White House Response To Erick's Posts.
By krushtonwhitehouse Posted in Immigration — Comments (162) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from the Diaries - Krempasky. Many thanks to the White House for taking the time to join the discussion here.
RedState Readers,
The White House is glad for the opportunity to respond to two posts here at RedState. The first, Erick's post referencing Tony Snow and talking about Z visa fines. The second, a post linking to Kate O'Beirne at National Review.
Regarding the first post:
We're glad to see the update noting the post was incorrect, but thought it might be helpful to elaborate more. Z visa applicants will have to pay a $1,000 fine for heads of households and an additional $500 fine for each dependent (spouses and children). There will also be a processing fee of up to $1,500 and a $500 state impact assistance fee. So the $1,000 is not really the cost of the visa as your correction suggest, it's a fine. The processing fee will take care of the costs of the visa. Of course, the fines and fees are not the only hurdle -- applicants must be employed, pass background checks, etc. to get their Z visas.
Read on . . .
A Z visa holder could stay in that status and remain in the country under their Z visa indefinitely. However, they would still have to renew their visa every four years. Renewing the Z visa means more processing fees (again, up to $1,500 each time). As you can see, the financial liability for these Zs starts to add up very quickly if they choose to remain in this status forever and not pursue LPR.
And regarding the second (Ms. O'Beirne also received the note below) on the treatment of applications:
If an undocumented worker wants to obtain LPR status it is a multi-step process with no guarantees. But for the purposes of simplicity, let’s break it down into three parts: probationary period, Z status, and LPR.
First, probation. The undocumented worker comes out of the shadows to acknowledge they have broken the law. In order to obtain probationary status they must show they are employed and pass a preliminary background check. Now, there is a provision in the bill that says DHS has one day to find a “disqualifying factor,” but that is not the end of the process. It’s a very short term way of ensuring that, if someone came out of the shadows and admitted their illegality, they will not be deported and can continue working. The background check will continue and if something pops up, the applicant will be deported, will never have a chance at Z status and certainly not LPR status.
Next, if they have passed the hurdles above, the undocumented worker is considered for Z status. Here they pay their $1,000 fine and processing fees ($1,000 is just for a head of household – it’s more if you have dependents); are subject to more background checks to make sure they have not committed crimes while in probationary status; agree to meet English and civics standards; and show employment. There is no one day “Treatment of applications” in this process. You have to complete or agree to all of the above before you are able to achieve Z status.
Finally, LPR status. Here, there is another $4,000 fine and more processing fees. More background checks to make sure you’ve kept your record clean. You will have had to have stayed employed and passed the English and civics tests. You will have to make a home application, go to the back of the line, and demonstrate merit under the new green card points system. Then, and only, then will you obtain a green card.
Thanks again for the chance to respond. It's important to us that readers have all the facts and the best information possible as they evaluate the immigration reform proposal currently before the Senate.
Kerrie Rushton
Office of Strategic Initiatives
The White House
The property I have will be beach side when the sea rises 20 feet. Right now it's piney woods, but with globull warming it won't take much more of al Gore's hot air to bring the waves.
For you history buffs here is an oldie but goodie
In 1965, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy was the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the hearings on the (AMNESTY)bill. At that time, Senator Kennedy made the following promise and assurance when he stated, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. ... The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia."
The Democrat Congress passed that AMNESTY bill.
AMNESTY is AMNESTY, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig. Else why not build the fence now, and do a comprehensive bill when the fence is done and working? No new legislation needed, the Pres already signed the 700 mile fence bill, Right Tony? Show us the good faith Tony, tell the Pres to build the real fence, you know, the one he said he would just a few months back, not the phony virtual fence. The Pres did intend to build the fence when he signed the bill, didn't he Tony? Oh you mean he didn't mean it, but now he really really does mean it and promises to do better. Spare me the hand wringing please ...
OK, don't like that, try this ... Does anyone believe a new magic law will be enforced any better than the last two magic laws were. Still waiting for the enforcement of the 1986 AMNESTY law, and the 1965 AMNESTY law ... waiting and waiting. Why not just use the old magic laws, they are hardly worn. Lets break out the 1965 and 1986 magic laws and enforce them and then see where we end up when these laws is fully enforced. After all, promises were made, not too late to keep. Any takers?
No third strikes ...
Give 'em hell Eric. Sen Sessions destroys the bill here.
I see a trend ... every 20 years or so we need a new magic AMNESTY law ... Credibility is going out the window, quit now.
...has NEVER been asked to account for those false promises by anyone in the media, or any of his Republican colleagues.
He pulled our kids from the Moscow Olympics right?
that hits too d*mn close to home -- affected me and too many close friends -- when I am determined to NOT use profanity when discussing our former Presidents.
A certain clown who once occupied that office (wearing seaters and turning down the heat in the WH) threatened the USSR with withholding wheat, withholding needed farm machinery and technology, and boycotting the Olympics.
The farmers vote -- so the USSR got its wheat!
Manufacturers (and their employees) vote -- so the USSR got its machinery and technology
Apparently athletes don't vote -- cause WE GOT SCREWED!
Here in the real world, we are drowning in a sea of immigrants who are a terrible drag on our school, health and judicial systems. I realize that immigration may not be a problem at your cocktail parties, but trust me - it is a big problem for the rest of us.
Actually, my slogans are eight words:
Border Enforcement NOW
Immediate Deportation
Penalties For Businesses
Very simple. You would think.
I have yet to see one actual plan on how to do this? IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION. I'm very interested in how that works and how you propose to carry it out. Please do explain.
A quota of 4-5 illegals a day. Use trains to move the people add cars as they get closer to the border.
Do the math.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
J.
Wondering if you also propose to suspend the provisions in the constitution for a trail or hearing for these illegal aliens caught up in your dragnet.
Unless you are willing to do so, that might take a fair amount of time, and a fair amount of costs on both the prosecution and defense sides of the table.
By the way, were are you going to incarcerate illegal aliens, their wifes, children, cats, dogs etc while your program grinds out justice?
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
Arresting 4-5 a day or even 3 to 4 a day is no great hardship. They get arrested. They get tried. Those here in violation of the law get a free trip home. Those that aren't get to stay and an appology.
If they are married to an American they are eligible for residence. If their wife is here illegally do you want to grant them resident status on that basis ?
There is nothing in the constitution about having an endless set of appeals. There is nothing that says we can't be expeditious in dealing with this problem.
It really doesn't take much to do this legally and properly. You just have to be serious about getting it done.
We haven't been. We have let every baloney objection imaginable stand in our way because certain influential people and groups benefit from selling out the rest of the country.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
J.
Every liberal action group will appeal every deportation order, or at least try to.
The costs are not insignificant, the time to do so is also major as is the negative PR that any party will gather by doing what you suggest.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
something on immigration law before you beclown yourself again.
Absent a generally recognizable crime, there is no "trial" involved in deportation. Any hearing an illegal receives is based on immigration law, which can be changed, not the constitution.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Well what crime has been committed, illegal entry to this country.
Absent a change in the law, I do believe that a trial or hearing is required by the Constitution. There are specific provisos in the law now to allow for immediate deportation if caught within certain proscribed areas and circumstances. No one in this thread has mooted changing any laws, the thrust has been "enforce the laws we have now".
As to your other comment, I realize that you are a pseudo moderator, but please try to abide by the very rules for RS you are supposed to enforce, namely:
"No personal attacks.
No harassment or demonization of a particular individual. "
Thank you and have a real nice day!
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
Would be removed in a little over a year. I think you may be on to something here.
You round illegals up (4-5 a day) and place them on trains. I take it they probably will not be allowed to gather their belongings either since they were illegally in the country and should not benefit from their stay here? It would make sense. Speed would be imperative to rid the country of illegals as quickly as possible.
I've heard of at least one other government use a plan like this before.
But thats all too easy.
So lets compare this to other situations.
We have a specialized branch of the government that rounds up people that do things offensive to the populace. They are rapidly placed in places where their freedom is limited and they are forced to wear ugly uniforms that clearly mark them.
Where have I heard that before ?
Or how about this
The government organizes the populace to monitor their neighbors and report on them to a central authority ?
Where have I heard that before ?
In case you don't get it the first is the police, the second is a community watch.
Being Deported to Mexico is considerably better than being put in prison. You know "ILLEGAL" in Illegal immigrant, means they broke our laws !!
So far you have branded the people that disagree with you as hotheads. Then you insist that a mass deportation couldn't be done. Then you assert that if it were done it would make us NAZIS for doing it.
Do you have anything to actually support your case. Or are you just somebody exploiting illegals that doesn't want to see his gravy train dry up ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
his plan makes great sense.
The only thing wrong with it right now is there's no border security to keep the people from just coming back in.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
JS's message was immediate deportation. I was just asking how that would work. Joli was nice enough to answer. I think it helps me understand their concerns with the Senate bill.
