1. After watching this video it is difficult to accept any delay in action. At the same time S.1348 as described by those who've analyzed it is a free pass for those already illegally here with only promises to tighten up the border. But what choice do we have but to adopt it?

Democrats will not support anything that restricts illegal immigration without them getting something in return. That is the reality we face. They only care about one thing, and that is staying elected, even if that means working for our defeat in Iraq, leaving us wide open to terrorist attacks here, or continuing the flood of illegals over the border.

I for one am a realist. We can hope all we want for a real reform bill, but Democrats will not allow it. Does this bill make things worse than they already are? I don't think so. Does it have a chance at making things better? I desperately hope so, for the sake of my children... and their children.

The fact is that if this fails, like the failed attempts at Social Security reform, it will become another third rail issue that even more politicians will avoid at all costs.

Posted by: MJC on June 12, 2007 11:19 AM

2. There needs to be no delay in action. Indeed, TODAY Bush could simply enforce the law that is on the books.

I could not disagree with you more: this bill makes things FAR worse. What good does it do? It has no serious enforcement of employment verification, and indeed, makes it easier to skirt the existing law. It will legalize millions while doing nothing to keep anyone out, let alone forcing them to leave when their time is up.

I am a realist too, which is why I have to oppose this bill. It is worse than doing nothing. Not that we should do nothing, of course: we can, again, enforce existing law.

I predict (and hope) this bill will fail and that the next President will be forced to vow to actually enforce existing law.

Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 11:58 AM

3. "I predict (and hope) this bill will fail and that the next President will be forced to vow to actually enforce existing law."

And what evidence is there that despite the presidents in the past not doing it, that the next one will with even greater controversy?

And in the meantime we get another couple million more illegals, our borders continue to allow free access to our enemies, and if Democrats get control of the White House in 2009, then what little was in this bill to tighten border security will be removed and they'll just hand illegals their US voting credentials at the border.

Call me foolish, but I have to trust Bush and people like Tony Snow that they've considered the alternatives. I doubt the American people could handle the reality of this crisis, and I suspect that Democrats like Hillary couldn't care less what happens 50 years from now as long as she can get elected.

We were founded as a Republic. That means that we don't want to trust the masses, with their limited information, to make decisions based purely on pie in the sky principles, or the baser instincts of greed and selfish benefit. We elected this administration because it was hands down more attractive than the alternative. And despite some very difficult decisions, this administration has been destroyed by the left in their drive for power, and the American people have bought the left's lies.

We can't wait in optimistic hope that a decade or two from now the American people will see the left for what they are and fix all these problems. We can play hardball and get nothing, or compromise - for now - and inch closer to our goal.

I'm as cynical as anyone. I think we're heading down an increasingly narrow path to the cliff, but if we demand too much, we get nothing and the cliff is only getting closer.

Posted by: MJC on June 12, 2007 01:11 PM

4. MJC: there are no guarantees, of course. But even inaction would be better than this new bill, which will not decrease the flow of illegal immigration.

If this were a choice between maybe enforcing the law, and changing the law to make things better, that would be one thing. But this bill will make things worse. I not only oppose it, I will fight against it.

There is nothing in this bill to tighten border security that is meaningful. Double the agents? Inconsequential. Build a fence? We already passed a law to do that, and it isn't getting done.

I would love a bill that took the current law and tightened it up. I am not saying I oppose any legislation. I oppose THIS legislation, because I am entirely convinced it will make the problem worse.

And I am actually FOR comprehensive reform. When this bill was announced and I heard about it, I thought, well, maybe it will work. Then I read portions of it, and I gave up that hope.

I am convinced the only way to solve the problem is to take away their reasons for coming here: jobs and welfare. This bill does nothing to address welfare, and it WEAKENS provisions to enforce employment verification.

You can talk all you want about narrowing paths, but it doesn't change the fact that in my opinion this makes the path even MORE narrow.

The claim is that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." That's a fine saying, but it only works as a valid argument if I see the bill as in any way good, as an improvement over doing nothing. And I do not.

Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 01:41 PM

5. What's your guess as to why the administration is pushing it? Can it really be simple legacy building from a president who seems to have abandoned any chance of short-term recognition? Is it possible that some of what is in the bill will give the administration some leverage to act they don't have now?

Like I said before, I've come to trust Bush, if not fully understand and like his positions on certain issues. I tend to accept the reality of his situation with rabid opposition and a near no-win scenario that he was given when he took office.

I've got to believe that the administration thinks much the same way about this bill as do most of us, but it also recognizes the reality of the world better than most of us, and certainly myself. Bush may believe this is the best we can hope for anytime soon.

If there is one thing I've come to believe, it's that "we the people" don't have a good understanding of the real situation out there, and that it is probably so dire that there would be mayhem in the streets if a government came clean with us. They'd probably find themselves out on there butts for telling us too.

You look at immigration statistics like in this video, or the reality of the entitlement system, or the growth of Islamic Extremism, Putin's threats, Iran, etc., and it is hard to understand why anyone would enter into politics. It also suggests why we end up with so many losers, if arrogance and power is the real driving force behind too many that enter politics.

In the struggle between left and right, while I fully support the conservative opposition to aspects of this bill, I also support the idea of working out the best compromise and getting something done while the situation is where it is at. I've changed a lot myself in regards to compromise, but I learned it the hard way trying to fight corruption, bias and wrongdoing. Sometimes being right, supporting the logical solution, and even having the law on your side is not enough. I wish I could believe that it was going to get better anytime soon, but I fear the media has done its job in turning the nation against what is in its best interests, smart, or even principled for a while.

Posted by: MJC on June 12, 2007 02:06 PM

6. I don't believe it will work. Maybe he thinks it will. So? Him thinking it will work certainly won't do anything to convince me it will work.

Trust him all you want. I think for myself. I was open to the idea of the bill, I researched it, and concluded for myself it was not going to work. Your argument boils down to two arguments. The first was "it's better than nothing," and I categorically reject that. The second is "who are you going to believe, the President, or your own judgment?" For you, the answer is the former. For me, it is the latter.

Certainly there are examples of situations where I do not always have enough access to information to make an informed decision, such as in Iraq, the war on terror, and so on. This is not one of those situations.

I support working out a compromise too. But this bill has nothing in it for me to support. That is not a "compromise." I am still open to a compromise bill. But nothing close to the bill as it currently stands could possibly be considered a "compromise."

Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 02:25 PM

7. So? Enough said. If you're right, and both Republicans and Democrats have conspired to craft a reform facade that will make things worse, then we're done. If all it ever was was a cynical bipartisan effort to add another worthless reform to their resumes, then its defeat is the right outcome. But if it is defeated, don't be surprised if the next bill pushed by the Democrats is even worse.

Here we walk that line between a Democracy and a Republic. A republic requires trust. And if we can't trust those we elect to govern, then what's the point? We know that Democrats are anti-republicanism. We know they will say and do anything to win support from the constituencies that support bigger government, higher taxes, homosexual rights, environmental extremism, the big lies like Global Warming, etc., regardless of whether that means supporting our enemies in war, bankrupting our economy, or suppressing opposing views with things like the Fairness Doctrine.

If you know better than the Republican President of the United States, then I hope you win. And with a few more defeats from the right, we'll most certainly have Billary in 2008 to socialize the country.

I hope you're right.

Posted by: MJC on June 12, 2007 03:09 PM

8. So now your argument is that I should support it because even if it is worse, the Democrats will do something even worse?

I'm sorry, but not only is this bill worse than the status quo, but your arguments are getting progressively worse too. You said it's better than nothing; when I disagreed, you said I am too ignorant about the facts and should trust Bush; when I said I won't, you tried to make me think that even if it IS worse, well, it could be still worse!

A republic requires trust in institutions, but that trust is fostered by freely available information so people can judge for themselves whenever possible. I refuse to trust blindly. That's not how a republic is supposed to work.

If you refuse to argue this bill on its merits and instead try to scare me into supporting it, then I have nothing more to say to you. I am not scared easily, so you are wasting your time and mine.

Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 03:32 PM

9. My statement was that if you are right, it will be worse. I did not suggest that it would make things worse, that is your claim. I did not suggest that you should support it even if it makes things worse, I suggested that you can't know as much as this administration, and opposing it from the standpoint that you do is pretty arrogant.

My argument was of trust in the president that I voted for that there is something to this that has garnered his support and the support of both his administration and a handful of Republicans.

I trust that he knows more than I do, than you do, and that he is of the character that he wouldn't be supporting this if it was as awful as you suggest.

As far as I'm concerned, Democrats in DC are as worthless and counter-productive as they could possibly be. Except of course, if they win the White House in 2008 that is appearing to be a significant possibility. If that happens, the only thing keeping them from driving the last nails into this nation's coffin will be 41 Republicans, poisoned with the likes of Arlen Specter and his crowd.

And don't dismiss that possibility that the Reid crowd won't rewrite the rules of the senate to erase the cloture rules. Anyone that would argue against them trying hasn't been paying attention to their willingness to do the outrageous. I mean, really, if they can fight for our defeat in Iraq and get away with it, what is repealing some obscure senate rule that the majority of Americans aren't even aware of?

I spent a decade involved in litigation against King County, with cases that went all the way to the state supreme court. As much as I read the briefs and the law, not being a lawyer, I could never have predicted how the courts would rule and was never prepared for our repeated defeats despite the fact that what I read told me were should win, and our lawyers believed we were rock solid.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. But we live in a time where pundits exist arguing every extreme from every angle. They don't understand the precedents that establish how aspects of laws are implemented, how the administrative rules will be defined, but work to enrage audiences to earn their living.

Washington DC is about politics. For a Republican president to negotiate anything in this anti-Republican atmosphere is not going to have what conservatives would like in their ideal conservative world. But to get the votes when they don't control Congress and its purse-strings, they have to sacrifice. And again it returns back to trust.

I trust that Bush wouldn't be supporting this unless he believed it was in the nation's best interests. Better than the status quo. Pursuing more of a bill to my liking will cost support until there is insufficient support left.

If doing nothing is better than this bill, then you are right and the president and his advisers, as well as many party loyalists are wrong. And if they're all wrong, then we've already lost this nation to the Democrats.

I don't need to scare anyone. If people aren't in a coma, they should already be petrified at the direction the left is taking this country.

Posted by: MJC on June 12, 2007 10:47 PM

10. Bush certainly may know more than I do about this issue, but that doesn't mean his judgment is better. Bush pushed No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug plan, both of which are clear violations of the Constitution as per the Tenth Amendment.

If you, or anyone, can show me that this bill will work, I will support it. If I am not shown this bill will work, then this bill does not deserve my support. Trust is beside the point. I think for myself and demand proof. This is not a matter of national security where there needs to be -- or even legally CAN be, as we have laws against that sort of thing -- any significant secrets.

Don't talk to me about pundits or how politics works or your insufficient understanding of legal matters. All I want to hear is arguments why the bill is good, or bad. Nothing else matters to me. I am perfectly capable of analyzing the major features of the bill for myself, whether you think you are so qualified or not.

But you appear uninterested in talking about what the bill actually says and will do. You are trying to scare people. I don't believe you when you say you're not. You put up all these statistics about how dangerous the situation is, and say this is why we should support the bill, and then when objections are raised against the bill, you tell me I am incapable of really understanding so I should just trust the government. That is using scare tactics and ignoring reason, the very crime you accuse the "pundits" of.

I agree the pundits are bad. But you're just as bad. Maybe worse, because most of the pundits at least encourage us to read the legislation and think for ourselves, but you are telling me I am incapable of really thinking for myself.

If that is your idea of a republic, then I want no part of it. Thankfully, that is not what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 11:40 PM

11. An amendment was offered to enforce existing immigration laws. It was defeated. Why? Why would any of our lawmakers vote NOT to enforce existing law?

In comparing existing law to the bill, the new bill would dramatically loosen some of the current laws, so having an amendment to enforce existing law was counter-productive in the eyes of our representatives.

If they don't care to enforce existing law, why would I think they would enforce any of this new law? Where's the proof?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 13, 2007 08:55 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?