emergency’ instances? The problem isn’t that, but that we have a system where those lacking health care coverage which offers preventative care forces them to go to the emergency room to receive care.

    Also, the not letting children born in this country would be impractical to manage.

    Chuck, I think you make a good case, but then again you get into a gray area when you argue …

    our argument seems to be “let’s just selectively ignore the law because I don’t really agree with it.”

    But this is exactly what made the Civil Rights Movement so successful. I’m not attempting to equate this issue with that, but to point out that in some instances it is appropriate to ‘selectively’ not follow the laws (i.e. when they are unjust).

  49. Know Nothing says:

    Chuck,

    How many of those “who ignored our laws” framed the house you’re currently living in. Unless your house was built before the 1970s, you sir, are a hypocrite.

  50. Doug Deal says:

    BM,

    So, if your car swerved off the highway and onto the shoulder, where you were being pounded with road debris and surface imperfections, you would go along with a proposal to jerk the wheel to the right and into the trees, because “The status quo is unacceptable. ”

    Making things worse is never preferable to keeping them the same.

  51. Carpe Forem says:

    Know nothing (how apt), Federalist, ToddH and other emotionally driven individuals.

    You own an amusement park. You have people that stood in line and entered according to the rules. You have others that sneak in. When you catch the ones that sneak in, do you then give them a free meal and ice cream and let them ride all the rides ahead of the paying customers. No, you would kick them out. Because if you didn’t, you would have to raise your prices to compensate for your loses.

    For those that are analogy illiterate:
    amusement park = USA
    paying customers = legal immigrants
    sneaking people = illegal immigrants
    free meal and ice cream = welfare, free medical and education
    ride ahead = get jobs that would go to others
    raised prices = increased taxes

    I hope I didn’t leave out anything because I’m done here with this issue, for now.

  52. Bill Simon says:

    Demonbeck,

    Funds to help people aren’t “unlimited?”

    Oh, come now. The Dems KNOW all you evil, rich high-and-mighty whiteys have all sorts of money you’re keeping for your greedy, selfish selves.

    Federalist and ToddH have a need (just like the televangelists) to coax/guilt/DEMAND that money out of you to help the people they deem worthy of deserving their help.

    “not enough money…”…puh-leeze…

  53. Bill Simon says:

    Carpe Forem,

    You cannot use rational logic on the Lefties…they have no concept of “owning” something for themselves in the first place. All they do is spend every freaking day of their lives pissing and moaning about how The Man keeps them down.

    They are but one or, at max, two degrees above people who raid retail stores during a hurricane because “hey, man, it’s free…”

  54. Know Nothing says:

    Carpe Forem,

    You’re post was very ironic. If you have a minute to put down Nealz Nuze, please pick up a copy of the Wall Street Journal. They published a great analysis of the Heritage Foundation’s study which has been quoted numerous times showing how illegal immigrants use more services than they contribute to.

    I’d publish it in its entirety, but I don’t know if that’s allowed.

  55. Know Nothing says:

    That last post of mine was sorta cryptic.

    The Journal showed how the Heritage study was flawed, and how immigrants actually end up paying more in taxes than they recieve in services on the whole.

  56. ChuckEaton says:

    Know Nothing-

    Actually my home was built in 1940, but even if I had bought a house made by illegals it would not make me a hypocrite.

    I can’t help the fact the many builders choose to hire illegal aliens and don’t think it should preclude anyone from having shelter over their heads. I agree that illegal aliens have made houses more affordable. You can also make the point that they’ve depressed wages in the housing industry so much that American, taxpaying citizens can no longer make a living framing or roofing houses. We can try to get into a whole economic discussion as to whether the illegals have increased the standard of living by making things more affordable or decreased it by depressing wages, social programs etc…

    I’m not saying we don’t need the labor force, I just believe we should increase visas and green cards to people who are legally waiting in line first.

    To me it’s about sending the proper message to foreign citizens – will you be rewarded for breaking our laws and punished for following them or vice versa.

    Unless you believe there should be no immigration laws and no border security then you are the one who is the hypocrite.

  57. Jmac says:

    Carpe, that was completely misleading. Not only does Know Nothing make a valid point about use of services vs. amount contributed, but your analogy is sophomoric.