Also, you can't beat a plan with no plan. Now I understand what they have in mind.
And severe penalties for business owners who hire illegals, it can be handled. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I have yet to see anyone suggest even taking the single step in this direction.
Remember - we're the people that put a man on the moon, etc, etc, etc?
And just how is the business owner supposed to know they are illegal? There are criminal penalties to refuse to hire people with bad English and brown skins just for those reasons. So as long as the prospective employee has the proper ID for the I-9 what are we supposed to do? Use telepathy? The key to employer sanctions is a national ID card. Such a card has its own problems and abuses but I personally can live with those. YMMV.
So you simply have no clue who might be illegal and who might not? If you were faced with a little time in the Big House, which side would you err on? I thought so. It is YOUR choice who to hire. I would suggest the employer practice discretion.
I absolutely have no problem with a national ID card (which is what I thought a Social Security Card used to be). I have absolutely no problem with a business owner who screws his competition by hiring illegals spending time in jail, either.
Jack, answer me just one question.
Who is in a better position to identify an illegal?
1. A border agent seeing someone running across the border?
2. An employer dealing with a job applicant that presents 2 forms of legit looking ID as required by law?
Don't carry the government's water. Why aren't you this passionate about holding the government accountable for keeping our borders secure?
It is an easy copout to blame the big bad boogeyman businessperson. That is precisely what the lazya$$ government wants you to do. It is another revenue source for them to fine big bad boogey businessmen. It's an easy sell. Don't let them take the easy way out.
When the boat is leaking stop bailing. Plug the damn hole first.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
Severe penalties for business owners is part of the Jack Savage Comprehensive Immigration Bill.
If I could have one thing, it would be STRONG border enforcement. If I could have two, it would be rounding up and deporting illegals.
If I could have three, it would be severe penalties for government officials who knowingly fail to enforce the law.
We are on the same page, brother. The thread just got going on this one provision.
No prob, I just read many posts of people jumping to fining business as #1 priority solution. It is on down the list especially after securing borders.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
There are civil rights laws expressly designed to NOT allow a business to just refuse to hire people who look illegal [essentially people with brown skins and poor English]. Adding still more criminal penalties for hiring just motivates me even more to no longer have employees. So instead we use freelancers, often outside the US becaue once you are getting off site work an email from Rumania is as timely as one from Florida. Actions have consequences. I guess it is better in your world that no one be employed here. I read you loud and clear. Have also restrcuted my business pretty much in that direction.
You people need to learn how to argue, instead of just bringing up straw men. You're an embarassment to your cause.
Run like Reagan!
He never said to round up and deport all illegals. You're the one who made that up.
Clearly you don't understand how the deportation process works, that you insist on bringing up that straw man instead of addressing the issue of immediate deportation when illegals are caught.
Run like Reagan!
Business Enforcement. Sounds wonderful. However we have these things called discrimination and civil rights laws in the US, Federal and state. As an employer I cannot ask extra questions, do extra document checking on people with bad English or brown skins. So what is an employer supposed to do. One gets every employee to fill out the latest INS/ICE form and photcopies the 'proof' documents. As long as the ink doesn't run what more should an employer do? Should we risk the criminal portions of civil rights las by questioning prospective employers just becuase they are not blonde with good English [and yes that is not what we are doing but it is the way the charge will be stated when someone complains]? What is needed is a safe harbor - a set of procedures an employer can use that do not put them at risk under the civil rights laws. the easy answer of course would be notifying an employer if there was a problem with the social security nmumber of an employee. I can swipe a credit card and know in seconds if it is good but cannot swipe a Social Security card and in any event neither SS nor Infernal Revenue will tell me if an employee gives me a bad number [privacy is apparantly more important]. I await a coherent response because I haven't been given one in thirty years beyond don't employ illegals but don't discrimiante with no explaination of how one does this without telepathic powers.
That disagrees with you as unreasonable. Then complain the quality of debate has declined on this issue.
Just a heads up. The immigration debate is about broken promises. While the tune White House is calling sounds sweet we don't expect anyone to dance to it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Call me irrational and stupid.
Here's a short list of unenforced political borders.
Israel/PA
Israel/Lebanon
China/Tibet
Columbia/Venzuela
Russia/Ukraine
Russia/Estonia
Iran/Iraq
Most of Africa
England/Ireland (Past)
The Vatican/The Church of England
etc, etc, etc
Similar systems where the bureacratic machinery/power is not sufficiently bound to political sovereignty and attached to local democratic institutions.
U.N.
World Bank/WTO
Davos
We can freely traverse US states is because there is reasonable local polical sovereightly. When you leave NH, you have to fasten your seat belt.
Where insufficient polical sovereignty exists, either physical barriers arise, or the political machinery of the state is no longer responsive to control by the people.
The choice is Political Sovereignty, or physical barrier.
This immigration "debate" is about an elite class absolutely flouting the will of the vast majority of the American People.
Barney Frank has frankly admitted that illigal immigration hurts the working class. So we will have to strengthen our unions after the fact to make up for it.
Too bad most americans don't like the union reform he proposed. The one that attaches union leader thugs to politicians so they can make people dance. To bad we won't be able to compete in the global economy.
Too bad that the social programs the left - I mean the republicans - keep adding require ever increasing economies of scale to finance. We'll just make up for the delocalisation by taking more of your money and ensure you spend it in the proper way. To solve the problems we created.
Illegal immigration is about political elite self absorbed -COLLOQUIAL washington yo-yos taking money from big business to gain synthetic market advantages to increase economy of scale to pay for social programs set up by big government and oversighted by crooked NGO jerkoffs.
TAKE A HIKE.
SECURE THE BORDERS.
It's not nativism. My extended family looks like the "It's a Small World" ride at Disneyland.
And you insult me - the entire conservative base - really the 70+% of the american people who agree with me - with that loaded cheap nativist identity politics nonsense.
It's about LIBERTY.
If you want to play nobleman move to Brussels.
If you expect me to believe that the collection of open border and amnesty proponents who are ramming this piece of legislative crap through the Senate before the ink is even dry give a tinker's dam about any of those so-called "enforcement" provisions, you're lucky you're not in my living room.
The Congress has a long history of passing "enforcement" legislation and not funding it. Those provisions in this bill will be ignored or administrated around in a matter of days. Any that can't be quickly dispatched will be tied up in court by the Administrations friends at LaRaza and will be summarily bypassed for hardship reasons.
If you want to have a 1 in 100 shot at convincing me that the Administration and the Congress are serious about enforcement, pass the enforcement portions of this bill. Remove the amnesty portions, Z Visa, etc. until the enforcement provisions are complete. Then submit a separate bill.
Until then, you can take this piece of crap and stick it. One page at a time.
I apologize if my thoughts aren't clear. Posting guidelines inhibit me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I get really insulted when a WH flack posts disingenuous misdirection and outright lies about legislation.
And maybe you'll get answers to your questions. But it's significant that the WH thinks enough about this community and this issue that they've taken the step of registering and getting an account - something I don't think that's happened since this site launched in 2004.
So please, don't be a jerk.
It's good the WH is finally willing to listen to us. We have only been supporting it through thick and thin for several years now. But hey, better late than never.
It's bad that the people it was taking input from in crafting this bill were not people like us, but organizations like La Raza, MALDEF, and the labor unions. I'd be a little more impressed if this process was the other way around.
I believe in old-school politics, where you take care of your own constituents first. If the WH is interested in finding out more they should get in touch with me.
they are "listening to us". It means, based on the content of this blog, that they are feeding us a line of BS. Let's see if they respond to any of the well referenced and thoughtful comments (I'm not including mine in that group). Specifically, I'd like to see responses to Bluey and to your refs to HH's detailed comments.
Don't hold your breath.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Regardless of what you think about the Bill, the deal, the White House in general - you will be polite while they're here. Period.
"And maybe you'll get answers to your questions. But it's significant that the WH thinks enough about this community and this issue that they've taken the step of registering and getting an account - something I don't think that's happened since this site launched in 2004."
When the WH scraps its support of this Amnesty Bill then we will know they got the message. But it does tell you that they are starting to realize that they are in deep doo doo with their base. Of course, that has meant nothing in the past and it probably means nothing now. For after all, GWB isn't running for anything.
is here. Sorry I screwed up the HTML.
There is a point by point takedown of the WH "position" on this.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Don't you have a ring to recover from a hobbit ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
"If you want to have a 1 in 100 shot at convincing me that the Administration and the Congress are serious about enforcement, pass the enforcement portions of this bill. Remove the amnesty portions, Z Visa, etc. until the enforcement provisions are complete. Then submit a separate bill."
That says it all, very well.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
And if they decline to get a Z visa, then what happens? Deportation is already off the table, so it looks like nothing happens. Except they get the automatic legalization that precedes the Z visa.
