Immigration: The New Third Rail
By Rep. Chris Cannon Posted in Congressional Contributors | Immigration — Comments (197) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The consummate republican constitutionalist, James Madison, said, "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." What took place in the Senate last week was both. It was a farce in that the "world's greatest deliberative body" ground to a halt with amendments and parliamentary posturing instead of debating substantive measures. The tragedy involved the way this farce was conceived. Backroom dealing, closed door meetings, and self congratulatory press conferences are not the way to make policy.
There are, however, silver linings to this. Elected officials of both parties and of all ideologies got a wake up call that the American people will not blindly follow a political pied piper. More importantly, the Congress and the White House should recognize this as a demand for greater openness to outside ideas and transparency in the process. Never again should anyone underestimate the will of individual Americans to preserve our nation, secure our borders, and do justice under law. In order to achieve legislative success, we must achieve participatory success. Put another way, unless the American people have a seat at the negotiating table, any future legislation is also doomed.
But that seat at the table cannot be claimed only by the extremes. This is an issue that demands reasoned, thoughtful solutions. Not bumper stickers.
Read on . . .
I, perhaps better than anyone in Congress, can attest to the painful political price to be paid for suggesting that we need reality-based immigration reform. It is shameful that we have fallen to a point in our political system that it is virtually impossible to actually have a meaningful debate about immigration, much less find real solutions.
Immigration has become the new "third rail" of American politics, and as happened with social security, I fear that extremists and bumper sticker gurus will once again prevent us from achieving a reasonable solution.
What is truly unfortunate is that every legitimate poll and focus group done on immigration in the past five years has show that the vast majority of citizens in this country agree on the basics: We must secure the borders; we must have a system of legal immigration that sustains a growing economy in a time of virtual full employment; and we probably cannot make 12-20 million illegal immigrants magically disappear, at least if we want to continue to eat and build houses.
If almost all Americans agree on those basics, why can't our great political and legislative processes come up with reasonable solutions? It is because we have allowed this issue to be hijacked by the loudest voices, and those voices are not crying for solutions. They are just crying.
Two years ago, I put together an immigration advisory committee that was about as diverse as any such group could be. They sat in the same room without anyone getting hurt. It was chaired by Matt Throckmorton, who had just run a very thoughtful and aggressive campaign against me – largely on the immigration issue. That group, in a matter of weeks, was able to work through their differences and come up with a plan that would work, if only we could put political self-interests aside and engage in some serious statesmanship for a change
But pathetically, that won't happen unless the obstructionists and the whiners take a break, and it won't happen until the voices of the majority of Americans who actually want to solve the problem rise up and are heard.
I, for one, am ready to listen. Many others in Congress are as well. The only requirement to participate is that, if you don't like what being proposed – by anyone – come is prepared to offer better ideas. Americans will embrace new media, new ideas, and new solutions within the framework of our shared values if they think Members of Congress will engage. Republicans were, and can still be, the party of ideas if we are willing to listen. But first we must stop calling for heads to roll and start putting our heads together.
By 1965, the year Ted Kennedy began his quest to change the demographics of this country, I was 15 years old. Believe it or not, for my first 15 years, America was producing food and houses before the first Mexican immigrant wave. Spare me the scare tactics Congressman.
This American isn't buying the talking points about making them magically disappear, better know as, "we can't deport 12 million people". If you, and the rest of those elected to serve us, were to make it impossible for illegal aliens to sustain themselves in this country they would go home on their own.
We keep hearing, "what's your plan". Well if you and the rest of Congress don't get it yet, our plan is to enforce our laws! Until you do that, don't bother to try and "wrap this pig in a different blanket". Until you do that, you'll have to consider what your next job will be because we'll be watching and listening.
The President quoted the following statement in the New York Times: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government." The president in question was Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the year was 1954.
Large-scale immigration of workers from Mexico began near the beginning of the 20th century. If you want to go back to the policies of the past, you should at least have a clue about what the past was like.
If the border is not really made secure, don't bother with anything else. It's a national security issue as well as a sovereignty issue.
1. No compromise on building a fence and other security components. Otherwise, it is a 1986 redux.
2. FUND the employees and other resources necessary to create and manage the bureaucracy that 12+ million people must be processed through.
3. No 'Z' visas as written. It's too much like free pass. 24 hours to do a background check is absurd!
4. CAREFULLY review the rights that accrue to each immigrant at each step and process. What due process rights will the courts convey? For example, what services can they get access to with a 'Z' visa; welfare, unemployment, etc. Can they sue employers for "wrongful termination"? What criminal convictions affect their status, i.e. make the eligible for deportation?
I still do not understand why such an important issue is being rammed through. It should go through the "normal" process by being assigned to a committee with the requisite hearings and due diligence. That is one reason we all fear that we are being duped by a handful of Senators. It wouldn't be the first time.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
What part of "secure the borders first" does Congress not understand? Enforce the laws on the books, and once that's done, come back and talk to us again.
Congress keeps coming back with new spin and the same basic BS.
I couldn't agree with you more. Enforce the law, which includes the fence, employer penalties, and when you show us you have secured the border and are serious about ending illegal immigration we can talk some more.
What is Congress's role in enforcement? Nothing*. Enforcement is an Executive Branch responsibility. So, what you are saying to Congress is "Do NOTHING now until the Executive Branch gets their act together!" Am I correct in this?
With the history of this Administration in enforcing the laws in question and Bush's position on immigration, do you think there is likely any chance of that happening in his remaining term. I don't.
So, do we sit back with the status quo for another year and a half to two? Borders open. Untold millions of new illegal immigrants because we still have no way of knowing who they are.
Your anger needs to be focused squarely on the Administration on this issue, not on Congress. Congress is at least searching for an answer when the current system has so obviously failed.
(* Technically, the Constitution grants Congress one enforcement action over the Executive Branch but its applicability for failing to enforce the laws of the land - an explicit constitutional obligation of the President - has never been tested.)
because a CongressMAN wrote the original posting, and they are responsible for making laws, and the laws they are attempting to make are NOT the right ones.. No, the "Administration" is not devoid of responsibility. Nor is Congress.
In addition to its legislative role, Congress has an oversight role. Congress is not just responsible for writing laws and appropriating money. They have a Consitutional Duty to oversee the Executive Branch and to ensure that the will of the people is duly carried out. And they are not without teeth. The power of the purse is substantial. They can make life absolutely miserable for a President if they so choose.
Our problem is that the Legislative Branch has not only been remiss in their oversight role but they have been largely complicit in the enforcement failure. There were a few raids on meat packing plants in the mid 90's and powerful ag state Senators got them stopped. There was a raid on a Vidalia onion grower in Georgia and powerful Senators got them stopped.
Your point is taken that enforcement is the Executives job but the Legislative Branch deserves its measure of blame.
president (and this isn't just "loud voices," it's most everyone familiar with this issue).
If you and your colleagues would show good faith and build the fence, begin serious workplace enforcement, and deport at least felon aliens, then voters would accept in a few years some form of "path to citizenship" and guest worker program. Until that time, voters will reject "comprehensive measures" as fraudulent efforts to grant amnesty and not do enforcement.
And based on history and statements made during this debacle, those voters are right and ready to extract a price from anyone who deceives them.
...and the solutions should be approached simplistically and incrementally.
I offer a starting point in my last post, "What are we going to do?", where instead of a "merit" system, we should be addressing initial criminality of illegal immigration through a "demerit system".
A larger question is the desirablity of a law abiding immigrant population that can be allowed versus those who have already committed an illegal act.
We've got to start somewhere and "comprehensively" is too much at once! Close the borders first!
Thank you for your participation at Redstate!
”The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”…Edmund Burke
Thank you to all who have read this opinion piece already and I welcome and am reading your comments.
There are a few things I wanted to comment on.
1. The fence. I could not agree more. The "trigger" for anything after enforcing the border should be completion of the fence I, and a multitude of colleagues voted for. I also believe citizens should be able to get a real time, google-earth'd update as to the fence progress.
2. "Enforce the law" - As we know, this is easier said than done. The fact is, as Sec. Chertoff has said to me, the program in place for identifying illegals applying for employment "doesn't work" (his words). So what do we do? We must enforce the law, but if all we do is enforce the law, the stream of illegals will not stop because (1) they know they can try again if they are caught, (2) it is getting more difficult but is nowhere near difficult enough to cross the border, (3) they know finding employement is easy, and (4) enforcing the law doesn't mean we can't do more now!
I appreciate your input. Republicans especially need to solve this problem now. Lest we roll the dice and wait for 2008 and who knows what leadership we will see in the White House. The president has made many mistakes, but when it comes to this issue, the legislation put in front of him this session, he will sign, so we must work to make it comprehensive.
Comments like "Cajun"s I completely understand and agree with, but along with enforcing the law, we can and must have biometric immigrant ID cards, accept the fact that there are plenty of industries that need this labor (not all, but there are some), and secure the border. If a bill just got those things done (Employer verification, border fencing and agents, and status without citizenship) we could make progress.
Let me be clear. There are many more issues to be address. Social Security payments (which should be forfeit), Requiring private health insurance or an HSA To gain status, and much much more.
Lastly, as most illegals are Visa overstays and not jumping any fence, we must revolutionaize our ID system for immigration. If that means, as my friend Mike Pence has said, contracting with credit card companies or others who know how to do this...so be it!
Thank you for your input and I can assure you your voice is being heard here.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
is hogwash. There is absolutely NO will on the part of the Congress or the Administration to enforce the law.
As far as validating SSN's, it may take you nine months but I'm in the mortgage business and we are required to validate them for loans. Takes 24 hours, we get an address listing on that number and it costs about $25. Go peddle that tale of woe elsewhere.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...among developed nations, in that it is seemingly impossible to deploy systems for:
- Verifying personal data upon employment.
- Creating a reasonably secure ID system.
- Protecting the borders
Simply put, if you tell us that current law cannot be enforced, why should we care about promises about future enforcement.
Second, the notion that massive low-skill immigration is needed to sustain US growth (per capita growth - the kind that matters) is hard to belive. The US grew mightily during times of low immigration. Most countries in the world get by with their native work force. (Heck, tiny isolated Iceland operates a fully first-world economy with a total population of 300 000 people)
Add in the fact that the only possible way that low-skill immigration can benefit Americans is through lower wages for unskilled workers, and the small gains from comparative advantage start to look mighty shaky.
I'll add a couple of other points!
The employment verification system does not work because the Executive Branch does not want it to work. Almost of its problems could be fixed by Executive Order. For example, it is ridiculous that the President tolerates the Social Security Administration's refusal to share "no match" information with ICE. Social Security Fraud and Misuse of a Social Security Number are both felonies and it is well with the power of the President to remedy the current situation so that law enforcement can work effectively.
The reason the President has not fixed the problems is because he is holding enforcement hostage to getting his way on amnesty just like he is doing with his refusal to build the fence that has been substantially funded by Congress.
Second, Chris is wrong that most illegal immigrants are visa overstays. That category describes not more than 40%. That means that we could fix 60% of the problem by securing the border and almost all the tools to do that are authorized by current law. Let's get serious about fixing 60% of the problem and then we can talk about new laws.
Finally, Chris Cannon is probably the pioneering politician on the semantics games about whether or not a particular policy towards illegals is or is not amnesty. On that score, Chris taught George Bush about everything he knows about how to claim amnesty is not amnesty. I remember well the ridiculous assertions about the Ag-Jobs Amnesty Bill a few years ago that Cannon was co-sponsoring and him trying to claim it was not amnesty. Not only were the illegals not punished in anyway by his bill but the taxpayers were on the hook for their legal fees as they "adjusted status". I'd suggest you keep that in mind as you consider anything he says on this subject.
Sir,
Thank you for a response. Most of the Representatives and Senators who have taken the time to post here, do just that - post an opinion piece or other commentary without any follow up.
It is beneficial to know you are reading the comments posted here and willing to take the time to respond.
Quite frankly, although I think most of us understand your appeal to work together, there is a fundamental trust issue at hand. Conservatives and moderates who subscribe to the principles of smaller government and controlling spending have been floored by the spending and entitlement growth over the period of the Republican majorities.
While we didn't raise the ruckus we should have and bear some responsibility for this, this is the reason we elected a GOP majority; we thought we were in good hands.
After all of that, we get this immigration fiasco in an end-round attempt to sneak by the public - a public who is already on record as very concerned.
We flat out do not trust the collective 'You' to work this issue to America's best interests and want boundaries set. A comprehensive bill will be a collection of bad legislation mixed with good. The only good way to solve the multiple problems we face on immigration is to solve each problem by itself.
If the current Congress does nothing more between now and the 2008 elections than fully fund a border fence, fund the agents and untie their hands so they can do their job fully - if nothing more than this is accomplished, Conservatives and moderates - from both parties - will enthusiastically support the candidates for office who made this happen.