    While I’d love to see how you’d propose ‘kicking out’ the millions of illegal immigrants currently living here, I’d also like to point out that left out one vital point featuring the bill in your analogy …

    That once the park owner found those who entered in without paying admission, he charged them two-fold for the admission, sent the father to stand outside the gate and told them they had to wait at the end of the line for each ride behind those who had paid the admission before coming in.

  58. drjay says:

    i know they are not exactly related but we are going to mexico tommorrow for the next week and i can’t help but find it ironic that for us to legally take a vacation to mexico, it took 12 weeks, 2 senators and 2 congressman to get my wife’s passport renewed for the trip–also funny that we got a call from chambliss’ office at 9:30 last nite to let us know the rules had been suspended and that if we can prove the passport is applied for–we can have “passport amnesty” for our trip–and these people want to run healthcare–or think they can handle immigration at all???

  59. debbie0040 says:

    If we are not enforcing the laws that are in effect now, why on earth anyone believe we will enforce the new laws?

    If the illegals are not abiding by our current laws, why would we think they would abide by new ones? Get real.

    A start to help solve the immgration problem is to speed up the process of legal immigration and increase the VISAS .

    The most important thing is the we need to do is to ENFORCE THE LAWS we have now.

    Amnesty in 1986 failed miserably , this immigration bill was virtually the same. If it fails once, why would it work again years later?

  60. Federalist says:

    Carpe, you are just as emotionally driven. I am not advocating that we selectively ignore the law…we already do that. We should change the law, and the status of these individuals. Bush did that with Gitmo detainees, why not do it for well-intended, hard working people. The heritage foundation is bs, undocumented workers pay alot more in taxes then they consume in services. The amusement park thing…it does not work that way. Now if the people sneaking in were doing so to work…then it might work. The analogy is still very weak. Carpe, how much do you think that an undocumented worker makes? Bill Simon is an irrational asshole, “lefties” come on. Liberalism gave birth to reason and rationality. Funds are limited, you are right about that one thing Bill. That is not a problem though, rules can be changed for eligibility, but the enforcement must be funded to prevent fraud and abuse. Fraud and abuse will always be present, last year DHR OIS recovered something around $9million in “stolen” welfare services/checks last year. There is more to be recovered, but the investment has not been made. We can invest now and save in the future, or punish now and lose from here on out. I am sure there is a middle road, there always is.

  61. ChuckEaton says:

    Just for the record I think Chambliss and Isakson are in a tough spot. You’ve got a whole economy that has become dependent on this workforce and to rip it off like a band-aid would be difficult.

    We are in a global economy and many Georgia farms would probably move to Mexico if they were forced into raising their wages – remember unemployment is very low so something would have to give to attact American citizens into picking peaches.

    I’ve just got a tremendous problem with rewarding people who break our laws and punishing those who follow them. It’s very hard for me to get beyond that.

    I know the current bill states these folks would “go to the end of the line”, but I’m very suspicious that would change over the next few years.

  62. ToddH says:

    Bill Simon,

    It isn’t what I deem, it is what logic and compassion deems. In a way, nations are as good as they treat the worst off. It is easy to help those who do not need help, it is easy to treat them with respect and dignity. It is much more difficult to provide essential services and care for those who cannot obtain it for themselves. Inhumane and totalitarian states have treated their worst off as animals, either exterminating them or neglecting them and that is how they are judged by how they treated their worst off. How do we treat ours?

    We live in a capitalistic society and it is natural for the poor to exist b/c not everyone can be wealthy or economically comfortable. In a capitalistic society there is an economic bell curve. You can’t make everyone equal, to do so would be socialism and would destroy the capitalistic society replacing it with total equality and total poverty.

    You can’t make those poor or disadvantaged rich, and you can’t make them economically comfortable, or middle class, but there is a place in such a society where they can be provided with essential services and care, whether in education or medical care. It does not profit society to deny these items b/c to do so is to create a permanently illiterate, sickly, malnourished underclass who are still needed to provide certain important low skilled labor. So, it profits society that they have some sort of education, maybe not Harvard or Yale level, but enought to read and understand basic math, and it profits society that they are healthy and provided with preventive care so as not to overburden ERs with minor complaints or to allow small illnesses to grow bigger and burden hospitals and the government with the increased cost.

