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.
Behold excised nose, from spited face.
Posted by: murtz on June 28, 2007 10:12 AMAnd don't tell me the job pipeline would only work one way. I just know that couldn't be true.
Posted by: deadwood on June 28, 2007 10:45 AMHere'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.
Posted by: Don Ward on June 28, 2007 11:28 AMThat's what OWNING an issue without SOLVING it can do for you, as Bill Clinton could've told you.
Posted by: Brad S on June 28, 2007 11:29 AMI'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.
Posted by: Palouse on June 28, 2007 12:38 PMTheir 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.
Posted by: Steve Beren on June 28, 2007 01:01 PMAs 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.
Posted by: iconoclast on June 28, 2007 01:15 PMMany 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
Posted by: Steve Beren on June 28, 2007 01:28 PMHowever, 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?
Posted by: swatter on June 28, 2007 02:51 PMWe 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?
Posted by: Bruce on June 28, 2007 03:56 PMSS 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.
Posted by: swatter on June 28, 2007 04:37 PMAbsolutely. 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."
Posted by: Steve Beren on June 28, 2007 04:47 PMKidding 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.
Posted by: Michelle on June 28, 2007 04:50 PMRead 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 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!
Posted by: Steve Beren on June 28, 2007 05:56 PMDamn the truth, it can be real hard!!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 28, 2007 05:59 PMBush 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.
Posted by: KS on June 28, 2007 07:05 PMI 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.
Posted by: ERNurse on June 28, 2007 08:03 PMThis 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.
Posted by: swatter on June 28, 2007 08:12 PMBecause, 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.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 28, 2007 08:59 PMIt'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.
Feerst vee secure da borters. Zen vee show dem some reel law unt order.
Sieg heil
Posted by: Baldy on June 29, 2007 08:21 PMI 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.
Posted by: KS on June 29, 2007 09:55 PMHow 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--
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on June 29, 2007 11:40 PMGet your stories straight and check alternative sources besides the mainstream media and Democrat talking points.
Posted by: KS on June 30, 2007 10:36 AMSomebody 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
-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##