This is an attainable goal. Success here will engender support for biometric ID cards or whatever works best to help ID illegals.
I realize there is no guarantee we will support you, but you'll have to trust us. If the prospect of relying on us to follow through at election time concerns you, I guess you know exactly how we feel at this moment with reference to you and your brothers in the legislature asking for our trust.
How far the mighty are fallen!
What if Americans in the past times had said:
"Let's call the whole thing off; Britain is the greatest power in the world; there's no way for us to ever be free from the King."
"We ought to just let them secede; this republic isn't worth the trouble defending."
"Dig a canal across the whole of Panama? Are you out of your mind?"
"Let's nix this Normandy plan; we'll never get over those cliffs and be able to do anything about the Germans."
"Oh darn! The Soviets have beat us into space; I guess they own it now."
Of course, none of these things would have ever been the case for this nation in its previous generations. It truly is a sad state of affairs when we have one president whose most notable quote is, "I did not have sex with that woman... Miss Lewinsky" immediately followed by another president who tells us it is too hard to enforce our laws. When our purported "leaders" start beating the drum of "I can't" for us, how long will it be before they start leading us to believe that liberty, even our republic, will simply take too much effort -- it's too difficult -- to keep?
Maybe Ben Franklin was right about us, but I don't think he figured he'd end up being right because we would become a nation lacking in willpower and intent. The excuses flowing about this from Congress are very unbecoming.
Please stop. It sets a bad example for the children.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Thank you for posting here Rep. Cannon. I do know that our voice is being heard - however you & the rest of the republicans there need to really understand who we are:
We are your base. We volunteer to go door to door to door for you. We volunteer to make the calls. We put up & maintain the signage. We volunteer to fold the letters & stuff the envelopes. We defend you against your opponent's supporters. We provide the base of votes that you receive. We are your foot-soldiers. Do not take us lightly or for granted. You, in the OP, dismissed us as "extremists or bumper sticker guru's," which is patently insulting.
In the world of DC, is the desire that our immigration, border security, & employment laws be enforced seen as "extremist or (to use the lexicon of John Edwards - why a republican would want to do that is beyond me) "bumper sticker" negativism? What kind of horrendous disconnect is there? There has been no enforcement of the laws to speak of, no real attempts. We have border patrol agents in jail, @ the behest of the Mexican Government, for doing their jobs.
We, the base, are not content with being in the minority, accepting whatever scraps the democrats give. It is time for true leadership on this issue - & that leadership is not obsequiousness toward Sen. Kennedy & allowing a third damaging of our immigration system.
We have been lied to twice so far with "comprehensive immigration reform." Why should we believe that the DEMOCRAT led congress would fund the enforcement, especially when the President (unlike 1986) is all for the special treatment for illegal aliens & refuses to push for any real enforcement of our immigration, employment, & border laws?
The money you in congress receive from those who benefit from, who exploit the semi-slave & easily disposable labor of illegals will in no way make up for the loss of votes & much more importantly support of the base.
The base doesn't want a sub-class of semi-slaves. We value the immigrants who come here legally & have added so much to our country. The base wants those who exploit illegal alien labor punished because they knowingly hire illegals. The excuses from the government are quite flaccid, because (as pointed out) the IRS is incredibly efficient.
Listen to us. We have been screwed twice already by comprehensive immigration legislation that rushed the legalization of the illegal & no real enforcement. The government, executive & legislative branches, need to earn our trust because these branches have lost it through poor performance & outright lies.
I have a few comments of my own. You say,
"if all we do is enforce the law, the stream of illegals will not stop because (1) they know they can try again if they are caught, (2) it is getting more difficult but is nowhere near difficult enough to cross the border, (3) they know finding employment is easy, and (4) enforcing the law doesn't mean we can't do more now!"
If you get the administration to apply itself to building that fence, you will have our support. Threaten the Dept. Of Homeland Security with hearings into their incompetence, since they can't protect our borders. Do that, and it will become incrementally harder for illegals to get back into the country. As you know, all DHS has done so far is to make it harder for LEGAL RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS to cross the border. That will solve your points #1 and #2; at least it will improve the current situation.
We already have sanctions against the employment of illegals. If those are "unenforcable," change some rules while the fence is being built to make it possible. That will help your point #3. And point #4 is the way you can do it.
" the legislation put in front of him this session, he will sign, so we must work to make it comprehensive."
"Comprehensive" legislation is exactly the wrong approach. All it does is create an additional attraction for the illegal who is not here yet, to get himself into the US. Instead of encouraging them to stay home, you encourage them to breach the border. If any legislation is necessary at all, it must be about BORDER SECURITY ALONE. After security is achieved, then we can talk about what to do with the existing illegals. If you pass comprehensive legislation, it will be a clear signal you ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT BORDER SECURITY, nor about trying to keep more illegals from coming into the country. For an exception, see below.
"accept the fact that there are plenty of industries that need this labor (not all, but there are some)"
Sounds like you're saying that we have to accept an onslaught of foreign workers, whether they are legal or not. Why is it OK for some industries to employ illegals but not others? What would these "needy" industries have done if the border had been secure as it should have been from day one? They would have done something, so let them do that now. If it takes new legislation, you can create the Revolutionary ID Card while the fence is being built. They don't have to do it all at once, either. No Sweatshop Sweeps by ICE will be necessary. Let it happen gradually as the Revolutionary ID Card is issued to all foreign workers.
I'm not, not, NOT suggesting that we try to round every illegal up and ship them out. If they're living here and have kept their noses clean, don't bother them at this point. Do go after the ones who are gang members or otherwise are felons or who are serial-misbehavers. They are the ones who are causing the law enforcement troubles.
If you absolutely, positively HAVE to pass something you can call "comprehensive," make sure it contains only provisions that restrict the ability of illegals to stay in the US and become citizens. No "pathway to citizenship." They only want to work after all. The ones that want to become citizens can come through under the existing rules.
No "chain immigration." Period. If an illegal wants to bring his family, point out to him that there are millions of Americans who leave their family behind and go to Alaska, to offshore oil rigs, and even to Iraq in order to provide support for that family. There is NO reason that an illegal resident should feel he has a right to bring his family in behind him, especially if that would mean that his wife could bring her brothers, who could bring their wives, etc.
You can see my tag line below. If you don't both understand and agree, you're part of the problem. Please be part of the solution instead.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
The following has to be accomplished first in order for any immigration bills to be effective - a carte Blanche, all or nothing approach will not work. It will only create more legal maneuvering by the ACLU and their ilk with regard to so-called abuses of illegal immigrant's civil rights while allowing no telling how many undesirables citizenship.
This country can't even process new passport rules without clogging the system to the point of breakdown. What makes anyone think our government can even process Z-Visas after a one day waiting period or even entice the poorer illegals to come up with $5000 to pay their "fines".
Concentrate on:
1. Enforcement of current laws. To date, history does not show that new laws will be enforced any better.
2. Stiff and swift penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
3. Remove the social services, hospitalization, free education ,automatic citizenship for children born to illegals in this country, and other "freebies" that encourage not only the illegals to come but gives incentive for the Mexican government to "assist" their citizens to cross the border illegally.
4. Stop thinking that you have to deport all 12 million illegals at one time. Our government can start deporting the same way one eats an elephant -- one bite at a time.
5. Divide the massive, do everything bill, into manageable parts.
6. Put pressure on Mexico to assist in border protection and dissuade them from encouraging their citizens from coming to the U.S. Let them put their oil reserves to use for the good of their people.
I for one believe the 12 million illegals should not get a free pass. You don't reward illegal behavior.
We do need a verifiable and enforceable guest worker program for those who would apply legally -- and while they are guest workers, they should not be entitled to all the government giveaways and social security benefits afforded to legal citizens of this country. Who says they deserve free health care when millions of our own citizens don't even have that benefit?
Can the above suggestions be accomplished? - probably as easy or easier than the current bill that is being considered. If nothing else, just enforce current laws.
But Congressman, I don't understand how it is so difficult tell if someone is legal to work or not. Everyone is required to have a SSN to work. This is supposed to be a unique number for each person (citizen) in the U.S. How hard is it for the employer to ask the government if the given SSN is legit and if the person using it is really who they say they are? Are the governments databases so terrible that a simple query on a SSN doesn't work?
Don
Hello Don,
Unfortunatley, the answer to your question is yes. Right now it takes between 8 months to a year and a half to verify someone's number matches the person. (This time frame does fluctuate) It is unbelievably frustrating for me, and I can tell for all of you, that this takes so long. But that is one of the realities we have to hit hard, or else the fraud will continue. It seems a no brainer, since Amex or Visa can track you down yesterday, that we can't verify someone's status.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
Per the Social Security Number Verification Service:
"SNVS should only be used for the purpose for which it is intended.
It is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires or contractors ...."
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
number matches the person." Why on earth are we talking about a new bill? Someone has to be in charge of verifying these numbers. That someone has to have people who actually are supposed to do the verifying. Why not just fire everyone of them
and hire someone that can? The standard should be the same as the Visa verification, instantly.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, young
military members are being asked to make instant life or death decisions correctly and they face death or court martial if they make wrong decisions. Yet here, someone is saying not being able to determine whether someone's social security number belongs to the person using it takes 8 months to a year and a half. This is totally unacceptable. Fix it now, today.
on mortgage applications. That's a complete crock. If your time frame is really correct, that's just more reason to shut down the social security system.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
There's nothing in the SSN "database" that permits someone to verify that the cardholder/numberholder is who they say they are, other than a birth date. No pictures, no height/weight/gender, etc. I am not an employer and I do not know what docs are required for employment, but I strongly suspect, based on track record, that what IS required is easily forged.
Rep. Cannon does refer to biometric immigrant ID cards, and I could see implementing something like that. Something like this must be done to take away the "we didn't know their ID was fake" excuse that employers are using now. As iamsaved mentions, perhaps we need to take this "one bite at a time". How about an incremental immigration bill that adds on this ID requirement and additional penalties for businesses who hire illegals? No, it's not "comprehensive" but it is a start and it augments the existing enforcement bill from last year. But the big-business lobbyists in DC wouldn't like that, oh...not one bit. That might cut their gravy train of cheap labor.
I think the key notion voiced in this thread thus far has been "let's take this incrementally". I don't think you'd find a soul on RS that believes that a "comprehensive" bill is acceptable. It's too easy for lawmakers to focus on the "permissive" aspects of such a bill and ignore the enforcement.
I think you all would agree, that IF we are going to permit anyone to stay in the country, we should declare, legislatively, that entering the country illegally from this day forward means fingerprinting and bio ID'ing, automatic deportation, and the inability to re-enter the US for 5, 10, 20, or more years, or life.
But as I said, commenters included, tell us EXACTLY what you would like to see as the final version of any legislation.
I understand frustration with "trusting" us to actually do what we legislate. I agree with you and no one is more frustrated than I, and some of my RSC colleagues. But now is the time to get the job done, that "job" includes rebuilding the trust with you all. Openness in this debate will be a precursor to openness in other debates - like education and health care.
Let's prove the blogsphere is where ideas grow.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
1. End chain migration, and do it in a way that doesn't first include eight years of massively increased chain migration to 'clear the backlog.' This is essential if the GOP is to avoid demographic doom, as there is no denying that mass immigration benefits the Democrats. They benefit directly from the large net gains in voters they get, and from the stifling effects that diversity-worship has on rational discourse.
2. Make it so that the actual provisions of any program labeled as a 'temporary guest worker program' matches the description. In other words, don't use guest worker programs as a disguised method of enormously increasing permanent legal immigration. If the public is being sold on a guest worker program, then the participants should actually be guests, who have no expectation or guarantee of a path to permanent residency or citizenship. As such, it makes no sense to allow the 'guests' to bring family, as it will only increase the chances of their putting down permanent roots, especially with the whole anchor-baby situation. Otherwise, politicians like John McCain and Ted Kennedy should just be honest and say that their method of dealing with illegal immigration is to massively increase legal immigration to the point that it would allow in most of those who would otherwise try to come illegally. The American people's opposition to increasing legal immigration does not justify deceptive attempts to go against their will.
3. Address the insane collision between public policies of racial/ethnic preferences and the immigration of people who will be eligible for them. When preferences were limited to black Americans and American Indians, we were dealing with a manageable percentage of the population, but with Hispanics (as well as African immigrants) being eligible, we are approaching a situation where 40% of the population is hypothetically eligible, which again, is just insane. This is why the 'diversity' rationale for preferences must be completely rejected, and Congress could do its part by banning such preferences for federal purposes, and withholding federal funds for other entities that grant them. I honestly can't recall anyone in Congress ever even addressing this issue.