    To deny basic services to the disadvantaged isn’t just cold or uncaring, it is not productive and expensive.

    Then again, I’m just an emotionally driven Leftie.

  63. Carpe Forem says:

    I’m sorry, I said I was finished but I have to respond to Jmac.

    “valid point about use of services vs. amount contributed”

    I don’t buy it. If it were true then all the taxes anyone of us would have to pay would be capped on the first $20,000, the average illegal’s pay.

    “but your analogy is sophomoric”

    Duh! That was the point.

    “While I’d love to see how you’d propose ‘kicking out’ the millions of illegal immigrants currently living here”

    Already covered, see earlier post.

    “I’d also like to point out that left out one vital point featuring the bill in your analogy …

    That once the park owner found those who entered in without paying admission, he charged them two-fold for the admission, sent the father to stand outside the gate and told them they had to wait at the end of the line for each ride behind those who had paid the admission before coming in. ”

    One, the bill was not part of my analogy. Two, I have been arguing that this bill is not necessary if current laws are enforced and the incentive to come here illegally are removed. Three, If sending the breadwinner home while leaving the family here to fend for themselves is in fact part of this Bill, then that is just plain stupid. At least now he was helping to provide for his family. If passed then we would have to assume the entire burdon.

  64. Federalist says:

    That stupid amusement park this only works if the people that sneak in are doing so to get a job and live in a more free society than what exists outside of the amusement park.

  65. CHelf says:

    It’s great to scream “Just enforce the laws on the books”. The point is that with 12 to 20 million illegals (not sure how this is determined) something has to be done to increase bureacracy. There are not enough Border Patrol agents or ICE agents out there. i think these bills actually address that.

    The key to this is to stop the demand. People will only come if there is a demand. Since all those patriotic Americans are hiring them, the demand remains. Stop the demand. Simple. Put heavy fines and punishment on those who hire them. If no one wants to hire them, the need is gone and the illegals look for work elsewhere.

    A few of you are all about the illegals. Simple fact is that they would not be here if Americans didn’t hire them. And seeing how 12 to 20 million are here, I’d say many of those people claiming to be against this have hired or benefitted from illegals left and right. The argument on rule of law for many is bogus since many care little about punishing the Americans who have not only broken laws but have defrauded the rest of us by adding to the tax burden we face. So while we pile it on those who only seek better lives, let us remember that it is your neighbors who have created and contributed to this problem. As for amnesty, this is also abused since people will have to pay fines for their crimes. If that is amnesty, the next time you get a ticket and pay the fine, think of amnesty when this goes on your record and your insurance goes up.

  66. ToddH says:

    It seems more and more common political discourse for people to offer analogies to explain situations, and these analogies are typically juvenile and irrelevant. How about talking about the existing situation rather than engaging in elementary flights of fantasy?

  67. Adam Smith says:

    Enough on the immigration reform. Open the borders to anyone who wants to come here. Process them as quick as you can (like used to be done at Ellis Island). Make sure they are who they say there are and are not terrorists. Let them come and work for cheap. Let them come and join our society.

    It is better for the free market to have a cheap supply of labor.

    The natural progression of society goes from agricultural to industrial to service (Sweden is the most commonly cited country as a service country). We are in the growing pains of transfering to a service country from a primarily indutrial country. We must realize our society is evolving in the natural order and as such, it is ok to lose jobs to the poor and the immigrants. It means cheaper goods to the rest of society. It requires citizens to become better educated and to get better jobs down the road leaving the immigrants to do America’s “dirty” jobs while Americans evolve to “cleaner” service jobs.

    It will mean short term pain for those who cannot transfer their skills to service type jobs, but in the long run, it will be best for America.

  68. Federalist says:

    Heavy fines and prison sentences are used for drug crime offenders…a lot of good that does. It is still one of the most profitable industries in the U.S. The demand for quality labor will never go down. I forsee two options: allow them to stay and work or outsource the jobs.

  69. ToddH says:

    Use of a term like amnesty is just a way for opponents to immigration to tar what is in fact a reasonable compromise. How is it amnesty when the process takes years, imposes fines, requires a payment, and does not guarantee that the applicant will attain citizenship? If it was really amnesty the entire bill would be quite short and to the point, “All illegal immigrants are now citizens immediately.” That is amnesty.

