Redstate

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

I'm not sure if the people who voted for Dems knew. Paying attention isn't a requirement to vote. :(

been taught a lesson at the polls. The voters want bipartisanship so expect the minority party to work with the majority to enact legislation for the good of the children.

And don't expect it to be either filibustered in the Senate or vetoed at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

From the lips of Harry Reid comes this, which does not seem like a bipartisan outreach. He refers to the “do nothing Congress” Really, should we start to list all the pieces of Legislation passed by Republican’s not to mention a new cabinet department? Surely, he was not nodding off for the past few years?

He also says something about ethics reform. I have two issues to mention; Nevada Real Estate and contributions from Native American Tribes. Is he kidding?

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

to do anything about this. We need someone with real conservative credentials that recognizes the threat of lax border security and doesn't just pretend to care.

at least the last seven administrations: Bush43, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon. The problem is that no administration and no congress has had the will to enforce immigration law.

It doesn't much matter, but I would dispute your claim that Bush is too close to business to enforce immigration law. He won't enforce it because he thinks we should have open borders for the Mexicans sake, not for business sake. If that's a benefit for him, it's secondary.

I'll believe we will enforce immigration law when I see business owners getting fined or jailed and busloads of Mexicans headed south. I'm not holding my breath.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

that there were several orders of magnitude more fines of illegal employers under Clinton that under Bush 43. And there was amnesty under Reagan. My point was only, however, that there is plenty of blame to go around, and that the title of the original post--for which you are of course not responsible--suggests that only Dems are to blame. Dems are to blame, of course. But they are not alone, as you point out.

I am astounded that any politician who looks to the will of constituent Americans instead of just donors would not support strict border control. Not to mention one who remembers his/her oath of office...

I think performance is way more important than party. And it's hard to know an issue that is more likely to unite Americans.

Joe

And the "orders of magnitude" of enforcement under Clinton in terms of actual numbers was very small. On the order of a few hundred. They look good only because under Bush43 it's just been a few.

Of the lot, the only one I'd give even a low passing grade to is RR. Yes, amnesty happened on his watch but it was agreed that it would be a one-time deal with accompanying enforcement to follow so we wouldn't have to consider amnesty again. The amnesty allowed a couple of million illegals to stay here.

Reagan got flummoxed by the congress. They obviously had no intention of dealing with enforcement, hence we're where we are today. This is also why a whole bunch of people, like me, want real enforcement done first before any kind of amnesty (path to citizenship) is even considered. We got hit with a couple of million last time, it could be as many as 100 million this time when you count families who will immediately apply for entry because they have a naturalized family member here. Sorry, not buying the pig in the poke this time.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

you say, except that I don't favor amnesty. Definitely want employer sanctions tomorrow morning, and post-holes for a fence tomorrow afternoon.

I am opposed to any kind of amnisty EVER. I would love to see some employers going to jail and their illegal employees bused back to the Mexican border and I've been for a triple deep, razor wire WALL the entire length of the border.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I read "This is also why a whole bunch of people, like me, want real enforcement done first before any kind of amnesty (path to citizenship) is even considered" to mean that you would consider amnesty. I'm not in favor of amnesty because it adds to the strength of the magnet, and it's just plain wrong to reward illegal behavior. I think you and I are in complete agreement after all. Except, perhaps, that I think there are areas that the cliffs above the Rio Grande are already a sufficient barrier, and an additional wall or fence there would be superfluous. (But, of course, there would be a need for heightened security where there are natural breaches in that natural wall--all this is merely details!)

I just read Jim Kouri's blog on former border patrol agents and their insights. Good blog, I think. Not much activity on it.

The title of the post aptly describes the current situation vis-à-vis the incoming HSC Chairman. By the way, stating that “Enforcing Immigration Law, Not on the Democrat Agenda” “suggests that only the Democrats are to blame” is either an egregious lack of literal comprehension or a specious, unsupported characterization; you choose.

At no point are comparative analogies drawn with past administrations. That is purposely done since argumentatively the pre 9-11 operating principles gave less weight to the issue of security. 9-11 was also a pretext for an already desperately needed reformulation of immigration policy. This is highlighted by the fact that terrorists entered the country under fallacious premises using a broken system. The southern border has always been an issue, but returned to the forefront as it is the biggest hole in the dike.

The primary tenets of good immigration policy include compliance with the law (by all), security, economic considerations, social impact and cultural issues. These have finally been included as part of the debate to create a sound immigration plan. However, recent gains and conclusive action (e.g. the fence) are under attack before the new chairman is even seated. While I am not ready to blame him merely for statements, if like action follows then he will indeed be to “blame” for reversing those gains. Why is the chairman not going to support enforcement of the law and target companies who do? I suppose you will have to ask him and also read back the Constitutional duties of a legislator to determine which parts he does not understand.

This defies the overall will of the people, who want tougher immigration policy for the reasons cited above.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

It really did seem to indicate Democrats in general, to my reading.

1994 was a scary year for the Democrats not just because of the Contract with America. It was also the year that illegal immigration proved to be an issue Republicans could use to win elections statewide in otherwise-reliable California.

So, naturally, President Clinton came to the rescue with Operation Gatekeeper: building fences at the popular crossing points in San Diego County, which helped by pushing the illegals east into the harsh desert. He also stepped employer enforcement way, way, way up. And gee, in the 90s, we saw higher wage growth than we have now, didn't we?

The crossers have since moved on to Arizona, which is why now Arizona's having all the trouble. And that's why we ought to just keep right on fencing the border off all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

disagreement regarding enforcement?

I think the Contract with America was announced ten days after the announcement of Operation Gatekeeper, so it seems unlikely that the latter triggered the former. I could be wrong. Of course, it is certain that there were political considerations for building that tiny, only partly-effective portion of fence. There always are. Anyway, if politicians go ahead and get the fence built for political considerations rather than for principle, I can accept that.

I have let all of my legislators know how I feel; I received form responses that included the phrase "comprehensive reform" which is generally taken to include amnesty--though they never call it that.

Thanks,
Joe

Fair enough on the Contract, I mis-wrote what I meant about the Rs having a good year that year.

Anyway, my disagreement with mbecker is that Clinton DID enforce the laws for about four good years, in order to defuse the 187/Wilson wave in California and keep it from spreading..
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Fixed and apologies.
Hey /a, /b, HTML is just all so unforgiving

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

Not to make any corrections after a story appears on the front page. It condemns your story back to the blog basement.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

Which comes out worse than it actually should: I'm bleary-eyed and slow, this morning, and will thus plead memory loss, if need be. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

That is of course until I made the mistake of correcting my HTML carrot.

Articulated like a man who has not yet enjoyed enough coffee (which is better than most who have had their fill).

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"