4. Inform the American people as to approximately how much immigration we will have after any reform is enacted. Not once did I hear Kennedy, McCain, or President Bush give us an idea of what immigration levels would be either during the 8-year period to clear the chain migration backlong, or the period afterwards when a point system would allegedly go into effect. Ted Kennedy sold his 1965 reform in part by claiming it would not drastically increase legal immigration, but of course it did. The American people deserve to know how many people we are admitting each year, and from now on that information should be given upfront in any debate.
What should be done? Here is a simple step-by-step suggestion:
Step one: Introduce enforcement measures.
Step two: Wait
Step three: Evaluate results. Adjust legislation as needed.
Step four: When control of immigration has been achieved, you have achieved credibility on immigration enforcement. Presto!
It really does not need to be much harder than that. And please don't try to tell us about the "triggers" in the bill. PZV:s can be handed out the minute the President signs that bill - that completely nullifies the triggers.
In addition, it is up to the executive to decide when the non-results-based triggers have been met. And let's face it - there is only one entity that can be trusted less than congress on this issue, and that's the White House.
"tell us EXACTLY what you would like to see as the final version of any legislation."
I would like to see Congress take notice of the recommendations issued by its own Commission on Immigration Reform. In the mid 1990's!
Here is a handy link.
There is a lengthy section concerning employment verification. Here is an excerpt.
A better system for verifying work authorization is central to the effective enforcement of employer sanctions.
The Commission recommends development and implementation of a simpler, more fraud-resistant system for verifying work authorization. The current system is doubly flawed: it is too susceptible to fraud, particularly through the counterfeiting of documents; and it can lead to increased discrimination against foreign-looking or foreign-sounding authorized workers.
In examining the options for improving verification, the Commission believes that the most promising option for secure, non-discriminatory verification is a computerized registry using data provided by the Social Security Administration [SSA] and the INS.
The key to this process is the social security number. For decades, all workers have been required to provide employers with their social security number. The computer registry would add only one step to this existing requirement: an employer check that the social security number is valid and has been issued to someone authorized to work in the United States.
The Commission believes the computerized system is the most promising option because it holds great potential for accomplishing the following:
* Reduction in the potential for fraud. Using a computerized registry, rather than only an identification card, guards against counterfeiting of documents. It provides more reliable information about work authorization.
* Reduction in the potential for discrimination based on national origin and citizenship status, as well as inappropriate demands for specific or additional documents, given that employers will not be required to ascertain whether a worker is a citizen or an immigrant and will have no reason to reject documents they believe to be counterfeit. The only relevant question will be: "What is your social security number?"
* Reduction in the time, resources, and paperwork spent by employers in complying with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA] and corresponding redirection of enforcement activities from paperwork violations to knowing hire of unauthorized workers.
Fast forward to 2007, and we see Congress saying to itself "Hmm, it seems that there is no effective way to verify peoples employment status. Here is an idea! What if we set up some sort of database to enable employers to quickly verify potential employees Social Security numbers?"
My recommendations; (1) Finally get around to implementing the things which Congress could and should have done a long time ago. (2) Do not attempt to tie these actions to either a "guest worker" provision or an amnesty for the millions of illegals currently here.
And I'm pretty sure that you voted for it. I would like to see the House Enforcement Only approach be implemented for a few years. There is no particular hurry on the other stuff; we can talk about amnesty and guestworkers later. Wages are falling so the workforce situation is not particularly dire.
Immigration is not a third rail. There was not particular objection to the House Enforcement Bill except by illegal aliens who marched in the streets. (And it was shameful that they were not rounded up too.) Citizens liked the bill. People did not get upset until the Senate passed their Shamnesty Bill.
1) Control the borders. We can't have people just walking in at this volume.
2) No temporary workers: I agree with the left that this creates a disfunctional underclass that can and will be manipulated.
3) Grant a reasonable path to citizenship.
The problem is that the Border Control part will be ignored.
So what to do?
Solution: Attach a repeal of NAFTA to the immigration bill in the house.
NAFTA needs to be repealed. It is now preventing, not helping, Mexicans from gaining reasonable control of their own State apparatus, and is also undermining our own control.
This closes the huge open hole between our economies, and puts in a valve system where we can modulate the different factors without destroying each other. And I believe a coalition exists that will support repealing it.
gotten the message. I'm not sure what planet you live on, but it's on this one.
So far all of the parties pushing this farce have lined up to tell us they are going to retread this pice of crap and take another shot at shoving it down our throats. When that happens you can expect things to get really nasty.
Give us a bill that provides security and nothing else, come back and deal with the rest of the issues when the fence - all of it - is built and border patrol is beefed up. In the meantime, enforce existing laws and pass a bill that eliminates all federal funding to any jurisdiction that allows sanctuary.
Then cme back and we can talk. Until then, there's nothing to talk about.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I need to know how long these illegals have to sign up for the Z visa and if there is a time limit what then shall you do with those who did not sign up? deport them? if so how? because we are being told they cannot be deported it is to hard to do. If there is no limit then explain how you will know who was here before Jan. 07 and who is coming right now. I think you will see sir that we indeed are full of idea's and those idea's are cognizant on what you all are proposing, with the correct answers I think we all can agree on something.
Stop ALL federal funds to any city that declares itself a "sanctuary city". Annually review city practices and law enforcement statistics to ensure state and local officials are ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS. If not, shut off federal funds.
If there are no consequences to the loons that OPENLY refuse to enforce the law, it will not stop.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
this board is hardly comprised of "extremists and bumpersticker gurus" and I'd peg opposition to the "comprehensive" legislation at about 80%, the remaining 20 supporting it to some degree at least on either free market or libertarian grounds.
What I find most offensive about official Washington's attitude on this legislation is that both Congressional leadership and the President seemed both angered and offended by the fact that the American people had the audacity to oppose their great collegial work of compromise, or whatever sweet words one would like to use about this pig with lipstick.
The American people are smart enough to know that "comprehensive" is a code word for substantive amnesty. The "negotiators" put a party dress and lipstick on the pig in the form or fines, and processess, and some enhanced enforcement, but frankly, nobody in their right mind believes the government on this. A Bush Administration is only going to enforce the border to the extent that it is forced to by political pressure. A Democrat Congress is not going to provide the resources to enforce the Border. A Democrat President will set up voter registration booths on the Border.
The States are going to revolt on this and begin taking the matter into their own hands. When enough states start enforcing immigration laws on their own and dumping the lawbreakers on ICE, perhaps the federal government will have to take this seriously. Right now the only thing being taken seriously is the unholy alliance formed between a Republican constituency that will sacrifice American soverignty and culture for cheap labor and a Democrat constituency that will sacrifice American sovereignty and culture for cheap votes.
You may dismiss us as extremists if you like, but be assured that the haughtiness of the Imperial City and its political eunuchs has roused the American people and you aren't going to be able to pass another "comprehensive reform" by the dark of a summer night confident that the People are all busy with their vacations and won't notice. We're watching!
In Vino Veritas
...means that none will be following.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
that I detested that I became able to make "Sir," "Senator," or "Representative" sound as much like a cussword as a teenager can make "sorry" sound like a comment on your ancestry and sexual proclivities. So, yeah, I guess "with all due respect" means I think none is due except to the title of the officeholder.
In Vino Veritas
immigration reform? The polls I have seen, seem to show a majority of people in favor of comprehensive reform.
I was referring to my assessment of the opposition/support on this board. As to the polls, opposition/support depends on how the question is asked and a pollster can get whatever answer he wants.
In Vino Veritas
I haven't had enough coffee yet and I wanted to go fishing today, but it's raining too hard - so I think I'll go do something productive and get over myself.
In Vino Veritas
...about the "comprehensive package". They usually pick out one aspect of reform, ask about it in isolation, usually using deceptive wording. When asked straight up-or-down about the bill before the senate, opposition runs roughly 2-1 against.
Do you think most people would support 'comprehensive' reform if they knew it would enormously increase already high levels of legal immigration?
that were done last week. Or the Zogby Polls that were done a few months ago.
The MSM polls that you have been looking at which do show support for shamnesty are specifically designed to yield that result. A couple of months ago, Tamar Jacoby, the leading comprehensive amnesty shill, was bragging about how they had focused grouped the words for the poll questions. They found that if they used words like "path to citizneship, learned English, pay back taxes" and then put them opposite a draconian solution like "rounding up and deporting 12 million illegals" that they would get the results they wanted. More honest polls that don't present the false choice and include other choices such as "attrition through enforcement" or even "doing nothing" get more honest results.
My experience across the blogosphere is that most conservatives trust Rassmussen more than they do the MSM polls. But for some reason, on this issue MSM polls are suddenly gospel? I don't get that.
Opposition is stronger than our all-knowing pols in DC think.
"A New York Times/CBS poll taken May 18-23 found that 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ""keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country." And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation's borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it's very important for the United States to "improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/why_the_immigration_bi...
If I have to read the Bush quote where he said, "I'll see you at the bill signing" one more time, I am going to cry like Harry Reid. It feels like a kick in the gut every time. I supported and defended this president against my better judgement on a number of issues. And for what? So he can insult and betray me.
The Rs had the majority for over a decade and did NOTHING to solve this problem. NOW they're all fired-up to do something; too bad it has to be on the Dems' terms.
If this bill passes, it will be the last straw.
Because we were fooled in 1986?
Because we want enforcement of the current laws?
Because we disagree on the ORDER of the basics?
1. Build the Fence, to control migration across the southern border. I
don't think this is an anti terrorism issue. I'm pretty sure Al-Qaeda
can afford tickets to Canada or boats to gain entrance along the 12,034
km of border and 19,924 km of undefended coastline.
2. Employers, since when are business owners above the law? So it's an
expense to comply with the law? Give employers a reliable way to vet all immigrants then prosecute them if they break the law. The IRS can track every (legal) penny every citizen makes, but ICE can't track workers in this country? Fix it..
3. Identification for ALL visitors, track who comes and goes from this
country.
4. Legal Immigrants first. They have respected our laws and want to become citizens. As opposed to most illegals that come for money and benefits and could care less about the USA.
5. Then and only then some selected and screened criminal aliens can be allowed a path to citizenship. If they want it.. and without ANY benefits and without chain immigration.
I have to comply with the law, and I'm supposed to feel sympathy for alliens and business owners that don't. You've appear to have spent way to much time in your ivory tower being yes manned to death.
The fact is, no one believes that the federal government will follow through on the enforment promises. When illegals are picked up they are summarily let go. When citizens rightly ask why this is happening we are labeled as ANTI-IMMIGRANT or RACISTS. I'm not from Missouri but I say show me the enforment first and we'll talk about normalization after that.
Actions speak louder than word!
That ought to be the title of your posting, Mr. Cannon. That is basically all you have said here.
"But that seat at the table cannot be claimed only by the extremes."
I agree with that, but I would argue it is the extremes that came up with this monster of a bill, and tried to force it though the senate with no debate, and before the people of this country could react to its abominable contents.
A reasonable solution is to secure the borders and enforce the law so that the illegals cannot be hired. With no work, they will go home. For they are not Americans, and most do not even want to be Americans. Its a pretty simple solution, and its been done before.
Or,perhaps you and your allies want them to be Americans, regardless of the cost. Care to explain?
"But pathetically, that won't happen unless the obstructionists and the whiners take a break, and it won't happen until the voices of the majority of Americans who actually want to solve the problem rise up and are heard."
So you call patriotic American who differ from you as "obstructionists and whiners" because they want to save their country from the disaster you suggest. You are being disingenous at best.
What you support would destroy this country and destroy the republican party. And it would violate the whole rule of law. Or can I now decide what laws I will obey and which I choose to ignore?
Believe me, a majority of this country, or at least the Republican part of it, is enraged by this farce. Many now in Congress will lose their seats over this. And they will deserve to.
No legalization, Mr. Cannon. No Amnesty
Seriously, it raises suspicions. Immigration reform has been ignored for 21 years and now it must be done in a few weeks by a handful of people. Does anyone really wonder why most EVERYONE (yes the left and right agree on something) believes they are being fooled?
Our Founding Fathers, thankfully, created a system and process that could not be RUSHED. Deliberation is at the heart of our democracy. We always run into problems when an end-around is attempted.
I understand this legislation is 800-some pages. Many Senators did not even read the pre-war, classified Iraq intelligence report that was 90 pages long. Few will read this; virtually none will understand it or its potential impacts. And guess who is supposed to ENFORCE it. The same people that aren't enforcing existing laws.
Is there ANY wonder why the public is skeptical?
Do the bill the RIGHT WAY. Do the committee work; do the hearings; take the time.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
I realize the analogy trying to be made with credit card companies. However, respectfully I would say that is somewhat misguided illustration. The dynamics are extremely different between a credit card process and immigration or related Visa’s. The related CC systems have been built over many years of experience; largely involving known-trusted participants. The companies “track down” people who are in general not highly transient and regularly use credit facilities. In other words MC/Visa/Amex have become very good a tracking down people that regularly operate within the confines of their system and participants.
