June 28, 2007
Immigration Bill es Muerte
Maybe I should say that Team Red has hit the exacta this morning.
The U.S. Senate has killed the fatally flawed U.S. immigration bill.
Grab your garlic, wooden stake and firebrands and make sure you lop off the bill's head and bury it face down at a crossroads.
Now the topic of immigration reform can be discussed in its proper format during the 2008 Presidential Election. Hopefully there will be a clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican candidate on this issue - along with whatever third party candidates who happen to run.
This also gives the Bush administration the opportunity to act in good faith by aggressively carrying out current immigration law.
Posted by DonWard at June 28, 2007
09:57 AM | Email This
Great -- the US population is condemned to ever upward actuarial lines.
2. It looks like the folks attending the Illegal Immigration Summit up in Everett on June 30 can tip back a few bottles of Jose Cuervo in celebration.
(See our Public Blog)
Just remember, Doug Parris likes his margarita with no salt...
Kidding aside, it will be interesting to see the next step in the debate.
There won't be any more debate until at least after the next election. The status quo has won. and so have the illegals, and their employers.
Behold excised nose, from spited face.
4. This bill needed killing.
6. The problem is that immigration reform does not have a constituency that matches up well with party id. For example many social conservatives are strongly against illegal immigration, but on the other hand economic conservatives often support it. On the left its Labor that is pretty anti-immigration whereas more wealthy liberals support it on ethical grounds. Even amongst supports there are fractions in terms of how to handle undocumented immigrants (amnesty, guest worker, etc.)
7. Yesterday on the Glenn Beck radio show, Tony Snow was asserting that there was 100+ miles of fence which had already been built down along the Mexican border, and he said that the rest of the ~700 miles will be built in 18 months. Does anyone know if he's right and if so, is there some website or news organization watching this fence building project and reporting the progress? It seems like this would be big news for those of us who want a fence built.
An here I was making preparations for all the high paying jobs that would be openning up in Mexico once the North American Union was passed!
And don't tell me the job pipeline would only work one way. I just know that couldn't be true.
9. While I did not like this bill, IF the next election does not produce the results that conservatives want (e.g. Hillary/Obama and Democratic House/Senate), what we will get in terms of immigration reform will be MUCH worse.
Here's where I politely disagree with you. If this bill were passed and IF Hillary (et al) were elected in 2008 what makes you think that they would abide by any portions of the bill which the future president did not like?
The issue of illegal immigration is largely a problem handled by the executive branch of government. It's law enforcement.
Palouse, let's put it this way: If talk radio/FoxNews/Blogs can do what they did to their own people on this issue, imagine what they'll do to a Hillary that proposes worse to a Dem Congress.
That's what OWNING an issue without SOLVING it can do for you, as Bill Clinton could've told you.
12. I was wondering why that chimpanzee that ocupies the White House was so gung ho to reelect Arlon Sphincter. It wasn't untill this issue heated up that it became clear to me.
13. I totally agree that the issue is a law enforcement one. We don't enforce immigration laws. We don't enforce election laws. But, we certainly know how to throw the book at Martha Stewart and Paris Hilton, don't we? That's what progressive relatavism buys you, and that's what we have now at all levels of government, coupled with greed. Needs to change.
I have no confidence that a Hillary/Obama would enforce it, but at least if there's SOMETHING in place, they have a measurable standard to deal with and answer to the public. What we're doing now is letting them start with a blank slate, something we know is not going to produce favorable results, and will lean even more towards faster legalization of illegal aliens.
I'm not in favor of legalizing illegals either but "kicking all the illegals out" is a pipe dream. We would be better served facing reality with some kind of compromise legislation.
Some proponents (including some Republicans) of the failed "immigration reform" bill argued that this was the "best possible" compromise that would ever be possible.
Their mistaken premise was that the next election would lead to either Clinton, Obama, or Edwards presidency with even larger Democratic Party majorities in Congress. Thus, the mistaken reasoning continued, any future immigration bill will be "much worse," so we might as well settle for this "despite imperfections."
However, the pro-amnesty Democrats (and those misguided Republicans who sought to compromise and accept amnesty) saw their bill go down in flames as it collided with the will of the American people.