The undocumented worker comes out of the shadows to acknowledge they have broken the law.
What is this piece of fiction based on? It looks like wishful thinking.
Where are the provisions for adjudication of crimes committed while in "Z" status ? Is a DUI a disqualifying and deport-able offense. Where are the safeguards for the public that criminal aliens are deported?
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
and sneaks back in illegally, a second time?
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
What are the requirements on documentation used for application for a "Z" visa? Are there fraud prevention measures?
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
Above, mbecker linked to Bluey's post about this bill, and it addressed your question directly (as well as many others). Required reading - I just got done.
Here is another one. Via Hugh Hewitt.
Section 601(h) Treatment of Applicants
(1)IN GENERAL --An alien who files application for Z-nonimmigrant status shall, upon submission of any evidence required under paragraphs (f) and (g) and after the Secretary has conducted appropriate background checks, to include name and fingerprint checks, that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible
(A)be granted probationary benefits in the form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of the alien's application;
(B)may in the Secretary's discretion receive advance permission to re-enter the United States pursuant to existing regulations governing advance parole;
(C)may not be detained for immigration purposes, dteremined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien's application, unless the alient isdetermined to be ineligible for Z nonimmigration status; and
(D) may not be cosndiered an unauthorized alien (as defined in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3))) unless employment authorization under subparagraph (A) is denied.
Section 601(h)(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) lay out additional provisions concerning this huge --indeed almost certainly 90% plus?-- portion of the illegals currently in the country that are not subject to the "triggers," and even notes in subparagraph (5) that if an illegal is arrested or detained prior to filing hisor her application for Z permit status, "the Secretary shall provide the alien with a reasonable opportunity to file an application under this section after such regulations are promulgated." Unless the computer spits out a no within 2 days of submitting the application, the illegal gets probationary Z status --before even one more mile of fence is built or a workplace verification system is constructed.
This looks very like amnesty without any triggers. If it is not, perhaps somebody from the WH can explain why it is not.
I certainly hope they do - but I'd understand if they decide that they signed up for having an argument, not getting "hit on the head lessons."
If they thought their position was sound and reasonable, they would not have conducted the entire process in secret meetings with select Senators, bypassed the normal prcess for bringing a bill to the floor, and allowed zero time for debate or even inspection of the bill before trying to get cloture.
The WH is not hoping for any reasoned discussion on this issue. Their own actions make that crystal clear. They are hoping to short-circuit the process and get this monstrosity passed before anyone knows what happened.
If that is not the case, then they can easily prove me wrong, and request that any action on the bill be delayed for a month or so.
What do you think the odds are that that will happen, Mike?
Kerrie, please let the President know that the American people don't care how you describe the amnesty, it still is, in fact, amnesty. The President and congress are trying to excuse people for their illegal activity while encouraging others to do the same. The President and congress need to secure the border. Once that is done, then we can discuss what should be done with the illegals that are here.
this from Bluey at Heritage...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
it is the legal term for an immigrant who is in the United States and the closest step to citizenship. It takes at least 5 years in LPR status before you can move on to citizenship.
the failed Euro model. We seem to be digressing back that way.
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The latest euphemism for a greencard.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
My eyes are still swimming from trying to read this on a monitor.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Than this bill provides for its amnesty. Seeing as immigration is entirely our problem, and entirely our problem. Might it be just a concept, a stop in the process of cognition to provide that we secure the border and actually start deporting people (with those authorized but not hired INS agents) before we talk about anything else.
And Yes I have started reading the bill. No I have not finished it. I don't expect anyone will by monday.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There has always been a mindset of indifference by the Federal Government towards Illegal Aliens, law after law has been passed; however, the government will not even attempt to put forth a real effort to enforce the laws.
Amercian Citizens are expected to obey the laws and pay their taxes; however, under this bill the Mexicans won't have to pay back taxes and the fact that the Mexicans here broke the law to get here shows that they are, in fact, criminals. What is going on in Washington, D.C.?
One more law isn't going to help because no one in Washington, D.C. is going to put forth an effort to enforce the law.
I want a refund of my taxes if illegals get tax amnesty. I am sick and tired of law breakers getting the benefit of the doubt. I will no longer give the White House the benefit of the doubt.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
It self executes.
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The US Border Patrol has 9,000 officers to guard the entire border with Mexico. By contrast, the NYPD has 37,000 officers to guard NYC. What is wrong with this picture?
The Heritage Foundation has estimated the cost of this bill at over two trilion dollars. What is the WH response?
Low skill, low income workers consume more in services than they pay in taxes. How is it in the best interests of the US to bring more and more such people here?
Moving from the country to the party, Hispanic voters favor the Democratic Party by a two to one margin. This is largely due to the fact that they are a low income group, and the Democrats are the party which aims to provide services for that constituency.
How is this demographic change anything but a disaster for the Republican Party? Does it anticipate changing its general philosophy regarding such things as the size of government and taxing and spending in order to accomodate the new electorate which it is creating?
they have bought into the left-wing propaganda that says anyone opposed to amnesty/open borders is a dumb, racist hick. I know, because I used to buy the same BS myself. what the White House and GOP don't get is that most of us who are outraged are really moderate on immigration. We are outraged, among many reasons, because this bill compromises our country out of existence by destroying out natl sovereignty. In a democracy, you can't have unlimited immigration...what is to prevent Red China from sending 100 million immigrants to just vote a merger during the next round of amnesty? or Saudi to send 100 million Muslims to just come and vote us into Sharia?
If the President believes that the Republicans are going to get any credit for working with Ted Kennedy in this "under the radar" mishmash of loopholes, he's incorrect. Come July, Ted Kennedy will be standing right next to Al Gore during his global warming concerts and bashing the Administration at every opportunity he gets. As has been true of so much else in this Presidency, the Republicans will give ground and get *nothing* in return.
The reason this legislation is being rammed through right now is so that whoever sponsored it will be *forgotten* by the time the summer rolls around. Kennedy will go right back to demonizing the Administration and we will gain *nothing* from supporting this legislation.
It's a bad deal all around. Maybe the President can think of someone who is going to benefit from it, but it's certainly not anyone except the illegal immigrants already here.
Because I want to reemphasize that to the White House, in no uncertain terms:
NOBODY IS GOING TO GIVE REPUBLICANS CREDIT FOR THIS LEGISLATION. ANYONE WHO IS TELLING YOU THAT IS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH. IF ANYTHING, IT WILL BE SPUN THE OTHER WAY.
Why in the world you might want to support it otherwise is, of course, your prerogative and a completely unfathomable and open question.
Hey, Ted Kennedy stood next to Bush trumpeting No Child Left Behind and now that everyone considers it to be a massive failure, Teddy Kennedy bashes Bush for it (claiming there isn't enough funding for NCLB). Of course, conservatives are pissed about that because it was a massive abuse of the Federal Government overstepping its constitutional limits. So now you have liberals still hating Bush and conservatives pissed about him acting like a dem to please them! Same thing will happen with this bill.
When will the White House learn that Democrats believe in real bipartisanship only when they are in the minority? I am sick and tired of Reps and White House for taking the high road. Stand up for something for the American people for God sakes. Just once.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
They are very likely to benefit in the short run if this bill depresses the base and their turnout in 08.
There is no doubt at all that the Democrats will benefit over the long run as this bill will increase the annual influx of future Democrats, and thus speed up the demographic destruction of the GOP.
Even IF Republicans were 100% responsible for a good bill, the Dems are much more organized on the PR front and have the MSM in their back pocket to take credit for most anything. Look at Clinton claiming he was 100% responsible for all the good during his administration. Forgot about Contract w/ America.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
Why is the white house so dead set on rewarding criminals. They have stolen peoples identies, evaded taxes, stolen services and employement from our people, smuggled humans and drugs across or borders, they drive without insurance or licenses, and they flaunt it without fear of punishmnt. There are no non Criminal Illegal Alliens. And every employer that hires them or company that services them is aiding and abiding in there criminal behavior. Same as any administration that doesn't make an honest attempt at enforcing immigration law.
We must focus on border and workplace enforment. The only problem with our current immigration system is that the Executive branch has not enforced the law for decades! It is time to stop talking and start acting. First by doing the job that the American people put you in office to do!
Secondly, any temporary work visa program should be open to all the world and not set up to favor crinimals already illegally present in the US or people from Mexico or any other single country.
Applicants should pass a back ground check, health screen, and english test in their home country, not after they have already started violating our laws. Illegal presence in the US should be a permenate disqualification for a work visa, not a fast track situation.
No amnesty period. Any proposal that forgives illegal presence in the US is amnesty -- regardless of the details. Stop trying to fool the American people. We understand english!
there is an enormous lack of trust about the federal government's ability and willingness to enforce anything that contradicts the reigning multi-culti, PC concepts in the Beltway.
The White House has an ENORMOUS sales job ahead of it. The parentage of Teddy Kennedy doesn't help. (not at RS, anyway.)