A great deal of that does not apply to registering /tracking in an immigration paradigm and is largely not analogous. In addition, unless I missed something Bob Selander and colleagues have not mentioned this is something they can do. While I appreciate the illustrative value, just a word of caution; sooner or later someone will find a fair amount to question on that statement.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
The idea isn't that the system would track down people who are hiding, it's that people wouldn't be able to get work when they aren't eligible.
The I-9 process should be handled exactly like a credit card transaction, where work eligibility is checked in real time and the hiring is either approved or declined on the spot. The way it's handled right now is the equivalent of a credit card system where the merchant cannot obtain an authorization and has no way of even determining whether the card or account are real. It's a totally unworkable system.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
So they will make a system that does not work today operate faster? If their idea is to use an mandatory "authorization" system in order to assist the process it is certainly admirable, provided the model is sound. I would only note that is analagous to a very small part of a credit card paradigm.
Nonetheless, that process is prone to the considerable fraud which permeates today's illegal immigration. What are the standards and how do we identify those participants? Is this the same 24 hour background check proposed as part of "Z" visas? Certain jobs in financial markets and other positions require FBI background checks; yet we are willing to entertain a "quick" review of someone not even a citizen? I find that somewhat disengenuous and insulting.
People who participate in the credit card system are largely "trusted" entities due to established personal dynamics and patterns. Immigration certainly does not fit that since establishing basic personal facts is often arduous.
Overall, the system is only as good as it's screening and verification processes. Based on what I have reviewed thus far, the credit card analogy is a platitudinous misnomer.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
We're not talking about background checks. We are talking about verification of eligibility for employment. They are two different things.
We already know who is eligible to work in this country and who is not. We already know what SS numbers belong to which people and where they are currently being used as proof of eligibility. We already know whether a green card is valid or not and who it was issued to. The problem today is nobody checks. All that matters today is whether the cards look OK. Even if someone does check to SSN, it is unknown whether that person is actually who he claims to be, since there isn't a good way to validate the other critical piece of identification, the state photo ID, which can also be faked. It could easily all be validated by a database inquiry in a fraction of a second if we had the will and desire to actually put the database together and require that people use it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Funny, I tool my queue from the "revolutionaize (sic) our ID system for immigration" comment. That is a fairly encompassing statement and not particularly specific to EE, but I could be wrong.
We already have an existing EEV system which is largely not being used (I believe it is mandatory under the failed bill). So my impression is that is not the discussion subject.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Background checks are not an ID issue. They are a separate (and very problematic) issue that needs to be resolved long before any ID is issued... and preferably long before they set foot on American soil. The issue with the ID is employment eligibility conformation.
There's an existing system for SSN verification, but it is completely inadequate. The existing system is slightly better than nothing, being that they have to come up with a real number and maybe even the matching name for that number, but that number and name still don't have to belong to them. It's still pretty easy to circumvent so long as that is the case.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
BRAVO, A FARCE indeed!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
While there are a few of our elected officials that agree with the majority of Americans and do not support the Amnesty plan our President is letting us know that when he gets back from his trip that he is going to revive the Amnesty Bill.
What part of enforce the current laws do the rest of our elected officials not get?
It would be nice if someone would sit down with President Bush and tell him that the American people don't want Amnesty and we want proof that our President will enforce the current laws.
New laws are pointless..our Congress hasn't enforced the 1986 law..I don't trust our Congress and our President to protect the average American from illegal immigration.
I don't mean to say that the members of Congress don't care, there are many that support enforcement, it would be nice to see results not just listen to hype.
If we really are communicating with Rep. Cannon, I would like to thank him for entering our hostile environment and communicating his ideas. No politician has done that before to my knowledge.
In agreement with previous posts, we're not all bigots. Personally, I want to preserve the culture in this country, so call me a protectionist. If our politicians don't do something to stop the invasion, all of the major cities in the country will look like Miami and Los Angeles. If not wanting that makes me a bigot, so be it.
You're not seeing posts here from the conservative fringe. Everyone I know feels the same way about the immigration issue.
But it's a sad day when our elected officials think that we are bigots when we say that! However, that tells a lot more about them than it does about us.
A read today that "King George" is still going to try to push this through in one form or another. I'm ashamed to admit that I voted for this man twice.
While I'm not entirely happy with the White House, completely agree that they've sold us all a pig in a poke, I couldn't have voted for the guy who's only platform was, "Hey, I'm an elitist New England snob but at least I'm not named Bush!"
I'm holding out for a decent choice on this next run, rather than choosing the lesser of two evils. However that's another thread on RS so I'll move further comment there.
It takes some courage for an elected representative to wade into a hostile online environment. Kudos. Bonus points for actually replying in comments. My own suggestions on the issue can be found throughout the thread.
You can't get it because the extremists on the amnesty side are a poison pill no matter how good the rest of the provisions are.
But forth a bill to correct what you perceive to be the SSN part: Resolved: That registered employers in the United States shall be able to inquire as to the veracity of information supplied by a job applicant. Such information shall be supplied to the employer within 7 days of receipt of any such request.
Done.
Put forth a bill to fully fund the fence you've already agreed to build. No ammendments, no add-ons, just the bill to fund the fence. Then vote on it and we voters will take care of any fool who votes against it.
Tell the President to start fully enforcing the law. Everybody knows prohibition was an unenforceable law, but somehow or another Teddy Roosevelt managed to do it when he was police commissioner. Same thing applies to immigration.
Oh, and last but not least, stop calling me and my friends extremists, radicals, loud unreasoning voices, or people who are out to sabotage a good comprimise. Our memories are good, and Winston isn't going to be able to update them from his position at the Ministry.
After you do these things, I may agree to upping the number of LEGAL immigrants allowed in the country to 4 or 5 million a year, which will quickly get us past the 20 million illegals. But I will expect them to assimilate, and it won't happen until you get the enforcement part right.
...does not create assimilation. And the larger immigration gets, the harder it is to assimilate - even with current levels of immigration, assimilation is lagging badly. Taking in 4-5 million / year is just madness in that respect.
There is no question that most of our "elected officials" take us for idiots. When the members of this board say that "they just don't get it" that is only partially true. I'm convinced that they do get it, but they look upon the plebiscite as idiots who just don't know what's good for them and the country. That's why we need to "throw the bums out" who persist in shoving this down our throats and perhaps then they will view us as more than just being THEIR LACKEYS! The present "ruling class" in Congress thinks that we work for them. Well, to quote Cool Hand Luke, they need "Get their mind right" on this issue.
I see a lot of negative comments in this thread, but let me just say thank you for writing what you have. I sit more or less where you do on the immigration debate, which puts me in the firing line as well. I appreciate your willingness to talk about this issue candidly, in a forum where I suspect that the vast majority are not on your side...
Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans
I just keep hearing about the employer verification plan. I need to know the details and the program up and running for 18 months before any evens thinks of putting illegals on legal path.
Prove that the borders can be controlled, and build the fence. Enforce the work provisions in the 1986 law, then come back to us and we can talk about what to do with the illegals already here.
However, everyone on this board knows that the fix is in and the "masters of the universe" want whatever secretive language eroding our borders and soveriengty that is in that gargantuan bill to pass. They will see to it that some form of it is passed and that us yahoos acquiesce.
I applaud your attack on those darn "obstructionists and the whiners".
As I am sure you are aware, the 1986 amnesty included provisions to correct the problems with insecure borders and the lack of enforcement of immigration law. The "obstructionists and the whiners" successfully killled those provisions.
Ten years later, in 1995, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended that same solution which were shot down in 1986. As Barbara Jordan said in her remarks to Congress, "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave...For the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."
The recommendations of that Commission were killed by Congress.
Now we are a decade further on again, and Congress, having deliberately created the current problem by refusing to take the neccessary action in 1986 and 1995, is telling us that they need to be effectively bribed before they will even go to the trouble of making any more false promises.
It is perfectly clear to anyone who takes the trouble to look that the "obstructionists and the whiners" are the majority of the US Congress, and that they continue to block any sensible action on immigration and border security.
I notice that you outspent Mr Throckmorton by a margin of 10:1 in winning your last primary. You ask for a suggestion. I suggest that you plan of spending much much more next year.
And hopefully, senators or congresspersons who go along with yet another failed, unenforcable, unworkable and laughable Kennedy immigration plan will get electrocuted at the polls.
I want to see signed contracts and dirt flying on the construction of 2,000 miles of border barrier staffed by the right number of Border Patrol and all the electronic surveillance gizmos available in place before I will give one scintilla of credence or time to listen to these politicians talk about what to do with the illegals sealed off on our side of a secure border. What part of enforce existing laws and secure the borders don't they understand? Are they deaf or just thoroughly arrogant?
Where there's a will, there's a way.
I suspect the entire fence could be built by the 2008 elections - if we wanted it built.
Kennedy says fences don't work. He said if we build a 40 ft fence illegals will have 41 ft ladders. Kennedy is such a bold faced liar. If fences don't work we shouldn't waste taxpayer money on fences around prisons.
Fences work. Elected elite in Washington just don't want fences.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
It is just bad faith on his part. The fence is a force multipler for the border patrol - not a stand-alone solution.
America is pretty much out of people who are reasonably fit, can pass a background check, and can pee in a bottle. We should never underestimate how difficult it is to recruit and retain people who possess those three characteristics these days. The best pool is the recently discharged or reserve military, but that puts government agencies in competition with the military and each other and forces the price up for all. It is a tough problem for anybody in any sort of law enforcement or security operation.
In Vino Veritas
I like to ask people peddling this "ineffective fence" nonsense if they have locks on their doors at home, even though locks can be picked and windows can be broken and entered.
The fence is an adjunct to border patrol and aerial surveillance. If it was "ineffective", why are so many amnesty-types, including la raza against it?
The mayor of Yuma says the fence is working just fine.
He calls for a commuter guest worker program:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801598
I'm tired of being sold this bill of goods, over and over and over. I am being nagged and harangued and lied to and insulted by my own party, and I resent it.
This bill will only encourage more illegal immigration and grow the welfare state to absolute bursting. The fact that illegals get preferential treatment (don't even try to sell me otherwise) is a slap in the face of evey legal immigrant, both here and waiting.
I'm tired of the emotional rhetoric, too. "Out of the shadows", "breaking up families", "it's a national security issue" (6 years after the attack? Really?) "jobs Americans won't do." Like Big Daddy used to say, "BULL!"
Every argument I have heard in support of this bill are based on emotion, and what's best for illegal immigrants and Mexico, instead of what's best for this country. What is so great about keeping wages artifically low by importing a permanent second-class of citizens anyhow?
I am also sick of the pols pretending there aren't laws already on the books which can be enforced. All they need is tweaking, to fit the times and technology of today.
David Frum lays out some workable goals:
"The next effort to fix the broken system must accomplish four things: Stop new illegal immigrants from entering the country. Induce existing illegals to return home. Reorient immigration policy to favor those who make a net economic contribution to the U.S. over those who do not. And bow to the will of the 70% of Americans who feel that current immigration levels are too high."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-frum9jun09,0,6721552.story?col...
From where I sit, all this bill and its backers are doing is pandering for the Latino vote. The Dems will win and, in the end, it will break our many welfare programs, and then our economy, and it will marginalize Republicans until the end of time.
When will this horrible thing finally die? The pols in DC on both sides of the aisle are out to ruin my whole month of June as well as the country. Bush can find another legacy. Like, oh I don't know, something based on conservative principles maybe? (And I don't mean compassionate conservatism!)
The Republicans in DC are so afraid they will more lose Congressional seats and the WH in '08, they say it has to be done now, in fear of what might happen later.
I disagree. I would much rather have this be a point of debate for the '08 elections. IMO, it will benefit Republicans if it were an issue for '08.
Bottom line: You cannot have open borders in a welfare state.
Oh, and tell Harry Reid from me to stop crying those crocodile tears on the Senate floor. It's embarrassing and silly. I saw Reid's Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. It looks nothing like what this bill calls for. If he simply must misinform and mislead, he should stick to demoralizing our troops who are in harm's way and emboldening al Qaeda. He's pretty good at that.
________________________________
The absence of war is not peace.
Harry Truman
With all due respect Congressman, the federal government doesn't have any credibility enforcing our immigration laws as shown by their non actions the last twenty years. Passing more laws to hand out more amnesty is a complete non-starter. First start enforcing all the laws on the books and then we can have that conversation about what to do with all the illegals here currently.
Allan Bartlett
Third Rail indeed. My understanding of your piece is that we are now being offered Amnesty Written by More People in the Room.