Even with a secretive, closed process, the viewpoint of the American people was heard and emerged victorious. Sure, the Democrats could have had an open process - with weeks and months of hearings, amendments, and debate - but then they would have even less chance to push through amnesty.
The Democrats pretend that "we all agree on tough border security." If that were true, there would be a 100-0 vote in the Senate in favor of a bill which did nothing but strengthen border security and strengthen enforcement requirements. Later, there could be a separate discussion of other measures (likely to be defeated, of course, and deserving to be defeated).
But because the Democrats don't really "agree" on tough border security, they tried their best to foist amnesty on the American people. They failed.
The 2008 elections are an opportunity to elect a better House of Representatives and a better U.S. Senate. The Republicans can win an anti-amnesty, pro-border security majority in both chambers.
Combined with a Republican presidency (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or whoever defeats the Democrats), we would then be able to get MUCH BETTER legislation on many issues, from immigration to lower taxes to supporting the troops.
16. Palouse: There IS something in place. Legislation was passed to secure the border and fund same, time and again. Never done. We have laws on the books against knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Not really enforced for the last 20 years. All of the problems we face right now have to do with enforcement of existing laws, which government at every level just refuses to do. We need to actually enforce what is in place first, and then we can deal with the problem of folks who are already here and do not leave voluntarily once the gravy train stops rolling. There are many things to consider, such as how long they have been here, are they gainfully employed, etc., all kinds of mitigating circumstances, and they can be addressed. However, you can't decorate the cake before it's baked.
It would be very interesting to combine real id (i.e. no driver licenses without proof of legal residence or citizenship) with stronger criminal enforement of corporations that hire illegal workers. How many workers could slip the double net of examination of real id and a database check of the validity of a SSN?
As for the tens of millions of illegals already here? End free medical care for illegals. End free education for illegals. These and a few other steps will reduce the influx of illegals and encourage those already here to go home.
18. You want to end this problem tomorrow? We have a pretty good idea of the cost to taxpayers of each illegal alian. Pass a law requiring anyone convicted of employing anyone who in not legaly in the Country pay ten times the yearly cost to taxpayers of each illigal alian they are guilty of employing.
Iconoclast at #17 makes an excellent point. Many pro-amnesty politicians raise the red herring of "you can't round up and deport 12 million people." But the real issue is, as Iconoclast and others have pointed out, law enforcement and stronger border security. Drying up the illicit job market, ending the flow of benefits, building the fence, and sharply implementing even existing laws will lead to a huge attrition.
Many people who came here for under-the-table jobs and benefits will go back on their own if such benefits and jobs no longer exist.
As I said in my 2006 congressional campaign position paper(*) on border security and illegal immigration:
(*) the full text is available at http://www.berenforcongress.com/border.html
"STEP #1: We must strengthen border security to sharply reduce additional illegal immigration. And we must eliminate the incentives that encourage illegal immigration and increase the penalties to discourage it.
"STEP #2: Dishonest businesses that hire illegal aliens should be severely punished. Their goal is to evade taxes, and their goal is to avoid providing workers with proper pay and benefits. My support for severe punishment of companies that hire illegal aliens does not stem from any anti-business sentiment. In fact, this is a pro-business position, because allowing amnesty for such dishonest businesses is unfair to the vast majority of honest businesses that play by the rules. Taking action against companies that hire illegal aliens will dry up the illicit job market that attracts illegal immigration. Some illegal immigrants will decide to return to their country. Others, contemplating illegal immigration to the U.S., will choose to stay in their homeland.
"STEP #3: We should discontinue providing free education, free health care, free social services, food stamps, welfare, driver's licenses, and other benefits to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants have become a massive underclass, not paying taxes to support social services, yet using these services disproportionately because of their poverty status. This greatly increases the tax burden on the American citizen taxpayers, while also depressing wage levels. This is a great disruption to the American economy, and curtailing of benefits for illegal aliens would further destroy a big part of the incentive to come to the U.S. illegally.