Also, since President Bush is leaving office in January 2009, we can't trust the executive to plug any holes in the bill through prudent executive action.
As for Congress, fuhgheddaboudit! If they can't write a clean war funding bill, imagine what slop will be embedded in the immigration bill once the drafters and the lawyers and the committees and the conference committees have their way with it.
for the next 5 years, I don't think that is to much to ask in that they are attempting to strip the provision for requiring back taxes to be paid by illegals. I was born raised and have worked and paid taxes my entire life here in America and I am being treated as less then an illegal immigrant. I want to say I am not shocked just I would like a little compensation for my vote for the Repubs, that is how this works right?
Ms Rushton:
The problem the White House has is a lack of credibility. Conservatives (I among them) do not trust this administration. President Bush will be out of office soon (something this conservative is actually looking forward to). There is absolutely no reason for us to believe that any of these provisions, save for the ones that benefit illegals, will be enforced. It's already illegal for people to enter this country... illegally. Nothing has been done to prevent that and with a Democratic Congress it's likely many of the "enforcement" provisions will be further diluted. You should not be surprised at the reaction this bill is getting. The administration should focus on securing the border first, and deport illegals as they are identified. Then we can consider other things. Obviously this administration does not view securing the border as a matter of national security and that is outrageous.
I am a contributing and voting conservative Republican. I vote a straight line Republican ticket. The negatives of this administration far outweigh the positives. I no longer support President Bush and look forward to the day when he is no longer President. I just hope his replacement is a conservative who can communicate effectively and my hopes are that Fred Thompson will fill that void.
Too many immigrants are entering our country too fast. They are not assimilating and our culture and values are being diluted. This furor has been building for years and now the fire has been lit. Tomorrow the barrage of phone calls and emails will continue. I and others are not going to sit by and just watch this happen.
Thanks for visiting but I'm not buying what you're selling.
I don't think it could have been said any better!
" The administration should focus on securing the border first, and deport illegals as they are identified."
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Look in the mirror and tell yourself this isn't amnesty.
Look in the eyes of your children and tell them this isn't amnesty.
Put your hand on the bible and tell God this isn't amnesty.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who heads the House immigration reform caucus, said ``the worst thing you can do if you try to control illegal immigration is reward 12 to 20 million illegal aliens with citizenship and permanent residency.''
Yet he added, ``I think it passes if big business is able to basically put the pressure on and say, `We give you Republicans a lot of money. We want you to deliver us a cheap vote.'''
You have a Republican Congressman saying that the Republican Party is putting the money it gets from big business ahead of the best interests and wishes of its constituients. How do you respond to that?
Pass this bill if you want the administrations legacy to be the death of the republican party.
I have been a Republican all my life. My father was all his life. If this goes through I wouldn't vote for a republican as dog catcher. Its fair to say I am not alone here. You may think there was a hit from the Hispanic vote in 06, its nothing compared to what you will see in 08.
The Republican party has always been a law and order party. How do you think the rank and file feels about seeing blind lady justice raped ?
We were the anti slavery equal chance for everybody party. How do you think the rank and file feels about human traffic and slavery being revived because its good for business ?
These aren't minor issues for me, and I daresay for most other people in the country.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You're certainly not alone! I decided to leave the Republican Party months ago. If this goes through it will simply be further proof that I made the right decision. The Republican Party is a sham and doesn't deserve the support of ANY conservative. It has betrayed us again and again and this is simply more of the same. So you're right. Pass this bill and they will guarantee the death of the Republican Party. Not just in 08, but for good. I'm getting the impression that this is finally the straw that has broken the camels back. So go ahead Mr. President. Sign this bill and you can add the death of the Republican party to your legacy. Of course, you may have already guaranteed that.
I voted for GWB twice. I did so not because I though for one minute that he was a conservative. His father wasn't he isn't. I also did so because a vote for Gore or Kerry was not a possibility. But I tell you what (in hindsight) I wish I had done. I wish that when election day had come in 2000 and in 2004 I had stayed home! If I had, I'd be feeling a lot better these days. That's the long way of saying that this president has no credibility with any conservative who is worth the name.
First of all, it is nice to see the White House engaging online.
Second, what you are doing is pushing through the suicide of the GOP. Stop, please.
All this spin from the White House is only intended to accomplish one thing ... to hide its despicable amnesty and sell-out of the American taxpayer. Please don't insult our intelligence.
The simple fact is that if this legislation passes, 12 to 20 million illegals will automatically be legalized. Whether or not they later have to jump through some hoops to obtain citizenship is irrelevant. Indeed, many of them may not choose to become citizens. Why should they. Thanks to the White House they can remain indefinitely and continue to leach off the American taxpayer. To make matters worse, each of these lawbreakers will be allowed to bring over their family. As Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation has stated, we are looking at the importation of as many as 60 million unskilled and poorly educated migrants over the next 30 years. Is that really in the best interest of America?
As for the supposedly rigorous administrative steps that illegals must satisfy to obtain a Z visa, does even the most gullible among us trust a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy to administer this program? The government is still processing people from the last amnesty in 1986. Moreover, since the Bush-Kennedy Administration is so eager to remove the threat of deportation, illegal immigrants will have no meaningful incentive to comply.
What is so galling about this massive amnesty is that far from solving the problem of illegal immigration, it will only make the problem worse. Have we learned nothing from the last failed amnesty in 1986. It is certainly a novel theory that says the way to stop illegal behavior is to reward it with permanent residence. By that rationale, I suppose the way to stop the epidemic of auto theft in America would be to let every thief keep driving his stolen car as long as he paid a token fine. What a disgrace.
Everyone agrees that the borders are broken and we are being overwhelmed by illegal immigration at a crushing cost to our communities and social welfare system. Yet instead of immediately securing those borders, penalizing employers of illegals, and enforcing the rule of law, the response from the Bush-Kennedy administration is to exacerbate the problem with an immediate amnesty.
The American people deserve better from their elected representatives - Republican and Democrat. No legislation is better than bad legislation. As for those illegals living in the "shadows", they are welcome to return to their country of origin anytime they decide the shadows are no longer to their liking.
Frank Katz
More specifically, what the White House needs to understand is that the incredible angst unleashed by this proposal is not merely founded in knee-jerk xenophobia. Rather, it is looking at the statistics regarding how Mexican immigration is impacting life in the United States that made me realize what unchecked (and massively expanded) immigration will do to the United States.
With no further ado, a short summary of the data, most of it from the census:
The sources:
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/stp-159/native.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/stp-159/STP-159-Mexico.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/stp-159/foreignborn.pdf
Poverty rate - this one is probably the best indicator of welfare dependency, etc:
Natives 8.3%
Other Foreign born 11.4%
Mexican 24.4%
Per capita Income - the low levels ensure that Mexican immigrants will most likely vote for as much redistribution as possible. Also, current trends indicate that convergence between Mexican-american and native levels of income is non-existant or minimal.
Natives 22.000 $
Other Foreign born 25.000$
Mexican 13.000 $
Share speaking English at home: (Pretty good assimilation metric)
Natives 91% (remember that 8% of natives are already hispanics)
Other Forign born 22%
Mexican 5.6% (Yowza!)
We always hear Mexican immigrants are really, really hard-working, no? What's reality like? Well, not too bad, if you ignore the natives and the other immigrants.
Labor force participation:
Natives 60.2%
Other Foreign born 57.1%
Mexican 54.3%
Education - another powerful metric of the prospects for success in society:
Share of population with no high school diploma:
Natives 17%
Other Forign born 25%
Mexican 70%(!)
Higher education:
Natives 25%
Other Forign born 32%
Mexican 4%(!!)
Second generation (born in the US) school enrollment for Mexicans and other immigrants:
16-20 years:
Asia 76%
Europe/Canada/Australia 67%
Mexico 57%
21-25 years:
Asia 37%
Europe/Canada/Australia 28%
Mexico 15%
Now, all of this bad stuff will go away with a couple of generations of that good ol' american melting pot, no? Not really. Even when looking at cohorts and attempting to give a positive spin, Mexicans are just slightly ahead of African-Americans (the US permanent underclass) after three generations in income. (A mere 100 years or so.)
In short - things are looking pretty grim for the US, demographics-wise. And even worse for the GOP. If you in the White House want to prevent this, you must change your stance on this issue - fast.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
For the trillionth time, it is not a choice between "deporting them all" and "comprehensive reform". That is a false choice.
Here is the SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Enforce Existing laws.
2. Add tough employer sanctions
3. That's it.
Eliminate illegals ability to get a job and make sure they aren't getting any social services, and they will have no choice but to SELF-DEPORT. Without ability to make any money or get hooked up onto the dole, they will have to leave on their own. It's that simple.