Where is our fence?
I really appreciate all the comments.
In response to a few:
1. Amnesty as a term is constantly being revised and I think, absent actually staying in the country, with legal status, and paying no fine or paying no penalty is amnesty. Everything else is a matter of arguing over the punishment.
2. WE MUST ACCEPT that none of us will get everything we want in this debate. Trade legal status for fully funding the fence, etc. Something! The reality is that either we do nothing and hope a conservative Republican wins in 2008 and we can retake both houses, or we accept something we aren't thrilled about in exchange for stopping illegal border crossings.
3. I use the credit card analogy to prove a point - namely, that the technology is available, biometrics are available, picture/bio cards are available, smartchips and other high tech forms of employer verification are readily available and no more expensive than our current manpower intensive system.
4. Yes, right now, we are back to square one, which is good. And yes, there will be legislation. President Reagan's "trust but verify" is important. IF we pass legislation to build a fence, taxpayers should be able to see, online, where it has been or will be built and when. If we have to hire more border patrol agents, taxpayers should be able to see the status of how many new agents are actually patrolling the border daily. The technology is there!
I appreciate your input and the depth of knowledge in the debate thus far.
Lastly, I can assure you, although you may not think so, you are very much being heard up here.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
Sir,
Doing nothing is better than passing bad legislation.
No, it will not fix the flow of illegals, nor promote enforcement or anything else.
However, it will preserve their status as lawbreakers and provide hope that future good legislation can be written and enforced to deal with the problem.
Once the illegals have legal status, the impetus for change will go away, businesses will ramp up donations to curtail enforcement, Liberals will petition for more benefits for the now legal residents and we will begin another farcical round of this unpleasant game.
Meanwhile, our country as we know it will continue to erode. I am studying Hebrew because I want to. However, I am being forced to also study Spanish becuase I have to - just to communicate with the community that is growing around me.
"1. Amnesty as a term is constantly being revised and I think, absent actually staying in the country, with legal status, and paying no fine or paying no penalty is amnesty. Everything else is a matter of arguing over the punishment."
Of course, the PZV in the current bill can be obtained without paying any fee whatsoever. Hence it is amnesty in its purest form.
2. WE MUST ACCEPT that none of us will get everything we want in this debate. Trade legal status for fully funding the fence, etc. Something! The reality is that either we do nothing and hope a conservative Republican wins in 2008 and we can retake both houses, or we accept something we aren't thrilled about in exchange for stopping illegal border crossings.
As the current executive will not even enforce current law, trading something substantial and immidiate (amnesty, laxer legal immigration, etc.) for glass beads in the far-off future (Points system in 8 years, more border patrol agents - half the fence promised last year, etc.) is not terribly attractive.
So I'll go with your "option B" - especially as it will allow Republicans to run against Democrats and the deeply unpopular President Bush on the issue. (Call it the Sarkozy strategy if you want)
3. I use the credit card analogy to prove a point - namely, that the technology is available, biometrics are available, picture/bio cards are available, smartchips and other high tech forms of employer verification are readily available and no more expensive than our current manpower intensive system.
This is also true - but this is something that has been promised before, but killed by special interests. You cannot merely promise this - you have to put it into effect to earn our trust.
"4. Yes, right now, we are back to square one, which is good. And yes, there will be legislation. President Reagan's "trust but verify" is important. IF we pass legislation to build a fence, taxpayers should be able to see, online, where it has been or will be built and when. If we have to hire more border patrol agents, taxpayers should be able to see the status of how many new agents are actually patrolling the border daily. The technology is there!"
I agree wholeheartedly, but we also need to be able to verify this before any concessions are made - we got burned the last time, and this time it is indeed "trust but verify". Which means verify first - trust later.
You must accept that you will not get what you want in this debate.
Start with that realization and work from there. If the corporate wing of the GOP wishes to make common cause with the left on this issue, that is their decision. But every decision has consequences. There is no particular reason that conservatives cannot strike their own deal with the left on issues near and dear to the corporate wing of the party. I am urging the conservatives in Congress to make common cause with those Democrats opposed to a guest worker provision, for instance. Several of them did so in the recent Dorgan amendment.
I strongly recommend that the corporate wing think long and hard about what they are doing. Is a dollar saved in cheap labor tomorrow really worth all the left-wing policies further down the road? Because that is the path we are on at present.
you fail to understand. We must accept that proposition, not those who tried to ram this legislation down our collective throats.
As for your points about the corporatists, exactly. One of the great ironies is that some industries pushing this nonsense the hardest will be among the first nationalized or taxed into oblivion.
"I, for one, am ready to listen."
So allow me to be clear. Republicans (including all Republican Committees, PACs, etc.) with your attitude on this issue will not receive a single red cent from me or my family. Where is the fence?
to either NRSC or NRCC or any PAC that is associated with any Senator who votes for this and by the way the request for my 2500 dollars to attend the President's dinner will of course mostly go to the gentleman who will be taking on Chuck Hagel and my husbands 2500 will be spread around to those who will take on any R who votes for this legislation. We are conservatives not necessarily Republicans and if we can get conservatives to run against those who are indistinguishable from Democrats they will have every last dime that I used to give to the national party.
In my humble opinion America is going the way of the Romans. We cant stomach grabbing Illegals and returning them to their homes overseas. Any given morning you can go to Home Depot, and find 20-40 Illegals looking for day labor.
I can follow dirt roads that skirt Nogales Arizona and walk or drive off road back and forth from Mexico. Yet Mr Chertoff doesnt see how we can get these Illegals and get them back where they belong.
I am just A regular Joe and I can see several solutions. I have heard people say how cruel it would be to divide family's, by deporting Mom and Dad. To that I say, what happens to Kids whose parents are in jail for felony's?
We have let the Lawyers and politicians overrun this country, to the point we have become A den of rot.
To many have forgotten why we exist as A nation. We have a proud history of dealing with issues head on. We didnt roll over for the Germans and Japanese. Why do we want to roll over now? I am convinced until everyone has an Identity stolen, is involved in a hit and run by an Illegal, has to pay for an Illegals child birth, or raped by an Illegal, we will maintain the status quo.
I want to see you Politicians living here in the southwest, dealing with what we deal with. Quit preaching from your Ivory towers demanding we accept the the status quo. Get out here in Chandler Arizona and see what we see. In Arizona 52% of births were paid for courtesy of Arizona tax payers, 90% of which were "Imigrants".
Prosecute these people, enforce our laws, Deport them and their family's Imediatly.
Any given morning you can go to Home Depot, and find 20-40 Illegals looking for day labor.
Why, eveyone knows that there is a desperate shortage of labor in America. These people must be a figment of your imagination.
(and not just from "the base," conservative Republicans, Republicans, conservatives, or whatever, but most Americans):
IF we pass legislation to build a fence
That legislation has passed and Rep. Duncan Hunter flushed out that--at the time of one presidential debate--only two miles had been built a year later.
You asked for specifics. Here are mine.
1. Do not move forward on any status adjustment or guest worker program until the fence is built;
2. Do not move forward on any status adjustment or guest worker program until the biometric cards are available to employers;
3. Do not move forward on any status adjustment or guest worker program until felon aliens have started to be deported in a serious manner.
After that point, review on a case by case basis those illegal aliens already in the country and grant those who meet basic criteria the probationary Z Visa. I think we all can agree, as you did above, that the criteria would include Sen. Cornyn's amendment to forbid amnesty or whatever term you like for felons. Sen. Jim Webb from the other side made infinite sense on this point when he sought to amend the legislation so that the 12 million or 20 million or whatever is not treated as a collective but rather as the individuals they are, some of whom certainly should not be citizens or in the country at all.
After the above is done, then move to implement a guest worker program if the Secretary of Labor will certify whether it is needed.
Finally, make it clear that anyone who receives a probationary Z Visa and is put on the path to citizenship will not be able to avail themselves of chain migration. This remains the case.
The American people see this issue pretty clearly, congressman. Unfortunately, the same has not applied to the president, Congress or Senate.
Thanks for your input.
Arrrrgh! Let’s all break out the dictionary and argue what “Amnesty” means. This has got to be the stupidest argument EVER! I don’t really care if you believe this is not amnesty and I know Congress (for the most part) does not care that I think it is Amnesty.
Here is the real issue, they came here uninvited illegally, no citizenship PERIOD! Why is it so difficult for congress to accept that most of us would like to choose via existing law who becomes a new citizen and who does not.
Yea, I know I’m a nativest yahoo worthy of distain but even this yahoo is pretty sure the current law does not include a “can sneak in real good” clause as a path to citizenship. (Well as long as we can prevent the Immigration “Reform” act of 2007)
Rep. Chris Cannon--
You are delusional, Sir, if you think this article helps your case. I think what you won't say in your article is that you believe in Amnesty. You didn't have to say it. You used all the code words and phrases that other pro-amnesty folks use.
For example, when you said, "But that seat at the table cannot be claimed only by the extremes." I suppose what you really mean is conservative talk radio and conservative bloggers.
Or when you wrote, "...we probably cannot make 12-20 million illegal immigrants magically disappear, at least if we want to continue to eat and build houses." What a haughty thing to say. This has to be a parody, RIGHT?
And this is a classic tactic used by the "amnesty" crowd; "...hijacked by the loudest voices, and those voices are not crying for solutions. They are just crying." Are you sure you want a solution or are you auditioning for a spot on the administrations amnesty team?
So if you wrote this article hoping to build a bi-par-tis-an-con-sens-us, you failed miserably with your condescension towards the "loudest voices."
Don't you get it? The "LOUDEST VOICES" your complaining about pay your bills.
Would that Bush and the GOP establishment expended a fraction of the energy on the war as they are willing to do on this issue. Imagine the WH sending people here to solicit our ideas on how the war might be better prosecuted. As I have said before, if winning the GWOT were made a trigger for CIR the Iranian mullahs would be presently in chains in Gitmo.
First, as have others, I want to thank you for the courage demonstrated by posting here. This is not a site comprised of racists, bigots,xenephobes, nativists, etc. Those posting here are a fair cross section of those who populate this nation's Red States.
To my questions.
1.Since we have heard the same rhetoric regarding the ability of this current approach to "fix the illegal immigration problem" in 1986, why should we now trust that our representatives are being any more truthful or will be any more effective today?
2. Just what is it that was so wrong with the 1986 and subsequent immigration laws that they cannot , or were not, enforced? Can just those identified flaws themselves be fixed before the need for any new "comprehensive" legislation is even warranted?
3. How is it that Mr. Chertoff is in charge of this nation's "Homeland Security" yet cannot meet the goals of that task with all the resources availble to him? Our "Homeland Security" is as big a failure as FEMA's response to Katrina. Might I suggest that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona replace Mr. Chertoff in that position and then stand back and let the man do his job.
4. Last question. How have we come to the point where the US Chamber of Commerce, the Hotelier's Association, and the Restaurantuer's Association has more of a voice with our elected representative's than the masses of American citizens whom they represent?
I feel confident that most who post here are fully cognizant as to just who the real villians in this difficult issue really are. That would not be the poor, exploited "illegals" but the big business interests that enhance their bottom lines through that exploitation while the American taxpayer pick up the costs.
Thanks again for participating and listening. Few others seem to even be interested.
and I REALLY have tried to stay out of this. On the one hand, it is good for the Redstate community to have our elected officials (and/or their staffers etc) come here and engage us. Good for the "movement" and good, obviously for the health and growth of the site. That said...
Congressman, your basic premise in this article is in and of itself reflective of the problem we face-we who pay your salaries and pay for you to run for office, and you who, once having sworn the oath of office behave (from time to time) as if we are but mere afterthoughts in the world of high profile politics.
We didn't hire you to tell us what's good for us, we hired you to do OUR bidding...a lot of you guys forget that.
You can see from the thread of comments here that there are some pretty pissed off constituents. Whether your personal position on this policy aligns with that of the majority of respondents here or not, these are not polls talking to you; there are no analysts and demographics experts here bundling this emotion and attitude and opinion into a tidy little sound bite package you can tuck in your briefcase and head to the floor to cast a vote based on.
You fired a sizable shot across our bow with the notion that some among us are obstructionists and whiners...we are a tad bit sensitive to such things coming from our employees around here, sir. Further, the bumper sticker remark was, well, just over the top. Be careful using recently crazy analogies...does John Edwards and HIS bumpersticker remark ring a bell?
We have told you guys repeatedly, since the last failed bill, we want separate resolutions - we don't trust you. Close the border, then we'll talk. We are ALREADY paying for the illegals among us to be here, and will willingly continue to do so in exchange for fundamental execution of existing legislation.