    Extremists on the left and right despised the bill and were willing to do anything to destroy it. They do not want compromise or any reform whatsoever. The various amendments offered by the likes of Sessions and Demint were simply attempts to kill the bill. They didn’t really care to reform it or make it better, they don’t want a bill period. Demint pretty much admitted that he voted in favor of amendments in an effort to kill the entire bill.

    That is not statesmanship, that is petty obstructionism.

  70. ToddH says:

    Adam Smith,

    They claim that immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, Senator Dorgan was especially concerned with this. I have a question though, and it comes from personal observance in Southeast Georgia, how many American citizens are going to pick onions when the immigrants are deported?

  71. Holly says:

    You know what turned me away from the bill? The provision that said applications for a Z visa must be processed in one business day (see Section 601(h)(1)).

    One. That includes completing background checks. Why just one? Does no one else find that worrisome?

    There were a few other things that I didn’t like in this bill, but that the hurried application process was what convinced me that this legislation had serious issues.

  72. Bill Simon says:

    ToddH,

    You have an interesting point regarding the obligation of a civilized country to “help the poorest and downtrodden inhabitants of said country.”

    Not that I am in favor of allowing the “church” to govern us, but it seems to me that you are making this “obligation” something ordained by some higher entity, right?

    I mean, there is NOTHING in our U.S. Constitution that says what should be done to help those less fortunate, so, from whence do you extract this notion and offer it on the table?

  73. Jmac says:

    Carpe, I just have serious reservations if total enforcement of the laws will have the intended effect you think it will have, as well as I think it’s not practical to begin to think that the businesses who rely on these immigrants for cheap labor will work to adhere to the law (or that we wouldn’t see the rise of a considerably larger black-market industry which gets ‘documentation’ for these folks).

    I also disagree with you regarding the services vs. contribution effect. That Heritage Foundation study wasn’t the only one like that I’ve seen. There are several others as well which show that it’s either equal or less … along with the fact that the ‘use of services’ is considerably overblown as most of the used services are in the (primarily private) health care industry and don’t stem from government-provided services, for a variety of reasons.

  74. ToddH says:

    Holly,

    “One. That includes completing background checks. Why just one? Does no one else find that worrisome?”

    When I enlisted in the United States Army a background check was initiated. This background check returned its results in less than an hour, so what’s the problem? That background check provided me with the enlistment and an interim security clearance.

  75. Federalist says:

    Bill Simmon, pick a line of discourse. You are a christian one minute, then a strict-consitutionalist the next.

  76. LakeGuy says:

    I haven’t read all 85 comments, so I can’t join in on the current conversation. But, I will say this, I am so very thankful that Senator John McCain has shot himself in the foot for the last time. He is finished now. I think it was Tom Tancredo who said something like “John McCain has always been a maverick who marches to the beat of a different drummer, and it is sad that that drummer is Ted Kennedy.” HAHA so true. Same goes for Vice President Lindsey Grahm.

  77. Federalist says:

    LakeGuy, you have no clue. McCain polls around 53% approval across the political spectrum…McCain and Guliani are best chances the GOP has at winning a national election.

  78. ToddH says:

    Bill Simon,

    I’m not a strict constructionist, I believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document that has to reinterpreted as society changes over the course of time. There are issues that have come about that the Constitution, b/c it is a historical document that was written in a specific time period, could never have foreseen, that is why our representatives and judges have to look to the Constitution not in order to find the exact wording to justify a particular program, idea or bill, but to see if it is following the “spirit” of the Constitution.

    If you look at Article I Section 8 it states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” I think the key phrase is “general Welfare.” Now, if I look to the dictionary definition of “Welfare” I find, “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.”

    So, Congress has the Constitutional duty to provide a state of “good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity,” to the general population and may “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” in order to provide such a state.

    The Constitution is quite vague and offers general guidelines, and I believe that to be intentional. The Framers recognized that time would change, new issues and problems would arise and the Constitution had to be able to live and breathe in such times. Like I stated before, I think the important thing is to look at the spirit of the Constitution rather than any exact wording, but that is looking at it from a layman’s perspective, I am not a constitutional scholar by any means.