And when we've made it clear that no illegal can get a job here, and that there are no welfare goodies to get hooked up to, not only will most of the illegals leave here on their own, but we will stop the flow across the border, too, because we will have eliminated ANY incentive to come here. There will just be no reason for an illegal to try to come into this country at that point, with the exception of terrorists coming in to do us harm. But no "normal" illegal trying to get a job will come, because that will be impossible.
It IS that easy. No "mass deportions" needed. No fence needed. Hardly any additional money needed. And no gifting the Democrats with a permanent majority by importing tens of millions of leftist voters needed, either.
Simply enforce existing laws and add employer sanctions with real teeth, and we've solved this problem.
The White House is trying to sell us a bill of goods. Teddy Kennedy was responsible for the last two major amnesties which simply resulted in massive increases in illegal immigration and an exponential deterioration of the situation. And who did the White House in their infinite wisdom tap to write this new bill?
Teddy Kennedy.
Only in Washington can repeated massive failures mean that the "solution" must be more of the same... It's just a joke.
We've been fooled by this twice before, and we have absolutely no reason to think this will be any different than any of the other amnesties.
All we are going to do is encourage more rampant illegal immigration with this bill. The biggest flaw in it is that it doesn't seal the borders tight as a drum before talking about amnesty. The second this bill is signed we'll get a flood of new illegals wanting in on the action, which will be easy to do by merely buying a few forged documents. In twenty more years we'll have fifty million illegals instead of 12.
Hey - that's how it happened last time.
Simple solution - enforce the laws and watch them leave.
Why can't we just do that?
MSM Visuals from your plan
Crops rotting in the field, no illegals to harvest them.
Starving children, who are citizens, crying because Mom and Dad who are illegals are out of a job.
Ghost towns and poor illegals cowering because 'Migra is cracking down on employers and they are afraid.
Sanctuary cities who refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities as they make work place enforcement raids.
Look no further than your nightly news to see these and more, right now, every time there is a raid of some business.
But you are right, make the border less porous and good things can be done to address the problem.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
But it just isn't going to have the effect it had in 70's.
For every bleeding heart that will go "Oh those poor people" Theres
2 People that have had their social security numbers stolen
3 construction workers that have been "Displaced"
5 Homeowners who are sick of paying property taxes that are through the roof to provide services for illegals.
And frankly damn few people believe the MSM anymore. They have been shooting their wad bringing down this administration for the past six years. If they try this it will be their death knell.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As there won't be any sudden "disappearance" of people, it will be a gradual change, much as the arrival of the millions of illegals was.
Hence, the number of tragic MSM visuals will be severely limited - and more importantly, they will be rather drawn out and boring. Dramatizing an angry farmer who can no longer get bargain-basement labor for the umpteenth time might be a hard sell.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12884
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
First of all, we shouldn't make policy based on fear of MSM propaganda. The right thing is the right thing, and this is certainly the right thing by almost anybody's measure.
We didn't ask them to come here, and they did so illegally ON THEIR OWN. They have to live with their choices, the same as if you'd have to live with yours if you decided not to pay taxes for five years or something.
This solution is humane, simple, low-cost, direct and fair. We don't even need to build a fence!
Secondly, I'd go toe to toe with the MSM on this ANY day. It won't work. The American people are so fed up on this issue they will cheer just about anything you describe above. It has gone that far.
And no - we won't need to do "raids" on workplaces - especially after any length of time. Hit them with huge fines and possibly jail time and deterrent will be enough to keep any employer from trying to circumvent the system. You won't see many "raids" on TV because nobody will hire illegals.
As for children that are citizens of illegals - they are free to go back to Mexico with Mama and Dad. Nobody will shed a tear for that. It's not as if families are "being torn apart" or anything.
I guarantee you crops won't "rot", either. Those businessmen may want illegals to pick them, but they sure as hell won't let them rot if they lose this battle - they'll pay Americans to pick them. Hire wages, sure. Meaning we'll have to pay a bit more at the supermarket, but that's a price most Americans would be fare willing to pay.
In sum, we shouldn't care about the MSM propaganda, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as you are making it out to be, and Americans in general are so pissed off about this and have for so long they are going to cheer these sob stories rather than be upset by them. You watch.
The only way to resolve the issue of picking crops, mowing laws and doing other labor intensive jobs "that American's won't due" is basic economics. If one likes fresh produce they will have to pay more, if one wants their lawn mowed, they'll have to pay more. These aren't jobs American's won't do, they are jobs American's aren't going to do for what they are willing to pay. The employers who argue that they MUST hire illegals as they are the only one's that will do the job are also the low-cost providers and that is likely the only way they are providing the service to begin with. They are unable to compete on quality so they have to compete by making their service so cheap you can't refuse, or all their competitors have also moved to a low cost wage pool via illegal immigrants. Enforce the current laws regarding hiring illegals all across the board and this problem is eased, but only do a raid here or there and too much incentive exists to continue to skirt the laws.
"Cowards cut and run, Marines never do"
Can we add to this tough corporate sanctions for companies that aid illegals as well. This weekend in the Denver post their is a human interest story about an illegal allien family that lost their jobs becuase they used fake documents. Now they are worried about losing their House? How in the heck did they get a home loan without real identification. How many of these people are there and what is going to be the impact of all those forclosures on the rest of us? This is ridiculous on some many levels it makes me sick!
Then explain to me Mr. White House why the #&@% border is being left open for the next 12 million to flood across so we can do this BS all over again in a couple of years?!
Reducing the fence from 700 miles to 350 miles is complete BS!
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
It pisses me off that government problems get dumped into the laps of business.
Is it business's responsbibility to secure borders? Are we paying business to do it? Government has been paid billions in taxes to secure our borders. Now people are calling for the quick expedient solution of charging business for a government problem.
Let's fine government. Let's jail government officials. Government is allowing porous borders, not business.
Should a local business be fined if someone escapes from jail too?
1. Seal the damn borders,
2. Come up with a real ID solution,
3. Make LEGAL immigration streamlined so we can get the workers we need.
Then, only then can you crack down on business.
Why bail out the boat when you haven't plugged the leak?
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I have no illusions about the difficulties involved in verifying ID and I don't think business should be obligated to do more than make a good faith effort. I am also supportive of limited expansion of special visas for difficult to recruit specialties. Beyond that, I have little sympathy for the businesses and individuals who employ illegals. I beleive most of them do it systematically and willfully. This is especially true in agriculture, seafood processing, custodial and housekeeping services, landscaping, and construction, but is also very prevalent in auto repair and auto body work. In most cases these people aren't making the slightest attempt to verify eligibility status and in many cases are going to labor brokers and contractors that the KNOW use illegals, but which allow the business to remain one step removed from the liability.
I agree with you that it is the government, not business's, responsibility to control the border, but I'm not crying for the businesses that willfully use cheap illegal labor.
In Vino Veritas
They don't have a final bill, but they are planning to vote for cloture (limiting debate to 30 hours) on Monday. If it is such a great bill, why are they afraid to give Senators time to read it before having to vote for cloture? If it is so great, why don't they post it online for the public to read and react? Why are they bypassing the normal route of public committee hearings? Why don't they have any cost estimate?
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
if this bill passes, YOU will pass FDR as the worst President ever.
will be time to get back on the phones and send those faxes do not let up, this lying bill will never see the light of day if you keep on calling, they will get sick of hearing from us lowly constituents and will put this on the back burner until they think we are no longer watching. The joke of course will be on them because they are so out of touch they do not take new media serious and keep thinking it will go away and it will not and we will never again not be "watching".
http://www.thestate.com/154/v-print/story/69054.html
Senator Graham may be unemployed if he keeps this up. He was booed at the GOP convention when he tried to defend the "amnesty" bill.
Every day we have illegals come in supposedly to do jobs americans won't do. More like they come in to try and work the minimum amount till they can collect unemployment Or, they come in to see if they can qualify for workers comp.
The immigrant that came to the country to work hard died with the introduction of social programs. When you can do nothing and have a better life than you do in your home country why bother.
I'm a Bush-Cheney supporter and I don't believe it. Somewhere in the small print there's a clause that prohibits forcing anyone to pay the "fines" and that prohibits enforcement of fine collection. It's amnesty any way you look at it. All the lipstick in the world isn't going to change the fact that this is still a pig.
BTW, if this bill is pushed down our collective throat, I'd like to see all legal immigrants have their applications for LPR and citizenship approved first. Fair is fair.
with your post. Rather, you have further exposed the chasm between what the White House apparently understands to be the greater good of the party and the nation, and the reality of what the party and the majority truly believes and feels on the matter.
Furthermore, you have once again shown the incredible ability of this Administration to underestimate and disregard the deeply felt AND well informed viewpoint of the constituents that elected President Bush to his office.
Your post, which focused narrowly on clearing up technical jots and tittles and interpretational misunderstandings of the bill evidences the fact that you have no sound strategic or credible tactical argument to assuage the very real and genuine concern of the electorate.