Enforce existing laws, close the borders, fix your mess of a bureaucracy for getting registered and documented...and we won't need to spend the jillions you have tucked away in this debacle. You guys made this mess incrementally. YOUR political expedience is not going to be allowed to cause bad policy, bad ideas, and poor use of OUR money to be crammed down our throats all at once.
We prefer the wine, candles, appetizers, and the 7 course meal before....well, you get the point.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I know it's been said here before, but I want to join in thanking Cong. Cannon for his willingness to stick around and respond to the comments on this site. Rep. Cannon is the first Member of Congress I am aware of who seems to understand that "blogging" does not simply mean posting an op-ed or press release on a website and leaving room for comments. In my mind, the virtue (as well as the danger) of participating in such a forum is the give and take after the initial post, and I commend him for his willingness to engage with the Red State community.
Mr. Cannon (if you're still reading), while I know that many of the comments so far have been critical and sometimes overly harsh, I greatly respect the fact that you are participating in this forum and hope that other Members of Congress will learn from your example.
Rep. Cannon: Thank you for writing for us at Red State and giving us an opportunity to exchange ideas with you. This thread has grown very long, but I hope you are nevertheless still following it, as I want to ask you about two essential points that I have not seen discussed anywhere by anyone as part of this immigration bill. I would like to see someone finally examine the two true underlying issues in the illegal immigration problem:
1. Why businesses are so insistent on the need for guest workers (or serfs or illegals or what have you): Government over-regulation makes it difficult for businesses to function effectively, efficiently, and profitably. They wouldn't be so determined to employ illegals who are not subject to labor laws if those laws weren't so onerous, intrusive, and costly. So they avoid having to comply (which gives them a strong competitive advantage over companies that are law-abiding) by hiring people who are outside the law.
It apparently hasn't occurred to any politician that legalizing the current crop of illegals will simply not solve the problem. Once those people are legal and therefore entitled to all the same benefits and protections of American workers, the businesses that now hire them will simply look for new illegals who will be willing to work outside the requirements of the law. So we can expect more millions of illegals to quickly flood into America to serve the needs of non-law-abiding businesses. If businesses were willing to comply with labor laws, they could hire Americans and legal immigrants right now. But they aren't, so they won't. And they won't suddenly begin complying with the new law just because of any so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Bottom line: No immigration law can provide a remedy for the real reason for widespread employment (and abuse) of illegals.
We would be better served by a Congress and a President that worked to repeal or rein in laws and regulations that have gone way beyond their fundamental objectives (to improve working conditions and fairness) and grown wildly out of control, making it difficult for American businesses to function. (Reform of this sort would also help ameliorate all kinds of other problems, too. Just two examples: job losses due to foreign competition that does not suffer under the heavy yoke of American over-regulation; the corrupting influence of money in politics -- after all, businesses are desperately throwing money at politicians because they are trying to keep government from imposing still greater burdens on business, or they want unfair advantages over competitors that can't buy influence.)
2. Why so many millions of Mexicans are desperate to leave their homeland: This site and others have often discussed this issue, explaining that Mexico has no incentive to institute reform as long as they have the USA as a safety valve. They are solving their problems by dumping them on us; Mexico can therefore ignore poverty, poor education, bad housing, bad economic decisions, bad business environment, and all the other barriers to success by sending their people here, where we provide jobs, free health care, free schooling, and an enormous income for Mexico in the form of money the illegals send home -- taking billions of dollars out of our economy and creating Mexico's second biggest source of income.
Aside from the problems illegal immigration creates for us, I am surprised at the utter lack of our interest in improving Mexico from within. Aren't we supposed to be fighting for economic freedom and success around the world? Seems like helping a neighbor (and a neighbor who is trying to leech us to death) would be as important as our efforts to bring democracy and economic freedom to the MidEast.
We would be better served by a Congress and a President that would pressure Mexico to improve conditions for their people. There is no reason for Mexico to be a poverty-stricken country -- other than corruption and a lack of political will (problems that exist on both sides of the border for this issue). We should use the same techniques that led to true welfare reform in this country: don't foster a dependent attitude, and require people to take control of their own lives. It works for individuals and should work for countries, too.
Solving a problem requires a solution that actually addresses the underlying causes. So far, we only have politicians who are willing to do mere cosmetic work on symptoms of the problem. A physician who only worked on symptoms without identifying and treating the underlying cause would have a lot of dead patients on his hands (e.g., aspirin for that headache, which is really due to a malignant brain tumor that could be cured with surgery). If our politicians were doctors, they would have been tried and convicted for gross malpractice, if not negligent homicide, long ago.
I urge you to consider new legislation that will (1) focus on reform of business overregulation that drives the demand for illegal-immigrant employment and (2) pressure Mexico to clean up its own mess. Without addressing these two underlying problems, the types of immigration laws now being discussed will never ever succeed.
Last, the blog Uncommon Misconceptions discusses the truth (or rather, falsity) of the expression "Nation of Immigrants" in a most informative explanation at the following link:
http://geoff82.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/we-are-a-nation-of-immigrants-ar...
Clearly, Ted Kennedy's fingerprints are all over the graph shown with this post. Sharp increases in immigration occurred following 1965 and 1986, the years in which he changed our immigration laws for the worse. (Why on earth should we trust him to have the solution to a problem that he personally created?) Prior to 1970, immigration was relatively flat, and foreign-born persons accounted for less than 5% of the population. A most surprising fact, don't you think?
The rest of my comment quotes from the post at Uncommon Misconceptions:
"Pre-1970 America is what many of us were born to and raised in ... an America that was successfully assimilating a modest influx of immigrants (probably a little too modest, actually), and which was suffering from a very mild version of today’s illegal immigration problem. As the chart shows, that all changed once the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 further accelerated the rate of foreign-born population growth.
Note that the 1986 Act presumably should not have affected growth - all the people granted amnesty were supposedly accounted for in the population estimates. Of course, neither should the 1965 Act, at least according to Ted Kennedy at the time:
“…our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset….”
Tell that to Los Angeles County.
The history of America from 1910 to 1970 was not that of an “immigrant nation” - in fact, one could argue that the US stopped being a “nation of immigrants” after the last immigration surge in 1910. And of course, there is a limit to how much any mature nation can continue to call itself a “nation of immigrants.”
Pro-immigration pundits are calling upon a century-old meme to rationalize the out-of-control immigration situation we have today. And to rationalize the aggravated immigration situation we’ll have tomorrow if the immigration bill is passed."
A Thank you to "cbs" for your kind comment. It is my pleasure to be here since I have been trolling redstate for a long time, I thought I would contribute what I could now. My apologies for the lack of posts, but I have been on a
I have been reading and yes, some folks are very upset. Rightfully so. I hope nothing I write makes it seem as though I am sitting in an ivory tower on Capitol Hill with my colleagues and not listening.
I know there are those who talk about members of Congress not listening, etc. I cannot say this strongly enough - your message has been heard. Now the time comes to craft the legislation.
I want to also say, I UNDERSTAND THE LACK OF TRUST! Some members have let all of us down in the last few years and we need to remember the spirit of '94, before we go reviving the disaster of '86! I think you will see something pass this year, then judge everyone accordingly. There is no magic trust pill, I wish there were (don't we all?). We can pass legislation (like the fence that I voted for). But implementing it is something altogether different. THAT IS WHY YOU ALL ARE SO IMPORTANT. I assure you, your voice is being heard, you must keep telling members what you will accept and will not accept. Only with feet to the fire will some act.
I have to say, although I am accused of being for amnesty, I would gladly vote for a bill that secured the border ONLY. I would support it and push for it. But I also think we can do both border security and legal status. We must deal with the whole issue, but I agree with most folks here that the "triggers" for dealing with those illegals in country should be verifiable, tangible enforcecement benchmarks.
I don't think people who broke the law should become citizens. And I think most members of Congress would agree. But, as I have said, border security would only stop a little over 40% of the illegals here now. The rest are visa overstays.
Identification is VITAL before we talk security because 6 million plus people here were allowed here legally, and have since disappeared. That is a lost issue to be sure.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
Your comments are appreciated. To me they are similar to the search and rescue teams calling to see if there are signs of life in the rubble after a disaster. A small cry for "help" in response from the depths gives one hope that there is still life in congress and someone is there with the right equipment to try and help.
I understand this is not a simple issue that can be solved by the wave of a magic wand and I have a feeling that many are so eager to pass this legislation because they feel, and probably rightfully so, that if this bill isn't past, it may be a long time coming for anything else to be passed because of all the partisan politics.
That being said, enforcement of existing laws can and should start in earnest while the arguments from both sides continue. Sometimes also, desperate times require desperate means. Think back to Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. I'm sure glad the ACLU wasn't around then.
It may take something that drastic to get the enforcement started...
"We", if I may take the liberty, are saying that targeting those 40% is a damn great start! Plug the holes in the boat then start bailing. Our ship won't sink as long as we plug the holes first. We can bail it out over time. Granting amnesty with a bill that won't be enforced will sink us.
"Comprehensive" coming from Washington is starting to sound like a 4 letter word. If our elected elite are so sure that triggers will work and nothing will be done before the border is secure why not split the bill and start out with border security? If they don't go for that they were trying to fool us in the first place.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I am for immigration reform that strengthens our border and gives a path to citizenship for the 12 million illegals here, but I agree with the general idea that our situation at the border takes overall precedence.
Why not divide this up and handle these issues one at a time? I would like to see a bill that reorders our actions at the border (doing away with disastrous catch and release), increase funding for borders guards and equipment, as well as push to build a sizeable amount of fencing and wall.
Then we can look at immigration reform for those who currently reside in our borders. Moreover, there would be a lot more political support if this case.
The bills could also be tied together in such a way that if one is implemented without the other both are killed.
I do believe it's far more complicated than simply enforcing the current laws and I believe new legislation and appropriations will provide the political will to get things done. Immigration reform is necessary for the benefit of America and future generations of Americans.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
Congress mandated the fix to this in 1996. As part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, records were required to be kept of the entrance and exit of every person into the United States. As part of the PATRIOT act, requirements were added to this for biometric ID, as well as for more efficient sharing of information within government. These were to have been implemented by January 2004.
These requirements have STILL not been met.
Senator Vitter proposed an amendment to the current Senate bill to make the long overdue completion of this system a requirement for the passage of the rest of CIR. His amendment was defeated, with Senators McCain and Kyl voting against it. It lost by one vote.
Clearly, this is not Mr Cannons fault. Not directly at least. But since he is here to gauge the public mood, I just want to say that this sort of interminable foot-dragging and obstructionism on the part of Congress is what has so many people so incensed. Even when they pass good legislation, as above, they don't seem to take it seriously. They seem to regard passing these laws as an unfortunate exercise they have to go through to fool the voters. Expecting us to believe that good things will flow from the passage of a new bill seems rather insulting.
Lets see the laws that Congress already passed get implemented. That will build up some credibility that any proposed new laws may get implemented.
There are all sorts of good faith arguments pro and con national IDs and biometrics for legitimate citizens, but "guests" in this Country in the form of legal immigrants are another matter altogether. If Disney World can put in place a biometric system that quickly and painlessly matches your fingerprint to the mag strip data on your ticket, we can do the same thing with every legal immigrant.
These people should be easy to track so long as they are legally working, and I suspect many, most, of them are.
If we don't want business to have to bear the expense of biometric ID devices, then we could use the same system unions use with the work dispatch; if an immigrant wants to work, they can go to the Job Service office, have their status verified, and, if legal, get a dispatch to work. Sure, it has some potential for inefficiency and corruption, especially in really Blue places, but it is one Helluva lot better than what we have.
In Vino Veritas
"I don't think that people who broke the law should become citizens". As you know, that would amount to all 12 million. If we can take you at your word on that, then you're against amnesty too.
You're not going to get many conservatives to agree that 6 million is a lost issue. If Congress would make their life unsustainable here, they would leave on their own. How does Congress do that?
- Clamp down on employers hiring them. As it stands employers will take any social security number as identification. When they eventually find that the number is no good, they either ignore it, or the illegal alien goes to work at another company and starts the process over. Give the contract for identification to credit card companies. The government is unwilling and incapable of identifying them.
- Deny federal funding to any sanctuary state including those that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens
- Mandatory 1 year in prison (in the desert) to anyone who crosses our borders illegally whether we catch them at the border or later. Second offense is 5 years in prison and so on.
- Clearly define that anchor babies are not granted citizenship. The constitution does not say that.
- Deny all social services except emergency medical care.
While I agree that a guest worker program sounds good, they will never go home either so I'm not sure how to solve that one.
Finally, I think that I can safely say that "Amnesty" to most conservatives means legalized status for anyone who broke into our country, and no, a $1,000 fine doesn't negate that designation. Both sides can play with the word all day long, but everyone knows what it really means.