"STEP #4: Strict law enforcement. If a person is arrested on a traffic offense, misdemeanor, burglary, assault, or any crime, and it is determined that they are also in the country illegally, deportation proceedings should take precedence over any other minor crime of which they might be accused.
"Strengthening border security, drying up the illicit job market, ending benefits for illegal aliens, and strict law enforcement will gradually lead to sharply slowing illegal immigration and eventually a reversal of the flow. Some will decide to return home on their own, some will turn themselves in, some will be caught committing crimes and deported. It took twenty years for 11 million illegal immigrants to come to this country, and it will probably take many years to reduce the number to a small fraction of the current amount."
The full text is available at http://www.berenforcongress.com/border.html
20. Settle for something now, or settle for nothing later. Sad, but true. It's not getting any better, and Hillary/Obama is only going to make it worse. I don't know that any of the Republican candidates will be able to do anything about it either. Even if one of the R candidates win AND the R's regain control of one or both houses (unlikely), any solution that conservatives actually want will never make it through the Senate. And then we're back to where we are today.
Any bill that an alcoholic can write that is over 300 pages long is flawed. That thing needed to be killed.
However, on a political note, because Bush criticized his own party and scored an own goal when he postured that the Rs would lose Hispanic votes if they don't approve an immigration bill, there is ground to make up.
If the Rs don't format this issue in easy to understand terms that acknowledges and praises the value of new immigrants, the Dems have a new base. They always seem to con the disadvantaged don't they?
Enforcement of existing laws is a good start, and then the fence.
I never liked Reagan's amnesty and I didn't like the INS paperwork we had to fill out for new hires back in the late 80s, but after a few years, we weren't required to check. What the heck happened?
JDH writes, "You want to end this problem tomorrow? We have a pretty good idea of the cost to taxpayers of each illegal alian (sic). Pass a law requiring anyone convicted of employing anyone who in (sic) not legaly (sic) in the Country pay ten times the yearly cost to taxpayers of each illigal alian (sic) they are guilty of employing."
We do? Funny -- some economists believe that illegal immigration is a net economic gain to America. Among other things, many illegals have income and Social Security taxes withheld, but never claim refunds or benefits that they would be eligible for if they were legal. Of course there are costs to illegal immigration, too -- but the economics are complicated, which is largely why the "problem" hasn't been "solved" yet.
Also, before doing what you want, we'd need to give employers a way to verify whether someone was legal. What ID would you require? A passport?
Bruce, the illegals are now demanding they be reimbursed for their SS benefits, with interest.
SS is only barely alive now because the illegals put money into it. What happens when they get shamnesty?
Bruce, my problem with the bill is they tried to do too much too fast and by doing so left a hole the size of a Mexican semitruck.
Swatter at #21 is correct in saying that Republicans, in presenting the pro-border security, anti-amnesty position, must "format this issue in easy to understand terms that acknowledges and praises the value of new immigrants."
Absolutely. Combined with calm intransigence and optimism on the substantive issues, such an approach is key. In my 2006 campaign, I therefore made statements such as the following (without detracting from the core issues such as building the fence, enforcing existing laws, etc.):
#1 "Legal immigration is a wonderful and important feature of American history. I know this well, because I myself am the grandson of four legal European immigrants."
#2 "America welcomes the immigrant, but we ask people to be respectful of our country and abide by our laws."
#3 "Legal immigration is better for the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration means exploitation and existence in a permanent underclass; legal immigration means fair pay and better benefits."
Don Ward @ 2
Kidding aside, it will be interesting to see the next step in the debate.
The next step of the debate is electing more Republican Senators like Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint and David Vitter and more Republican Congressman like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, as well as a President like any of these guys.
Bruce is totally right. Immigrants are by far a net plus for the American economy. It's easy to prove that they cost taxpayers some money, but it's impossible to prove that they don't give it back (and then some), by way of decreased labor costs, increased production, etc, for American companies.
Read up on it: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006977
Opposition to increased immigration is incompatible with free market thought.
Which is better for the economy - legal immigration or illegal immigration?
Which is better for the American taxpayer - legal immigration or illegal immigration?
Which is better for the rule of law - legal immigration or illegal immigration?