For reasons that I will not repeat and should not have to repeat to you (but have been well articulated in this and other forums), the public wants ENFORCEMENT FIRST, measures to deal with the illegals already here SECOND. Why is that concept so hard to understand, and why does the White House consistently take a condescending approach of either addressing that need with empty rhetoric or ignoring it alogether.
My cordial invitation to you and your colleagues at the Office of Strategic Initiatives would be to finally realize that the day of 30-second soundbites and press conference platitudes do not carry the weight they once carried. The electorate is re-engaging through new media technology. You cannot continue to make decisions in a vacuum and expect to smooth over errant policy decisions with ambiguous spin. You are accountable to an increasingly informed voting electorate that, right now, is mad as a hornet and is poised to sting. For the life of me I cannot figure out why this White House is so slow to realize and acknowledge that fact.
Your post does nothing to assuage the justifiable outrage at this bill, and although I understand the need to keep the discussion respectful, I certainly do not feel respected by an explanation that assumes agreement that the issue now is what to do with illegal aliens already within the border rather than what to do to stop the flow of those illegally crossing the border. The latter is the issue NOW. Once that is addressed, come back to us with a bill that wrestles to deal with the illegal already amongst us. Hemming and hawing about the effects or non-effects of a $1,000 fine imposed on someone who likely does not have the means of paying it anyway is really relevant and beside the point. Sorry.
of this piece of legislative crap at his blog. The money quote is his summary. Before getting to that, let's remember that Hugh is a pretty faithful flack for the Administration, does the name Harriet Miers ring a bell?
There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum. Even were it somehow to improbably make its way to the president's desk, if it does so before these problems are aired and confronted, the Congress would be inviting a monumental distrust of the institution. There is simply too much here to say "Trust us," and move on. The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves.
If Hugh is this worked up, the Administration and the Senate has REALLY driven off the bridge with this. Of course, that's what a rational person would expect when you let Teddy the Hutt be the prime mover on legislation. NCLB anyone?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Kennedy was a key architect of both the 1965 and the 1986 Immigration debacles. Each time, exactly what the critics said would happen, happened(only worse!).
Each time, Kennedy said we would need no further amnesty ever again, no further reform, and we would not be flooded with more illegals because of the bills. Again, completely wrong. Each amnesty only made the problem exponentially worse.
Whether you think this was mere incompetence, or you think Kennedy did this on purpose to flood the country with new Democrat voters(that's my vote), the conclusion should be the same:
This is the LAST guy that should be tapped, yet again, to be the architect of any new "Immigration fix".
Kennedy has failed massively on this same problem, with the same kind of solutions - TWICE before, but the White House in its infinite stupidity, taps HIM to craft this new bill? Only in Washington can repeated failures be rewarded with "more of the same".
And now they want us to fall for the same crap AGAIN?
I am astonished by how politically tone deaf and outright stupid this administration has become. I worked hard to get Bush elected twice, and I'm now out and out ashamed of myself for doing so. I want that time, effort and even my votes BACK.
Doing this for a "legacy"? Does anybody on earth consider Reagan's amnesty a "legacy" to be proud of? To the contrary, it's considered one of the failures of his administration.
Bush is intent on detroying not only his own reputation, but the party itself as he colludes with the Democrats to import demographics into the country that are certain to make Republicans a permanent minority in the future. Worse, he will be destroying the country along the way, as within one generation this demographic certainty will produce another cradle-to-the-grave big-government welfare nightmare state as in Europe.
If this passes, bye bye USA as we know it.
I think Jimmy Carter may just be right about George Bush after all. He's the worst President in the history of this country.
All this talk makes me more sure than ever that Fred is our man in 2008.
Check out this video:
Those looking for amnesty in this bill should look at Sec 605.
(a) Copies of employment records or other evidence of employment provided by an alien or by an alien's employer in support of an alien's application for Z nonimmigrant status shall not be used in a prosecution or investigation (civil or criminal) of that employer under section 247A (8 U.S.C. 1324a) or the tax laws of the United States for the prior unlawful employment of that alien, regardless of the adjudication of such application or reconsideration by the Secretary of such alien's prima facie eligibility determination.
(b) Applicability of Other Law- Nothing in this section may be used to shield an employer from liability under section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b) or any other labor or employment law.
1324a covers the unlawful employment of aliens. In English, the above states that "employment records or other evidence of employment provided by an alien or by an alien's employer" cannot be used to prosecute employers for crimes they have committed which violate either the tax laws of the US or the laws against employing illegals. Since these are the only practical way these crimes could be prosecuted, this says that these crimes will not and cannot be prosecuted. I give then credit for obfuscating the matter here much better than they did in the prior bill, but its still an amnesty.
Note that there are no triggers of any sort associated with it. It has nothing to do with any fines or the building of any fence.
1324b covers discrimination against employees. All they are saying here is that the antidiscrimination laws in 1324b are not to be affected by the alterations to 1324a. Employers are to be shielded (their word) from only 1324a and the IRS.
There is also a provision in here which states that employers cannot dismiss a Z visa holder "without cause", which should have an interesting affect on the people hiring day laborers.
Thanks.
It seems as much as this is a bit of a do-over for people who evidently violated American laws in crossing the border and remaining in country without going through the proper process - a do-over plus fine - it appears it's a completely clean restart for businesses that employed illegal residents. No consequences, other than the personnel problem of the need to undertake a slow turn-over of employees as some of their workforce, theoretically, leaves to touch base back at their origin.
One has to think that it would make sense given there are far fewer businesses and those business entities are far more static (as in, they generally can't quickly or quietly disappear and reappear somewhere else over periods of time), that the deterrant effect of swatting them once for breaking whatever laws they broke would be, in comparison, a trivial effort. At least one that justifies the effort level for what might be a substantially high deterrant value and the removal of, arguably, the chief attraction for the vast majority of these illegal residents.
Maybe the thought is that holding them to the same "standards" as the government sees fit to hold them for citizens, is in itself enough to dissauade them from hiring illegals. But then it's only the same as any other employee in that regard, not any more difficult.
however I am sure that I don't regret my vote for Bush because really Kerry? come on this piece of crap legislation would sail right through the Senate the House and WH yeah kind of like they are trying to do now, my mistake. I hate what Bush is doing with this illegal immigration and I am for sure going to be choosier in the future as to my "conservative" picks because GWB was no conservative and that is so obvious now.
Just wanted to say that I am reading the comments and will try to respond to as many as I can. Three things that jumped out at me that I can answer quickly:
- Employer fines: There was a suggestion that no one had proposed cracking down on employers who break the law. In the bill, fines for hiring an illegal are $5k per illegal for the first offense, $10k per illegal for the second, $25k per illegal for the third, and $75k per illegal for the fourth.
- Deportable offenses: if anyone in probationary or Z visa status commits 1 felony (including felony DUI) or 3 misdemeanors they are deported.
- Tomorrow's vote is only a "motion to proceed" vote to bring the bill to the floor to start debate.
We will be posting more in the days, and months, ahead. Thanks again to RedState for allowing us this opportunity.
Kerrie Rushton
Office of Strategic Initiatives
The White House
tell us that this Administration or the Congress is actually going to enforce this law. They've had 20 years to enforce the last immigration amnesty program and didn't.
Don't expect anyone to believe any of the Administrations crap on this subject. You're not enforcing the existing employer sanctions and you're deporting anybody NOW!
I'm back to where I started. Bite me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You've been here a while and contributed to the community. But we're not going to let you trash this White House staffer who came to RedState this afternoon to 1) answer our questions, 2) present the White House's case directly to the RedState community and 3) did it politely without taking the bait of vitriol hurled her way.
So let's be clear: one more mean, snarky, or impolite word out of your keyboard - and you're gone. You don't have to like the bill, you don't even have to like the Administration - but you WILL treat guests with respect. To do otherwise and then complain that your view isn't represented in policy is pretty immature.
Employer fines: These already exist under USC 1324a. The problem is not that they do not exist. The problem is that the current law is not enforced. How is writing a new law with more stringent penalties the solution, if the underlying problem is the unwillingness or inability of the Bush administration to enforce them?
Deportable offenses: What about the many millions of current illegals who will presumably ignore this Z visa? What provisions exist to deport them, and what provisions does the WH plan to implement to deal with them?
Presumably, illegal aliens today could be deported for felonies, but it simply rarely happens. Is there a single thing in this bill to actually enforce this?
mechanism in the bill. It's lack of enforcement WILL in the Administration and the Congress.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/joliphant/2007/may/20/100000_million_immig...
Enforcing our nations laws worked for Eisenhower. Arresting and Deporting illegals worked in the 1950's.
Would you care to explain why the administration hasn't been able to do at least as well with 10 times the resources ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Kerrie, thanks for engaging us here. But cmon, you didn't address nearly any of the criticisms laid out in great detail here. Instead you go after to big bad boogeyman businessman. Who let ILLEGALS in in the first place? Let's start with that instead of passing the buck off on business.