Once upon a time, France decided that for "security reasons", all visitors, even ones from the US, required a visa. Driving into France from Beglium, we expected the border guards to check our visas. Much to our surprise, we were just waved through when we held up our US passports. HOWEVER, when we went to the bank to cash travelers checks, we had to present our visas. No visas, no transaction. As I recall, hotels also wanted to see visas. No visa, no hotel room.
The point of the above is that there are plenty of ways to "encourage" illegals to leave, e.g., no bank accounts, no checks cashed, no credit cards, no buying real property, local law enforcement to report arrests to DHS/ICE, etc. This could be enforced, inter alia, by forfeiture of all property in the US upon arrest (we already do it to drug dealers on the theory that the property is the fruit of an illegal activity). It is just a matter of having the will to do it, something that, unfortunately, seems to be sadly lacking in Washington.
I sympathize with people who want to come here to improve their economic situation, but that is the same motivation as white collar criminals, like the management of Enron. The *only* difference is in degree. It is currently against the law to enter the US without permission or to overstay a visa. I don't care how law abiding they are while they are here, their presence in this country is predicated on a crime and should not be rewarded with legal status (or even quasi-legal status like the PZV).
I also see no reason why the entire border with Mexico should not be fenced. It is only a few hundred miles longer than the Alcan Highway that was built during WWII in about 18 months. A fully fenced border should not take any longer and would be well worth the expense.
are you and your colleagues in Congress so hell-bent on "legal status" for the illegals? Who benefits from this? The illegals obviously do - but who else? I assume you and the rest of Congress has read the Heritage Foundation report on the enormous cost that the existing proposal will wreak upon the U.S.? Personally, I think that report just screams "legal status = a big chunk of $ out of my pocket"
From my small-minded point-of-view, I see that "legal status" benefits two parties: 1) the illegals, 2) business interests. And I strongly smell the odor of the business interests all over this bill. I'll repeat a question that was asked by "Chief1942" farther up the chain of comments:
How have we come to the point where the US Chamber of Commerce, the Hotelier's Association, and the Restaurateurs Association has more of a voice with our elected representative's than the masses of American citizens whom they represent?
You say "our voices are being heard", but that doesn't mean that those hearing are listening.
Two years ago, I put together an immigration advisory committee that was about as diverse as any such group could be.
I tracked down the report of this group, which is worth
reading.
Here is the composition of that committee.
Advisory Committee Chair, Matt Throckmorton, former State Legislator
Paul Ahlstrom, vSpring Capital
Brad Bateman, Dairy Farmers of Utah
Marilyn Bigney, Migrant Head Start
Tiani Xochitl Coleman, J.D., former Chair (2003-05), SL County Republican Party
Mark Crockett, Salt Lake County Council Member
Jeffrey C. Hammond, Immigration Attorney, SLC law firm of Smith Hammond, LLP
Rick Higgins, Associated Builders and Contractors
Sam Klemm, Concerned, Involved Citizen
Robert McMullin, McMullin Orchards Inc.
George I. Monsivais, Ph.D., Public Policy Analyst
Dee Rowland, SL Catholic Diocese
Ray Rowley, Fruit Growers of Utah
Dean Sanpei, Intermountain Healthcare
Ken Shulsen, Associated Builders and Contractors
Wesley G. Smith, Immigration Attorney, SLC law firm of Smith Hammond, LLP
Dennis Tenney, Sandy City Councilman and Int’l Business Consultant
Chaplain Linda Walton, President, The Walton Group, Inc.; APR, Fellow, PRSA
Timothy M. Wheelwright, Utah Immigration Attorney; Chairman, AILA Utah Chapter
The AILA is the American Immigration Lawyers Association. This entire board, with the exception of Mr Throckmorton, is composed of pro-immigration interests. There are all here - the Catholic church, the unions, the agribusiness interests, the construction industry, the immigration lawyers. And they all say that the US badly needs more immigration! That settles that then.
Mr Cannon, did you seek any input from people with differing viewpoints?
Nice job Jon. Trust, but verify...
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
As I read that report, one item immediately jumps out. In the section titled "Only Comprehensive Immigration Reform will Work", the report states:
Border security must come first, yet it cannot be done in isolation of comprehensive reform. It is probably not realistic to doggedly enforce until other measures, such as a guest worker program, have been adopted
Oh? Where's the evidence that it's not realistic to "enforce until...a guest worker program (has) been adopted"? The report offers no explanation of that statement. Nor does it offer an explanation for the title of that heading...why will "only comprehensive immigration reform work?" Because the business interests say so, is my guess, especially considering the authorship of that report.
Honorable Congressman,
Thanks for dropping by here at RedState, and offering your perspective.
Generally I don’t say much here, as so many others often voice my own thoughts better and with more flair than I could, but in this instance, I feel compelled…
As you’ve no doubt noticed, lots of us are pretty riled up about this issue, and some have even fired a few shots across your bow to indicate their displeasure.
We’ve never met, and though I currently work about two blocks from the Capital building, it is unlikely that we will. I’m a pretty simple citizen; not possessed of the wealth of education, eruditeness, and insight of many who call RedState home. So I hope you will forgive me expressing a simple citizen’s concerns in a direct and simple manner (albeit redundant, given the many other posts on this today).
As a citizen, I attempt to obey the law and follow the rules. I do this not just because “it’s the law”, but because I believe in the notion that we are a nation that observes the rule of law, and I wish to participate in and perpetuate such an environment, for myself and my children. I believe in our Republic, and would willingly die to protect her.
I expect no less of our elected representatives. In fact, I expect more.
You have been elevated to a position of power and influence. We need you to hear us. We are not “whiners and obstructionists”. Truly we are not, sir. Nor are we racists.
My wife is a legal immigrant (she’s Russian), and followed all the rules, filed all the papers, paid all the fees, waited in all the lines, and suffered all of the necessary indignities required to achieve her presence here. However, should the coast of Alaska become, through some freak of geological chance, butted up against the coast of eastern Russia, I would be just as vigorous in advocating a strong and unwavering Border Patrol presence at such a location.
I think most of the ideas mentioned here by my much more worthy RedState-ers are pretty direct and simple.
1) Enforce the existing laws with alacrity, and completely fund, staff, and support the agencies responsible for carrying out those laws.
2) Secure the border as thoroughly as is possible, enacting new (enforcement) laws if necessary to do so
3) Revise laws and government regulations, as needed, to enhance or create a reliable and cost-effective way for employers to validate legal employability. Eliminate the potential “rock-and-a-hard-place” phenomenon of legal status check vs. discrimination lawsuits for employers. This check process should be made easy for employers, inexpensive, and allowing of no subsequent excuses or equivocations.
4) If, as you state (and I have no personal exposure to such data), most illegal immigrants are visa overstays, then implement item # 1 with regards to this area. When a visa holder is overdue, we should have guys out hunting them down the next day. Expensive? Yep. So is the United Nations, and lots of other rat holes our tax dollars are poured into each year. Try using that money to fund organs of government that really need it.
5) Ensure that any “guest worker” program is only introduced AFTER the items above are implemented and functioning (i.e. NOT included in the same legislation). Also, make it plain that any “guest worker” visa will only be issued to applicants from OUTSIDE the physical borders of the United States – if you want one, go home and apply.
Those, I think, are the basics. I personally believe in the immediate deportation of all illegals caught regardless – dump them off at the border; put them on a plane, whatever. I’m also fond of the idea for denial of federal funding for jurisdictions that openly declare intent to harbor illegal aliens in violation of the law.
The repeal of NAFTA was a nifty idea too.
And yes, I’m willing to pay more for my heads of lettuce. I cut my own lawn, and clean my own house. To those who don’t, I have no sympathy.
None of this is really that new, and we feel it somewhat disingenuous when we hear our representatives ask for “ideas” as if these are somehow not clear and reasonable. We feel they are clear, reasonable, and pragmatic.
In America, murder is illegal. We do not hear about “Comprehensive Murder Reform” that expresses woe at being unable to round up all the murderers. We find them when possible, prosecute them and, God willing, remove their danger from our midst.
When I list charitable contributions on my Form 1040 Schedule A, I am not permitted to record large amounts and reference them as “undocumented contributions”. Wouldn’t I love to. But I follow the rules (like the idiot I am).
Mr. Congressman, if you think the angst expressed here is vitriolic, you should hear my wife. She’s seen the footage of folks jumping the border fence and running for the hills, and wonders why she was put through so much trouble when this behavior is, apparently, sanctioned.
She wonders why she, as a professional pediatric speech therapist with over 20 years experience, who feels she has something to contribute, is valued less by America then a guy who can operate a lawn mower. I wonder also.
The ideas expressed here, in the other posts, and elsewhere by us “whiners”, are neither unrealistic nor unreasonable. In point of fact, they are quite simple.
So simple even a congressman could understand it.
Rep. Cannon
Sorry about that last comment of mine. Little dig, nothing personal.
I do actually appreciate your willingness to listen, and engage with us here.
Scott
It is a symptom. Amnesty(immigration) bill is a symptom of what happens when our elected elite get disconnected from the people. When government has its own agenda despite large public opposition. The system needs to be improved.
Fixing immigration (which we need to do) is treating symptoms but we have a bigger problem to fix like returning the government to the people and building in much more sunlight and accountability on an on-going basis.
We send many well intentioned people to Washington but I believe they get sucked up into the system of trading support for pet projects etc...
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Rep. Cannon,
You insult the intelligence of your audience by using cartoon caricatures of your opponents' positions, and basing your argument on scare scenarios that are conclusively refuted by Econ 101.
we probably cannot make 12-20 million illegal immigrants magically disappear, ...
You won't find many people advocating mass deportations of illegal immigrants or making them "magically disappear". Almost all the opponents of Z visas at bargain basement prices advocate an attrition strategy, making it difficult to get employment and various public services, thus reducing the incentive for them to stay or new illegals to enter. You could argue about how effective that would be, but instead you repeat the same phony canard as other advocates of cheap Z-visas.
... at least if we want to continue to eat and build houses.
Do you really believe that in the hypothetical you posed (all the illegals gone) we could not "continue to eat and build houses"? You believe that our market economy couldn't accomodate such a situation, putting food on our tables and building new houses? Assuming you aren't a complete economic illiterate, you know full well that the scenario you argued is completely false. So for you to make such an argument, you must believe that a lot of us are dumb enough to fall for it.
You raise some issues of legitimate debate, but it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion when you treat us like idiots.
I do not mean to be demeaning in any way. On the contrary, by saying we cannot make people magically disappear, I am trying to point out the vacuousness of those who put forth a "plan" on immigration and say nothing about those illegals here. It is as if by magic that issue is gone.
As for the building houses line, I do know that our market economy could handle such a labor shift. However, as with any sizeable supply shift, spread over time, the harmful effects of such a shift are minimized. But a labor supply shock (30% or more of construction workers) is something I am seeking to avoid.
Let me be clear - I am not talking about Redstaters, but those who take an intellectually dishonest position (in my opinion) by proposing immigration "reform" that doesn't address economic, manpower, or legal problems associated with illegals currently here. I apologize for any confusion.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
For most the "immediate deportation" of 12-20 million illegals is a straw man set up by pro amnesty camp. All or nothing argument. The other response is, "Unless you have something better then show it or we'll do what we want." Wait a minute. Didn't we elect these people to serve us in the first place? Is that the right way to govern this country?
To tell me that I need to come up with a better solution or accept theirs will cause me to give them a swift kick out of office next go round.
Secure the border. Then we can decide what to do with the illegals already here. We can do it slowly and methodically as we need to make sure any market adjustments can be made without major disruption. We can start with deporting illegals that have committed other crimes and are taking up space in our jails. We cannot deport them before our border is secure.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
You nailed it, CC:
Secure the border. Then we can decide what to do with the illegals already here. We can do it slowly and methodically as we need to make sure any market adjustments can be made without major disruption. We can start with deporting illegals that have committed other crimes and are taking up space in our jails. We cannot deport them before our border is secure.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Oh, but darn it, it doesn't satisfy the guys who want $0.50/hr laborers, does it? Oh well.
"I do not mean to be demeaning in any way."
Although I applaud your willingness to come into "the lions den" you have been demeaning to many of us as has been pointed out again and again. Denials of that in light of your first post do nothing to help your credibility.
This is is not rocket science. Why you and your colleagues in Congress try to make it such is beyond me. This bill is a disgrace that will do NOTHING to eliminate the problem, but in truth will only make it far worse. That the President (who to my shame, I voted for twice) is still promising to make this pig fly is unconscionable. The only supporters he had left were folk like us. So what did he do? He takes us for idiots and insults us far more than you have.
I am leaving the Republican Party over this. I will become an independent and take if from there. Any politician who tries to get this bill or any other like it passed is guaranteeing their demise in the future. So to paraphrase the words of Clint Eastwood: "Go ahead Republican Party, make my day, pass this bill or anything like it and see what happens."