Which is better for young inner city job applicant - controlled legal immigration or out-of-control illegal immigration?
Which is better for the immigrants themselves - legal immigration or illegal immigration?
Those who support amnesty and open borders sometimes pursue a red herring argument that immigration is good for the country, because immigrants do important work and become part of the fabric of American society.
But that begs the question. The counter argument is not that immigration is "bad." The real question is: which is better, ILLEGAL immigration or LEGAL immigration?
Legal immigration is better for the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration means exploitation and existence in a permanent underclass; legal immigration means fair pay and better benefits.
Legal immigration is better for the American economy. Legal immigrants pay taxes and contribute to society, earning their share of social services. Illegal immigrants live on the margins, while their social services are paid for by working class and middle class Americans.
Legal immigration is better for the culture and well-being of the nation. Legal immigrants play by the rules, learn English, and seek to become law-abiding citizens. Illegal immigrants start off on the wrong foot, breaking our immigration laws right off the bat, and are more likely to be mixed up in smuggling, gang activity, welfare fraud, identity theft, and other anti-social behavior.
No "open borders." No amnesty. No "benefits" for illegal aliens. Respect the will of the American people. Enforce the law. Build the fence!
So all you LIB's where is your caring. you want equal pay for all/living wage. But now you say NOTHING.
Damn the truth, it can be real hard!!
29. I agree with #12 about the chimpanzee even though I voted for that monkey twice. Pretty much the only thing Bush did right was appointing some terrific Supremes. However Kerry likely would've been worse with socialized medicine, a weakened military and the appointment of some Supremes that would make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like Ronald Reagan.
30. ajaday, I'm right there with you. Voted for his sorry hind end twice. The alternatives were so loathsome it wasn't a hard decision, however should any other viable option present itself the next election it will be the first presidential vote I have ever cast for a non-Republican. So there Republican National Committee chew on that a while. It not only is the President's immigration policies that have turned me, it's not being able to trust pretty near any of them (National or State) when the chips are down. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, you guys have lost the money I once donated, now you are on the verge of loosing what remaining support you once had from me.
The only things good about Bush today are the tax cuts and the Supreme Court appointments. The Democrats with help of their fifth column - the MSM Tabloiders, will want to make the misinformed sheeple believe that it was the Republicans faulth that there was no Comprehensive Immigration Reform better known as amnesty.
Bush can somewhat redeem himself by actively enforcing existing illegal immigration laws. If he doesn't, then he deserves a 20% or less approval rating. The two Senators of this state are feckless when it comes to solving illegal immigration, but we should be able to see through their agenda. Many of the Democrats just want more constituents - potential votes (anyway they can get them - illegal doen't really matter). The illegals would likely break 4:1 Democrat, in spite of what dufus Rove and Bush believe.
There are actually some Republicans running for President who might be worthy of the office, but a number of them who are not. Thank God for the Republicans and Democrats that saw the light (for similar and different reasons) and voted against cloture. The country is saved for the time being.
32. The Government cannot be trusted to stop illegal immigration by their past performance. It is unbelievably corrupt how the US Senators either party can drive a piece of garbage bill like this and even get close to passing it. It just shows that we are ruled by Special Interests groups and Unions and if it weren't for outraged citizens voicing their dissent, that Special Interests and Unions would have had their way.
To Steve Beren @ 15:
I am assuming that when you say "better" you mean, "Republican."
I contend that Republican leaders still haven't learned a damned thing from last year. If they had, not one of the Rs would have voted for cloture. If anything, this vote clearly exposes the Republicans who need to be sent packing for throwing out American sovereignty in favor of saving a few bucks on their kitchen help.
The American people have made it clear: if our Congressmen choose not to represent America and our Constitution out of a sense of binding honor, then the American people will see to it that our Congressmen do so by way of fear.
Whatever works, man. It sure worked this time. Am I satisfied with that? Oh, no. Not by a long, long throw.
We still have to throw every stinking POS who voted for this sellout of Americans out of office in 2008. Man, I can't wait.