The government just wants more and more money from business by not securing the border and fining companies.
1. Seal the border. Live up to what you pledged already. Plug the hole in the boat before you start bailing.
2. If any questions/comments, see #1. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Then and only then we'll have a discussion on amnesty and cracking down on the business boogeyman.
Government has wasted its credibility with Americans. You can no longer be believed.
John Hauseman said it best......"eeeeearrrrn it!"
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
This post is just to let you know we are not all against you. I am a Republican and Bush supporter and have participated at RedState for a year and a half. In the past there has been more disagreement and debate over this issue than you see in this comment thread. I formed my opinions on the matter in the course of such dialogues here. Unfortunately everyone seems dug in now and there is very little of the charitable dialogue upon which folk actually think critically about their opinions.
I support what you all are trying to do. IMO enforcement only cannot stop illegal immigration any more than it has stopped illegal drugs. So I am for a comprehensive solution and out of hope for such a real solution find it necessary to set aside that cynicism that is so central to the enforcement-only position.
I hope you will continue to clarify the facts surrounding this bill and I understand why you should choose to avoid engaging in the debates many of our denizens are trying to draw you into.
John E.
You won't find one person here not wanting a comprehensive solution. It is just the minor amnesty part that we don't like.
Seal the borders then we'll talk about what to do with the rest.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
where companies in financial trouble put up all sorts of roadblocks in the way of lessors trying to take possession of their legal property. Then, they dictate new terms to the lessors, who make the best of a bad bargain and accept the terms, aka the "cram-down". It got so bad that the laws were changed to give some more protection to lessors' property rights.
Many voters suspect that a cram-down is in play on immigration reform. If you are advising the President, please tell him that he can't rely on party loyalty here. We want time to see the (final!) legislation, read it, deliberate it. If there's a rush to passage, we will suspect the worse and act accordingly.
With all due respect to President Bush, he used up a lot of political capital by making us stick with Rumsfeld until Nov 2006, then dumping him and initiating the long overdue change in Iraq strategy.
So we're all in "trust but verify" mode now, big time.
that can't even bring itself to seek out and punish its own employees who leak classified documents and you expect us to believe that DOJ, HS/ICE will actually enforce this law. All of the "enforcement" language is just window dressing to try to get some soundbites to shut us up, and even if the Bush Administration were to suddenly find some b**ls and enforce the law, a Democrat certainly wouldn't. Very few of us fell off the turnip truck this morning!
In Vino Veritas
the case against the legislation?
For example, Section 302 of the proposed legislation--the fines you cite above--represents a leap backward. Right now, the employer fine for first offense is up to $25,000.00, multiple offenses $75,000.00. Given this Administration's record on employer enforcement, I can see why people over at the White House may have forgotten what the fines already were.
As for deportable offenses, that sounds reasonable, except:
what about those who have committed identity theft, forgery, tax evasion, and other felonies during their course of illegal status? Is there any provision to prevent them from receiving a Z Visa?
And most people at this site realize tonight's vote would be cloture. The question is whether any senator will have read the final legislation as they vote to move forward.
If any of the above is wrong please correct me. Again thanks for your contribution to the site, but I think the points you made actually more of the soft underbelly of what has been proposed, and in part explains why the GOP is in such a fury over this legislation.
5K, 10K come on the drug maker Perdue Pharma just paid 650 million for lying about oxycontin which has destroyed many neighborhoods in the south and they will continue to go forward no problem. Do you think those numbers bother McDonald's which I know is hiring illegals, we really are not that unintelligent to know that those numbers are peanuts for employers and wasn't this already the law and how is that working out? I really do not want to be insolent however the WH has left the majority of us angry and I wish you all would look at the 78% of Americans who want enforcement first and then when the government can prove they are honest in that, then come back to American public and get the amnesty with of course the touchback privision. This WH promised 700 miles of fence last year, what happened? I think you see why it is we do not trust you or Teddy or McCain.
While I applaud the White House effort to engage its critics,unfortunately until we enforce existing law the public will have no faith in any new legislation.The border must be secured and existing law must be enforced before we pass new legislation.
Second, I do not favor citizenship for the illegals - make them guest workers with a 9 month work visa like Canada does.
Allowing 12-20 million new citizens to vote will pretty much kill the republican party. The black community is just waking up to the threat these new "citizens" pose to their livelihood.
Fortunately there is plenty of opposition from within the ranks of both parties which may be enough to kill the legislation.Meanwhile I will bang away at my Senators to oppose this legislation.
How did illegals earn a "pathway" at all? The most sympathetic conclusion is that we should provide them a safe and humane "pathway" back to where they came from.
The Washington elite are competing to show who is more eager to grant US citizenship, especially to those who broke our laws, such that I wonder how whether they value their own right to call themseves Americans? If you value your citizenship so lightly, go away! Live with your chosen constituents.
I appreciate your time here at Red State, but I think you should check out what the country truly wants:
63% favor an enforcement only policy according to Rasmussen polls. That would be a pretty bi-partisan approach.
THEN, after you have fenced the border and stopped the incoming people to a trickle (or perhaps even set up major fines for corporations who hire illegals) THEN you might be able to have a reasonable discussion about expanding LEGAL immigration.
What the White House is basically asking us to accept is a permanent stream of people coming into our country and taking our tax dollars (through health care and illegals in the school system) on the promise that the pro-amnesty congress will someday fund better enforcement.
As much as I admire Bush on judges, this piece of legislation will only make Jimmy Carter right about George.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
Perhaps you folks should have signed up for the account BEFORE you started conducting backroom deals with the enemy. And yes, I do consider Ted Kennedy to be not merely a misguided patriot, but an enemy of our constitutional government.
I donated to Mr. Bush in his first presidential primary race. Quite frankly, after he cut this deal, I'd like to ask for a refund but I know I couldn't get it. I will continue to support our troops in Iraq (and not the way the Dems use that term), but as of this point, my support for Bush is pretty much done. I will probably still post occasionally that he is not being inconsistent when someone accuses him of this, but not the wrongness of his domestic policies. NCLB was wrong, the new medicare benefit was wrong, support for raising the minimum wage was wrong, and amnesty for illegals under any name is wrong. The loss in 2006 may be attributed to the war, but if Mr. Bush had pursued proper domestic policy, he wouldn't have lost control of Congress.
I want to know if people are going to be passed/excused on their background checks for what crimes? Identity theft? My wife and I had out identities stolen a year ago. I am assuming that since part of the provision in this bill is a requirement that the person be employed, therefore they would most likely have filled out a W-9 (providing a fake SSN). If they committed ID theft are they going to be sent packing back to their home country? Or is this a crime the administration doesn't care about? Isn't this a major problem with the bill?
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Frankly, I think the payment of a grand to stay in the
United States is a bargain, such a good one that it manages to insult every citizen and lawful permanent resident who came here the correct way. But even putting that aside, Mr. Krushton, why on Earth should you expect us to believe your boss would even enforce that fine, which is about the same amount exacted for DUIs?
Just last year the president claimed the illegal aliens who get to stay would have to pay some back taxes. That is quite a bargain given citizens and lawful permanent residents don't get a similar deal. Yet now Mr. Bush has personally intervened to have even that provision removed. Can you not understand why he has zero credibility not just with conservative Republicans but with most Americans on this issue?
Further, as Sen. Jon Kyl took to the airwaves to announce that chain migration would be eliminated (actually just reduced, but I'll be nice here), Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi all but said that would be the first provision they would want changed due to "concerns." Again, why should anyone expect anything to be enforced when this happened as the legislation was announced?
You have seen the Rasmussen poll, I am certain. Sadly, the only direction I see this Administration and the GOP moving is downward. If the Administration had actually enforced the law before it urged this legislation, it might have received a warmer reception. As it is, especially given the moving of goal posts even before debate begins, it seems the president has concluded no more of his family will be elected so the Republican Party itself is expendable if that is what it takes to get a pet project approved. I wish there were another reasonable conclusion to be drawn but there is not. This is selfish, destructive, and not in the national best interest. It is fairly obvious it will tear the GOP asunder as well.
The mere fact that the White House decided it had to defend this legislation on a conservative/Republican website speaks volumes. While I join with Mr. Krempasky in thanking you for your contribution, I do hope you relay back to the president that people are very angry with what they have heard and read about the legislation. I intend to read the bill page by page, something my senators probably won't bother to do, and expect to be even more outraged by its contents. I would love to be wrong there but fully expect not to be.
Your logic is flawed.
It is extremely difficult to stop something as long as the incentive for that thing is strong enough. Drugs are an example - we can't stop them because there is a huge DEMAND for them in this country. As long as the demand exists, the drugs will find a way.