    Now to a comment you made just previous:

    “Not that I am in favor of allowing the “church” to govern us, but it seems to me that you are making this “obligation” something ordained by some higher entity, right?”

    I’m not saying it is from some higher entity, though I do agree that our attempts to codify a doctrine or list of morals or obligations derives from that still, small voice that C.S. Lewis spoke of, but that it is an obligation humanity should place upon itself to do what little it can to help their disadvantaged brothers and sisters. I’m not saying that we can carry them completely, common sense says otherwise, but that we can provide certain essentials.

  79. ToddH says:

    I wonder if anyone even knows who Ted Kennedy really is, the human being and not the caricature created by conservative Kennedy-haters.

  80. LakeGuy says:

    Federalist, you may be right about Guiliani, but you are not about McCain. He will not win the GOP primary. And I do have a clue, thanks.

  81. ToddH says:

    Bill Simon,

    Not a prob. I care for Kos about as much as I do Pat Robertson, which is not at all.

  82. LakeGuy says:

    And Todd, I do not hate Ted Kennedy. I know that he is a liberal democrat, and disagree with pretty much every political opinion he has. His amnesty bill failed, and I am glad of it. I am not attacking Ted Kennedy the person, I am attacking Ted Kennedy’s politics. You don’t see me talking about things like chappaquiddick do you?

  83. ToddH says:

    LakeGuy,

    I understand, but there is a fundamental problem, I think that many can no longer distinguish between Kennedy the person and the Kennedy the politician. He’s the ultimate straw man for the right, much like George W. Bush is for the left.

  84. JRM2016 says:

    ToddH,

    Here is what I know about Ted Kennedy:

    On July 18, 1969, Kopechne attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island, off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, held in honor of the “Boiler Room Girls.” This affectionate name was given to the six young women who had been vital to the former Robert Kennedy presidential campaign and who had subsequently closed up his files and campaign office after his assassination.

    Besides Kopechne, the other women, all single, were Susan Tannenbaum, Maryellen Lyons, Ann Lyons, Rosemary (Cricket) Keough, and Esther Newberg. The men in attendance, all married but present without their wives, were Ted Kennedy, Joe Gargan, U.S. Attorney Paul Markham, Charles Tretter, Raymond La Rosa, and John Crimmins. The festivity was held at Lawrence Cottage, rented for the occasion by Gargan, Ted Kennedy’s cousin and lawyer. The twelve attendees gathered at the cottage after two Kennedy boats raced in the Edgartown Regatta earlier in the day.

    Kopechne left the party at 11:15 p.m. with Ted Kennedy after he allegedly offered to drive her back to the Katama Shores Motor Inn in Edgartown where she was staying. According to Ted Kennedy, on his way to the ferry crossing back to Edgartown, he accidentally turned right onto Dike Road instead of bearing left on Main Street. After proceeding one-half mile, he descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge set obliquely to the unlit road. Ted Kennedy drove the 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 belonging to his mother, Rose Kennedy, off the side of Dike (or Dyke) Bridge, and the car overturned into Poucha Pond.

    Ted Kennedy extricated himself from the submerged car but Kopechne died. Since her parents’ lawyer, Joseph Flanagan, filed a petition barring an autopsy, the cause of death was never medically confirmed. When the car was recovered, all the doors were locked and three of the windows were either open or smashed in.

    Kennedy said that he dived down several times attempting to free her and, after exhausting himself, rested for twenty minutes, then walked back to the Lawrence Cottage where the party had been held. At the Lawrence Cottage, Kennedy summoned his cousin, Joe Gargan, and another friend, Paul Markham, to return to the scene of the accident. Kennedy sat in the back of a white Plymouth Valiant rental car that Kopechne had used that day. Though there was a working telephone at this location, the group waited 10 hours before they contacted the police. Ted Kennedy then returned to the submerged car with Gargan and Markham who then resumed trying to reach her. The group claimed that the tidal current prevented them from reaching her.

    Kennedy pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a two month suspended sentence and one year probation.

  85. ToddH says:

    LakeGuy,

    Sorry, meant to make one more observation: I think a significant number opposed the immigration bill solely b/c Ted Kennedy had something to do with it.