Republicans have a golden opportunity here. They can fill the ranks with Constitution- defending conservatives who have the courage to stand up for what is right for this country rather than the current bastards who have lost all touch with the American people.
Or they can stay the same stupid course that got them kicked out of the majority last year.
So before Republican leaders even THINK about winning back Congress and holding the White House, they had better start looking at more conservative candidates who are FOR the people instead of continuing to back candidates who, by their votes today, have proven for all and sundry that they would rather F**K the people.
I am with you ER. Let's start with Murray and then we'll get Cantwell.
This was a horrible bill. But, isn't it a good sign that warm and fluffy statements like "it's good and necessary for the republic" just doesn't cut it like it used to. Thank goodness for the internet and talk radio. I got most of my stuff from Hewitt.
Party Time! Corona and Lime! Why do I feel like conservatives just won the 2008 elections.
Because, The immigration issue is still alive and 80% of Americans support the right wing conservative opinion. This will be a great topic for 2008. The D's and liberal R's just took a huge beating - moderate conservatives are WINNING Baby.
Bush aka The Chimp has zero political power till he is out of office - the damage will slow down. This is a immigration issue is so beautiful to paint Bush as a non-conservative (best gift he could have given us).
Now on to taking out the perfectly exposed liberal Republicans, liberal D's and liberal liberals. An issue like this is the only way I could see a conservative getting elected given the disaster GWB made of himself.
36. #35 - it would be nice if that would happen, but think that the Tabloid MSM has indoctrinated too many people to believe Republicans - evil and Democrats - good. Too early to see how this plays out in the 2008 elections, but still give the Dems a 50-50 shot at President, mainly because of Bush's ratings being in the toilet thanks to Iraq and this. A successful Republican candidate for President must distance himself from Bush, but so far they haven't distance themselves far enough.
37. Good comments and good ideas by Steve Beren.
38. Thanks, Don.
Please join us and toast the current victory at the no-host bar at the Illegal Immigration Summit, Everett Elks Convention Center 2731 Rucker Ave. But we'll aso be arming for the coming battles. Open mike, panel discussion, kickass speakers including the top spokesman in America against Amnesty (that isn't running for President) Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen movement.
The Reagan Wing of the Republican Party.
39. #33 ERNurse, When you say: "I contend that Republican leaders still haven't learned a damned thing from last year." You have hit the nail on the head. Republicans were looking the other way as other members of the Party were involved in every form of corruption and for that alone there needs to be a general house cleaning. That should offend every one here, as I expect it from Democrats (as does their constituency) it is consistent with their ethos - it's only wrong if you get caught or if caught don't get a pass. Unfortunately the leadership of the Republican Party has instilled the same ethic in the Republican caucus now and I, for one, will have nothing to do with them until I am cinvinced that it has been cleaned up. This combined with them dry-shaving me, and the rest of those who donated to their campaigns and supported them, has stiffened my resolve to only support individual candidates from now until I am convinced that the Party supports my interests and can keep Party members in line when it comes to important votes.
40. And before any of the local Democrat deffenders steps in to take on how I have characterized your beelived Party. Jeffords was given a pass when he was caught red handed your Party members looked the other way and what Harry Reid has been up to in Nevada in his real estate dealings and those of his family and close bussiness associates is just the tip of the iceburg.
I guess I supported "reform" in immigration, but you know, I'm actually glad we cons prevailed in this case.
It's clearly more than just "immigration" as it involves 11 million people who are technically in violation of the law.
What kind of precedent would it set? How about pardoning all car thieves?
Also, where is Mexico in this debate. The people are still citizens of Mexico; shouldn't that country be working with us to help them? Why isn't Mexico using petrodollars to defend its citizens?
If the state of Mexico is corrupt and run by evil doers, then should not be the U.S. burden, it's the burden of the people of Mexico to stand up and fight to make their own country better -- not run away and hide in another country.
Goot verk mine friends
Feerst vee secure da borters. Zen vee show dem some reel law unt order.