Illegal immigration is a different thing, on the other hand. They come to this country for one main reason - JOBS. Now that is something we CAN control fairly easily. Hit employers with very tough sanctions for hiring illegals, from stiff penalties to even jail time possibly, and very quickly employers will no longer find it worth the risk to hire illegals.
Once you take away the ability of an illegal alien to find a job in the United States, you have taken away all incentives for them to come here.
With drugs, you can't take away the incentive for drug dealers unless you change every individual in the nation's mind to not want drugs.
With immigration, it is very easy because of the nature of business to stop them from hiring illegals. Once we take that incentive away, there is no reason for an illegal to come here and no reason to stay here. Those here will have to leave, because they'll have no way to make a living. Those outside will have no reason to come here, because we will have taken away any incentive to do so.
Enforcement can certainly work - as long as you cut off the incentives. The wall alone would not work. That WOULD be like you say. But if we do what I propose, you won't even need the wall, because you'll take away all incentives.
It is very easy and workable - and hell, shouldn't we at least give it a try before we do some massive overhaul? Shouldn't we try to enforce existing laws and stop employers from hiring illegals, the low-cost and common sense approach, and see how that works before junking everything and giving away the country to the Democrats by importing tens of millions more of their voters?
the immigration issue. If the drug market suddenly dried up for organized crime and terrorism, then we wouldn't be producing any new "Scarfaces" anymore, either.
They come to this country for one main reason - JOBS.
I think there is a LOT more to it than that. How many women from Mexico and Central America just HAPPEN to hop across the Rio Grande in order to get their baby born on US soil as a US citizen at US taxpayer expense, even if they then return home? Why? Medical care better? Medical care cheaper? Keeping future options open in case the whole family wants to come over? All of the above?
This birthright citizenship is completely abused today and no one will touch it. Obviously the idea 200+ years ago made sense, as you were only here if your parents had traveled across the sea and lived here. That's nothing like popping across the border to drop the kid and reap the benefits.
How many women from Mexico and Central America just HAPPEN to hop across the Rio Grande in order to get their baby born on US soil as a US citizen at US taxpayer expense, even if they then return home?
I don't know - how many are there per year? You make it sound like they breeze over for a weekend stay (I thought "pop and drop" was some kind of new-fangled dance the kiddies are/were doing). My suggestion is your alternative attraction, as opposed to jobs, would be better supported with some kind of numbers to back it up.
It sounds somewhat reasonable but then again, I'm led to believe a border crossing in fairly arduous, not something I'd expect a lot of near-delivery stage mothers-to-be to undertake and be home by Monday. I could see some doing it in the first or second tri-mester maybe, but it seems likely to be a longer deal and made much more possible by the ability for the woman to either obtain employment herself or have a partner who does to support her - in other words, back to jobs.
Drug supply is hard to defeat as well as demand. Illegal immigrant supply would be easy to defeat. A border fence would cut the rush into a trickle which would be much more manageable.
We are enabling the Mexican government by taking their refugees. Band aids do not cure anything. Let's get to the real problem.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
I expect my logic isn't perfect on this difficult issue and neither is my comprehension of the facts, nor is the analogy. I do draw the analogy out in additional dimensions. Perhaps my alternative conclusion may still be mostly logical on that account.
To your questions.
It is very easy and workable - and hell, shouldn't we at least give it a try before we do some massive overhaul? Shouldn't we try to enforce existing laws and stop employers from hiring illegals, the low-cost and common sense approach, and see how that works before junking everything and giving away the country to the Democrats by importing tens of millions more of their voters?
IMO we have given it a try. I remember the immigration raids in Cumming, Ga after Reagan's "Amnesty" bill and the political blow-back due to public (individual and business) sympathy for the immigrants and businesses was so large that further action was halted. The recent raids in Colorado were executed with more "sensitivity" but came very close to the blow-back line. Actions like that on the scale of millions don't make words like "easy and workable" roll off my lips. Every aspect of this situation seems difficult and gut-wrenching to me.
My personal judgement is that the degree of enforcement operations on businesses that you are envisioning would have the practical effect of shutting very many businesses down with huge social, economic and political consequences.
When I hear the representatives of business associations describe the difficulty of their position: caught between laws that demand employee privacy and employee legality; I do have sympathy for them. I don't perceive that the current legal net would easily catch only the greedy, inhumane, lawless exploiters of humanity that none of us good people have any sympathy for.
All that leads me toward the conclusion that the legal framework needs some changes in order for enforcement to be a more viable aspect of a solution. And what changes seem reasonable to us is related to the goal implied in your second question.
As to the goal of keeping out immigrants because they will be Democratic voters, whichever side I grant regarding the accuracy of the assertion implied in that question, my conscience does not grant justification in making that a decisive value in the determination of my policy position.
To be charitable, your question puts the more generally stated goal of preserving original American cultural identity in unnecessarily crass terms. I realize that that goal unites many anti's and that I appear to be off the reservation regarding it. It is not that I am directly opposed to that goal however. More that I have confidence in our culture's assimilative power and an optimism that the dynamism of non-zero sum competitive interaction between individuals with different cultural identities is preferable to the alternative of isolation from the vicissitudes of life, which I perceive as stagnating.
I have very nearly reached the conclusion that if we could sort out and agree upon all of the empirical questions and even actually accurately predict the effects (costs, social, economic, political, immigrant levels, etc) of the various policy proposals many of us would still be stuck in a disagreement over policy because of differences over this, what should we call it, say, existential value. This element touches on many issues and in all my dialectical efforts to unravel it, it remains as a Gordian knot.
I perceive that you are convinced that you are absolutely right about the matter and therefore that there must be something wrong either with my judgment or my motivations. I do not presently wish to devote the level of energy required for an adversarial exchange. Even if we mutually engaged upon an enquiry I am inclined to decline because of other enquiries in which I am presently engaged. So I respectfully decline the challenge from both you and Common Cents (yes I can look in the mirror and say "those words").
I posted to KrushtonWhitehouse in order to add force to the point that not all RedState denizens take the anti view. That is the only point that I expect you all to grant me. What we call each other for our varied conclusion over this issue seems to me to be simply a most unfortunate feature of the dialogue, but one which must be braved in order to reveal a position. I understand. It is a very emotional issue.
John E.
why the faith in enforcement? An enforcement with many layers and stipulations as well. There probably isn't one person who is a regular here who couldn't recount stories of innumerable and mind numbing bungling and sloth within dafedralguvmint.
Immigration authorities and administrations haven't been able or willing to manage our borders for decades, when the mission was simpler and more clear cut, now efficiency will spring from out of nowhere in a program far more complicated.
There is no waving of the wand on this, no wish to come true, just more of the long history of the same gross mismanagement and neglect that is written in stone for to long a history of government operations.
You can put a lot down on paper but paper doesn't make government slugs work.
And wait until the activists start to massage this baby!
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I welcome you to RedState and I am glad to see that you are here. We hope to see more of you, it's good to know that our Administration does see what we have to say.
Managing Editor
Come on guys, I'm embarrassed for many of you even if you are not. So many comments not even close to being civil!
This wasn't a troll stopping by to drop bombs, this was a rep of the Whitehouse, you know that place where the President lives.
While the bill certainly raises lots of questions, the recent tone here at Redstate leaves a lot to be desired.
What happened to intellectual discussion and give and take? The enforcement of courtesy toward others?
Having once again voiced my minority opinion on the state of Redstate....
Thank you Kerrie Rushton for coming to Redstate and being part of the debate, many of my compatriots are passionate on this issue as you can see.
We are part of that silent majority that has found a voice through vehicles such as this blog, as such by and large we are your most ardent supporters, in terms of voice, action, activism and yes through grassroots monetary methods.
By and large Kerrie it seems that this is not our idea of defending our nation, our sovereignty, yet it IS our sons and daughters (Redstaters that is) by a large percentage that have met the call to serve our nation here and abroad. I myself have two that wear the uniform in answer to the challenges that face America today and another that leaves for boot camp within a few weeks.
I am proud of that service and know our President respects them for it, yet in this bill which will have such a large effect on our nation even I, one of our Presidents staunchest supporters, fail to see how this, as written, enhances the defense or strengthens our nation that our sons and daughters fight and die for.
Kerrie Rushton, I hope you understand where I personally am coming from on this, I do not claim to speak for millions, but I suspect there are many thousands whose voice has not been heard who feel very close to the way I do.
Please convey to our President that many of us want that fence built, now, that we consider the people that invaded our country as criminals and that criminal behavior should never be rewarded.
If the "immigration" bill started there and went forward I suspect your reception would have been vastly different.
Thank you for coming to Redstate!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You are speaking reasonably and trying to address a serious problem through serious means.
Immigration is about screaming one-word slogans from the top of your lungs, offering no real-world solution, and making it sounds as if new immigrants will destroy American civilization as we know it. Good luck in this monumental endeavor.