  86. ToddH says:

    JRM,

    And that’s not a lot being that he is 75 years old. I’m not absolving him of any blame on anything, but I’d hate for my entire life and everything I am to be determined by one youthful indiscretion (I’m speaking personally, I understand that in 1969 he was 37 years old). That’s my entire point with LakeGuy, Ted Kennedy is no longer seen as a man anymore, but as a caricature, a Liberal Boogeyman. It is easy to determine the substance of an individual based upon one incident, one belief, one opinion b/c it excuses the individual from having to look at the complex totality of an entire life. In politics many create pictures of people based upon one event, one trait, one belief. George W. Bush is the Neo-con Crusading Invader of Iraq. Reagan is Mr. Tomato. Dan Quayle is a Misspelled Word. Clinton is Lewinsky. Nixon is Watergate.

    I think it takes a mature person to realize that there is good and bad in everyone, even Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush.

  87. JRM2016 says:

    A youthful indiscretion is underage drinking. A youthful indiscretion might be a car wreck caused by inexperience behind the wheel. A youthful indiscretion might be experimentation with illegal drugs while in college.

    I don’t know about Massachusetts, but if you drove a car into the Chattahoochee and left the passenger to drown you would at a minimum be guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

    And I have heard 40 is the new 30, but I would hardly call anything a 37 year old man does a “youthful indiscretion”, particularly if what he did was indiscreetly cause the death of another human being.

    So you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t have any respect for the moral and/or political pronouncements of the Senior Senator from Massachusetts.

    Neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore nor Barack Obama should be put in the same category as Ted Kennedy.

    I think it takes a mature person to realize that just because someone has been a U.S. Senator for decades and is 75 years old that does not excuse or erase his crime. I could also go into the less lethal but no less criminal exploits he was at least tangentially involved in South Florida much later in his life, but I guess that would also be “boys being boys”.

  88. ToddH says:

    JRM,

    Wow, before you get too wound up let’s revisit my post:

    “but I’d hate for my entire life and everything I am to be determined by one youthful indiscretion (I’m speaking personally, I understand that in 1969 he was 37 years old).”

    Let’s see, I stated “I’m speaking personally” in regards to the “youthful indiscretion.” The reason I brought this up was b/c I’d hate for that one moment in my life, which was a youthful indiscretion, to define my entire life. I’d hate to think that I was so narrow as to think that of another human being.

    Again, back to my original post:

    “I’m not absolving him of any blame on anything.”

    I’ve heard your side of the story, and I’ve heard the other and as I wasn’t there, or alive when the event transpired, I’m not 100% sure that he is guilty or not guilty of anything. All I know is that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and, therefore, since he wasn’t pronounced guilty of such a heinous crime as you imply, then I guess he was innocent. You may disagree, and I sure disagreed with the OJ verdict, but that is how it is in this country and I feel that it is unfair to constantly pronounce guilty upon someone who wasn’t found to be fuilty of anything.

    Okay, and let’s look at your post:

    “And I have heard 40 is the new 30, but I would hardly call anything a 37 year old man does a “youthful indiscretion.”

    Do me a favor, go back and read what was in the parantheses. I don’t ask much but I would like someone who disagrees with me on something to have completely read what I wrote.

    “Neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore nor Barack Obama should be put in the same category as Ted Kennedy.”

    What did Obama and Gore do? If you are speaking of my reference to Clinton again it lies in how I don’t like how in politics people are so quick to define a person for one event, one indiscretion, one mistake, one belief. It is juvenile.

    “I could also go into the less lethal but no less criminal exploits he was at least tangentially involved in South Florida much later in his life, but I guess that would also be “boys being boys”. ”

    Please do as I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

  89. Holly says:

    ToddH,

    When I first applied to be a teacher, I think it took a day. However, I am an American by birth, and I’m figuring you are as well. It’s probably pretty easy to track us because we have things like drivers’ licenses and school records here. We’re already part of the US system.

    Foreigners are not unless they’re known to be American threats, right? So to find out about other applicants, we’d have to go to their home countries to get the same kind of information on them. Do you think all those countries have digitized systems like us? Some will, but not all. So we give the ones who don’t a major benefit of the doubt because as long as there’s no reason to suspect they’d fail a background check, their Z visa is to be processed, regardless of whether a background check is completed.