#15 - simplistic and too ideological. I don't believe that one party in control of the executive and congressional branches is a good thing and don't believe it is acheivable in 2008. If a Republican is elected President, I hope for the sake of balance that at least one of the Chambers is controlled by Democrats and if their performance is poor, the people will change that in the next election. In retrospect, Washington made some bad decisions that we have to live with, thanks in part to one-party control - which breeds corruption. The balance of power appears that there will be less harm done in the last year and a half of this Administration, than earlier. Clinton's 2nd term produced better overall results than 3/4 of Bush's presidency thanks the Republican Congress that acted like Conservatives - unlike the current bunch who are fiscal liberals masquerading as Republicans.
I hope that a Republican is elected President in 2008, but for that to happen - whoever it is will have to convince the electorate that he will govern different and distance himself from Bush - who lost his mojo after his 1st term. The Republicans in general deserved to lose the midterm elections in 2006. The defeat of this bill redeemed some of them and the pro-amnesty Repubs should be voted out and replaced as much as possible with real conservatives and stamp out all of this nonsense about the Fairness Doctrine.
44. The word "muerte" in your post title translates here as "death," not "dead." For the latter meaning, use "está," not "es."
When Lyndon Johnson got the Voting Rights Act passed, I think in 1965, he said "Democrats will lose the South for a generation."
How true! The Republican Party is now dominant across the South.
Guess what: the Republican Party by twice dening immigration reform, and by dissing Hispanics (the talk makes it clear R's think these folks are BAD and WRONG and LAWBREAKERS) means the Repulibcan Party will lose the Hispanic vote for a generation.
Hey you guys are factually right. They are lawbreakers, and it is amnesty. But nonetheless: they don't like it when you call them names, they have relatives with the right to vote, and these kids borm here are US citizens who when they vote in a few years may remember that you R's wanted to deport all their parents.
So predict a shift to D's among Latino-Americans.
By the way there historically we in the USA have approved illegal entry heartily and lustily -- when it was us entering Mexico to take half its territory! SO don't be so high and might about "illegals" and lawbreaking.
Dijen adios a la mayoria del vote--
#45 - The Republicans never had the Latino-American vote - they only got 34% in the 2006 elections. The drive-by tabloid media can twist and spin comments of the anti-illegal amnesty crowd into believing that they said disparaging comments about all Latino-Americans - which is a LIE. You also perpetrated the LIE. They did not say this about legal citizens of Latino/Hispanic origin - in fact they are good family people and many are solid American citizens.
Get your stories straight and check alternative sources besides the mainstream media and Democrat talking points.
Somebody come up with a list or bill of how YOU would handle this volitile issue. No rhetoric please - I think we've all heard it all.
Make your bill.
(and remember it's a futile attempt if it won't pass)
any takers- common
I dare you
Here's a bill:
1) Deport all the illegals immediately - whatever it takes. We would kill 2 birds with one stone (actually stones wouldnt be enough - we'll probably need uzis)
a) we'll bring law and order back to this great nation (right)
b) We'll get rid of the obesity problem we now face- since most of our food is picked, chopped & processed by illegals\
c) we'll win the admiration of the world see how righteous we are (so it was 3 birdss with the uzi)
-okay some will starve to death
2) Heavily fine & imprison any employer who hired an illegal alien (some dodnt know but they should have) True - this means halting life-as-we-know-it in the US as most farms, orchards & ranches would be shut down as would most construction, landscaping, foodservice, convelecent care- and most heavy-lifting related ventures
3)Use the imprisoned felon employers to construct a huge wall (a fence just doesnt cut it) between us & Mexico - hell - as long as we're at it we can have them build one between US and Canada too.
4) Imprison the IRS (all of them- we'll just have to hire new IRS guys) for not pointing out that the $millions (probably billions) they received from IA's using false SS# - wasn't proper. Gulp- if we're being righteos I guess we should refund that money.
5) Imprison both Clintons, G.Bush and any other surviving politician who knew about this conspiracy- as it has been going on for decades.
6) Imprison and call stupid anyone who doesnt agree w steps 1-5 as they are brilliant , thoughtful righteous & moral. Yes . God is on our side
That's about it. I'm certain this bill would easily pass. As it captures the heartbeat of all Americans who love our nation and what it stands for.
If you disagree or argue with me you are full of sh##