    That, my friend, makes me uncomfortable. I’m surprised it doesn’t rub others the same way. We’re not in a time where I want people to have that kind of benefit of the doubt. The bill should’ve been amended to say “when background checks are completed”, but it was not.

  90. ToddH:

    You said:
    “McCain is a representative of the people who can do what he darn well pleases. Sometimes these reps. have had to buck the will of the people, like LBJ and others during the civil rights struggle.”

    Exactly. He is a representative of the people. If he doesn’t represent his constituents, then he should be voted out of office. And you shouldn’t compare the plight of illegals who come here of their own volition and break numerous laws to the plight of folks who were brought here against their will and forced into slavery. That comparison hurts any credibility you have.

    ToddH:

    You ALSO say:
    “There are many Malkinese who won’t admit it, though she will, and say that all illegals should be deported and a Great Wall built, no matter how illogical that actually is. They are anti illegal immigration for the sake of being anti illegal immigration, without offering a rational plan to fix the problem. They say they are only anti illegal immigrant and are open to legal immigrants, but they sound remarkably similar to Bill the Butcher. Never let it be said that nativism is not alive and well in the United States of America.”

    Let me get this straight. You refer to us as nativists (implying racism) and then use a term like “Malkinese”? Wow. The irony and hypocrisy in that paragraph is staggering. Pot. Kettle. Black.

  91. Federalist says:

    Holly, actually we do know quite a bit about a lot of foreigners that are not threats. The state department, and the equivalent in many countries, share information. The REAL ID act pushes this even further, that is a different story though. Exceptions do exist. Many of the undocumented workers in the U.S. have been here for a while…it is not like all 12 million of them jumped the fence last year. They are just working, they are not trying to “slit our throats” as that meathead Greene would put it. The bill does not need to say “until the check is completed” when administrative rules and regulations are created to implement the policy…then that will be handled (and that will not be handled by Congress, rather by immigration services.)

  92. ToddH says:

    Holly,

    Good point, I didn’t consider that.

    rightonpeachtree,

    “Exactly. He is a representative of the people. If he doesn’t represent his constituents, then he should be voted out of office.”

    That is what I’m saying. If you listen to many opponents of the immigration bill, Laura Ingraham being one, are basically saying that various Senators HAVE to listen to their constituents b/c it is unAmerican to do otherwise. In a way, they are advocating a form of direct democracy. McCain and others like him don’t have to listen to the will of the people, they were voted into office to act as a voice to the people. If enough people decide that he/she doesn’t speak for them then they can make their own voices heard next election cycle. I have a feeling McCain doesn’t have much to worry about.

    “And you shouldn’t compare the plight of illegals who come here of their own volition and break numerous laws to the plight of folks who were brought here against their will and forced into slavery. That comparison hurts any credibility you have.”

    I said nothing about slavery, but spoke of the civil rights struggle. Next time fully read what I wrote. Also, I am not equating illegal immigration with the civil rights struggle. I simply used that as an example of Reps. and Senators bucking the will of the people in the attempt to do the right thing.

    “Let me get this straight. You refer to us as nativists (implying racism) and then use a term like “Malkinese”? Wow. The irony and hypocrisy in that paragraph is staggering. Pot. Kettle. Black.”

    Nowhere did I imply racism. You say that by calling some “nativists” that I am implying that, and that is untrue. I am implying xenophobia and cultural isolationism, but not racism. Trust me, if I wanted to call opponents of illegal immigration racists I would have.

  93. ToddH says:

    And, is it just me or are many just trying to find an excuse to use the phrase, “Pot. Kettle. Black.?”

  94. CHelf says:

    Well let’s see. With this now dead, we have the status quo continuing. We have borders still wide open and people still thinking a wall on the Mexican border is our salvation. I guess the many other access points will remain wide open. I guess more will continue coming across and TRUE amnesty to continue. Since we cannot effectively enforce this with so few resources and so many illegals, we will continue to see the tax burden increasing, services being drained, etc.

    So for those who think this is a ‘victory’ all you’ve done is ensured the problem gets worse. We had a chance at true reform and truly addressing the actual issues and because of people’s misunderstanding of the issues and dependence on pundits for info we see this getting to the point of irreparable.

Comments are closed.