Scott, I appreciate your comment. It had plenty of erudition and is worthy of publication.
I appreciate it most because I want to make it clear, I DO NOT think Redstate commentators or contributors are "winers" or "criers." Far from it. I see Redstate as Conservatism 2.0, embracing new media, new ideas, and actual debate, rather than the 1 minute speeches we call a debate today.
Your last paragraph speaks volumes (not the Congressional dig, although that was funny and one I can't totally argue with). LEGAL immigrants SHOULD be mad. Much like any of us who go to the store to pay for something should be livid if a shoplifter got away without punishment. That is why I think Redstate and others who hold our feet to the fire, are so neccesary.
I will continue reading this week, but as votes, hearings, etc. go on this week, I may not have alot of time to post, but I will phone to my staff to see what is being written and I will try and sit down at my computer a bit.
Hopefully you will all be pleased to keep contributing and I can do my part to restore your trust.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
the President said he will see us at the signing I need to know that you in the house will hold this bill if it does not give the border enforcement portion first and only then 18-24 months later the Z-visa anything less is a sell out of the United State of America and a sell out of conservatives. This President has called us un American and is now being snotty in his remarks to our faces how can you or any of the other house Republicans who must go before the voters every 2 years expect to regain the majority with the type of rhetoric this President is throwing out at hard working Americans? I would remind you and others that he is not running again however you all will, those are not idle threats those are the facts and the conservative base is angry, yes angry enough to bite off our noses to spite your faces. I personally would rather know up front that I was going to be taken to the cleaners then to find out in hindsight and feel used. I would really appreciate you and your colleagues taking a principled stand here and doing what is right by Americans not business, not Mexico, not Teddy Kennedy but by us who give to your campaigns and volunteer door to door to get the conservative message out.
To Rep. Cannon and to the Grand Bargainers of the Senate
With all this talk of ressurecting and amending current Senate Immigration Bill, it is my humble opinion that this bill should be scrapped and that the Senate should start all over again.
As most of these posts will attest, the main sticking point seems to be getting to effective Enforcement before any provisions on Amnesty are introduced. So I would propose the following Bill Titled:
The Immigration Enforcement Act of 2007.
Its major provisions:
1. Build the Wall and any other technological restarints necessary to keep anyone wishing to cross illegally into the USA from doing so.
2. Provide Businesses with a Foolproof hiring Identification System that can identify potential hirees who are illegal.
3. Substantially Increase penalties on Businesses for hiring illegals
4. Provide all of the funding necessary to ensure these measures can be accomplished.
5. Require the President or the Secretary of Homeland Security to make monthly reports to Congress on the progress of provisions 1 through 4.
6. Do not even consider the passing of any Amnesty legislation until the President or the Secretary can confirm that at least 95% Border Security has been accomplished.
Since everyone likes acronyms,how about NABE (pronounced Nay-be). It stands for NO AMNESTY BEFORE ENFORCEMENT. Kind of like NIMBY, which everyone seems to understand.
As ScottWP so eloquently put it, even a congressman or a Senator could understand it.
Rudy
Maybe we should substitute caveman like the GEICO commercial, at least they can't be offended and sue someone.
The constitution states "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Can it be possible we are stepping away from this original intent. We dont need more Law we just need A gut check. Are we going to exist as American Society, and demand that immigrants follow our rules and laws. The alternative is that we become something else, where acheivement means nothing; and we hear the phrase "Who is John Galt".
My Starting point(only mine):
1st Every illegal has broken a law to get here and that is obvious to everyone. That law not being a felony I think that can be forgiven if there is a touchback provision if they are presently employed, not employed go home and stay. Not everyone will agree but at least it should be the first step after border and employer enforcement. Felons should not be included in this group. This is for the law abiding once they get here crowd. If you break into our country and then go on a crime spree of any kind then you must go. This is the part of protecting Americans that politicians don’t seem to get. We can forgive the minor crimes but a felony is not forgivable because we don’t forgive Americans felony’s, not easily anyways, so why would we give to illegal’s what we don’t extend to our fellow countrymen. As a convicted felon this would piss me off to no end.
2nd Z visas must be renewable twice and no more. You are either only working here and for no longer then 8 years total or you apply for citizenship and then you will be required to go home and file for a greencard like any legal immigrant. No specials for breaking into our country. That pathway to citizenship must be very difficult and must be done with the knowledge of no automatic family migration. No job, you must go. No government handouts unless you are a citizen. Anchor babies should only get benefits, not whole families because of 1 anchor baby. Also you must show you were here before 9-11-01 to be eligible for citizenship. This must be proof from an American company or landlord and no family vouchers or anyone from another country.
3rd Criminal and Health background checks must be passed before any temporary visa is awarded. I mean a very difficult one too. No 24 hours or its free BS. That is not doable and it is painfully obvious this is a sellout by our politicians if they keep this in the bill. Everyone knows it is unworkable. It should take as long as it takes and no waivers. I am talking blood tests and fingerprints and home country legal background checks. There should be a 60 day period for all paperwork to be turned in and anyone who does not do so should be deported.
4th Enforce our borders and employer verifications before anything else happens.
This became an issue because welfare and the infrastructure that supports us is being run down exceedingly fast. Nothing in the present bill will change those facts either. We cannot afford for 12-20 million to be here in the first place. Remove about half of them and we can work it out. We cannot accept 20 million people and our hospitals and welfare are showing the strain. Chain migration from them is a non-starter. We can accept about 5 million people if they are all employed but these numbers are staggering as is at 12-20 million. Chain migration is laughable at this level. We are talking anywhere from 40-120 million people here in the next decade. That is not reasonable for our kids to deal with. Let’s handle this the right way. Let’s look at what won’t raise taxes on the American citizens and what we can do without tearing at the fabric of America.
This should be what we as Americans want. Not what a bunch of illegal’s want. Listen to the people and I am sure we can come to a quick solution. Keep this in the back office behind closed doors and I am sure this will start a revolution that no politician wants. In this plan the only people deported are the ones we really don’t want here anyways. It should at least be considered. As I said it won’t placate all the populace but it will bring in a large majority.
Thank You,
DallasLarry
We know from painful experience that all your tough talk about border security and enforcement is just a cover for your real goal...which is an endless supply of cheap labor for your corporate benefactors. What that means is that big business and large farmers get cheap labor, while taxpayers are stuck with the tremendous social costs for your open borders policy.
You are correct that border security alone won't entirely solve the problem, but it will reduce it substantially. Why does strict border enforcement, which everyone believes is necessary, have to be held hostage to amnesty and an extravagent guest worker program? The answer, of course, is that amnesty and a guest worker program are your real goals.
Moreover, your continued support of rewards for those who sucessfully sneak into the country undermines our security efforts and provides every incentive for those illegals who are apprehended to just try again.
In order to solve the problem of illegal immigration we don't need a "comprehensive" scheme, nor do we need 400 pages of legalese drafted by Ted Kennedy's staff in cooperation with La Raza. In fact, the following common sense approach will work quite nicely:
1. Fully fund and build a 700 mile physical barrier. You remember that fence you voted for last year, don't you Congressman? By the way, a "virtual fence" won't cut it. When they tear down the physical fence around the White House, then you can talk to us about the efficacy of a "virtual fence." Supplement the fence with more Border Patrol, the National Guard, and technology.
2. Impose draconian fines and if necessary jail time on employers who hire illegals. Don't tell us you need more laws to accomplish that task. Those laws are already on the books and the Bush administration has begrudgingly started to bring such prosecutions.
3. Require law enforcement around the country to verify, apprehend, and detain those illegals they come into contact with during the course of their duties. For example, if they stop someone for drunk driving and determine he is illegal, they should immediately turn him over to immigration authorities.
4. Withhold federal funds from those municipalities and states that refuse to enforce and respect our immigration laws.
5. Prohibit banks and credit card companies from opening accounts for people who are not here legally.
6. Impose a tax or surcharge on wire transfers or remittances back to Mexico, or Guatemala, or Russia or anywhere else.
In about 5 years after all of the above are fully accomplished, then we can discuss the status of those "living in the shadows."
1. They must be required to register.
2. We will analyze each case on an idividual basis to determine whether they serve the best interests of this country and are worthy of being placed on a road to citizenship. If that takes 20 years, so be it.
3. A path to citizenship should only be extended to those who have no criminal record whatsoever, no felonies, no DUIs, no identity theft, etc.
4. They must demonstrate that they have lived here for 10 years and are an asset to their communities, i.e. home ownership, fluent in English, etc.
5. If they are illegal they have no right to bring any family members into the country. They made the decision to come illegally. If they miss their family, they are free to return home anytime they like.
Finally, we don't need a guest worker program of any sort. We already have 12 to 20 million "guests" driving down wages for Americans. That is enough.
If this proposal sounds familiar Congressman, much of it comes from the Sensenbrenner plan. Of course, I don't expect you to support my plan, because it makes too much sense and apparently wouldn't serve your real interests.
Frank Katz
We have 'em, and they even apply to Congresskritters. I'm thinking the ones that go "No personal attacks" and "No harassment or demonization of a particular individual", for those playing at home.
I'd rather not intervene in this thread, so don't make me, 'kay?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
When you write:
Let me be clear - I am not talking about Redstaters, but those who take an intellectually dishonest position (in my opinion) by proposing immigration "reform" that doesn't address economic, manpower, or legal problems associated with illegals currently here
you impugn tens of millions of others not associated with RedState who also have correctly concluded the Administration will not implement any enforcement measures that Congress includes in a comprehensive bill.
These people are not vacuous but painfully aware of what has transpired in the past and how wrectchedly bad this legislation was (I submit worse than 1986 when the GOP was a true minority party). Congress and the White House is faced with a stark choice: does it want to secure the border and start enforcement before it adjusts status, or simply grant probationary Z Visas on promises of future good works? It can take either approach, but I can assure you the GOP will implode and atomize in ways you cannot imagine if it does the former. And franky, the party's death will be richly deserved if it has become that patronizing and out of touch.
Thank you for hearing us out. I can assure you there are millions of others not associated with this website who either have walked or plan to do so. Please don't pull the trigger on our party and our nation's future.
I don't have a big problem with eventual amnesty or increased legal immigration. In fact, immigration - legal or illegal - is not high on my list of concerns. However, I have great sympathy with those who are concerned. After the 1986 boondoggle, I have no trust that the federal government will enforce border security first no matter what magic triggers they put into any law. Frankly, I just do not see why we need comprehensive immigration reform. I don't see any big need to deal with the current 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Don't cry to me about their situation. They knew what they were getting into. I am not in a big hurry to deport them nor am I in a hurry to recognize them. As long as they keep out of trouble, they can stay but they have no right to demand anything. Once the border is secure then we can talk. Until then, what is the big deal?
They keep asking "how do you solve the problem?"
SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST!!!!
ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS.
NO PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. DEPORT THEM ONE BY ONE.
You're welcome.
Thanks for taking the time to post here.
As bad as the status quo is, Z-visas and blanket defacto legal amnesty is worse than the status quo.
If Congress under either party, and if the WH, under either party, had shown an aptitude and commitment for securing the borders and enforcing the immigration laws on the books, it would be reasonable to discuss this under your proposed rules.
Sadly, that is not the case. Instead, it would seem that we are in effect being held hostage: If we accept a badly written, undisclosed, back room deal update of immigration, then we might get some increased border security and we might see the laws enforced.
That is not acceptable.
And we should not have to propose something 'better' to avoid something worse.
I would like to think that Congress and the Administration would agree that modern border security merits implementation on its own merits, but daly this does not seem to be the case.
I would like to think that the Congress would demand, and the Executive branch carry out, enforcement of the law on its own merits.
Sadly, this does not seem to be the case.
I am married to woman who took the time and paid the money to be a legal immigrant to this country from Latin America. She is very unimpressed at how this country is enforcing its immigration laws. I have lived in Mexico. I can assure you that Mexcio has no problem strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
I wish that the US government could care for America and its laws even half as much as Mexico cares for theirs.
I wish the Political Party I have voted for on straight ticket basis for over 30 years would have leaders committed to do just this.
What are the immigration policies of other countries? Without knowing much I bet they are much tougher. Anyone have a link to a site with summary info?
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
> we probably cannot make 12-20 million illegal immigrants magically disappear
Proponents of amnesty say that we can't deport them, so we have to legalize them. There is a third choice. Leave them in limbo, or benign neglect. If we stop future illegal immigration then eventually the past illegal immigrants will leave or die off.
Go ahead with the two other things you say people agree on: 1) secure the borders; 2) make legal immigration easier - especially for highly skilled, english-speaking people who will add to our economy. But DON'T legalize what was illegal.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Yes, immigration is now among the unsolvable problems, yet another third rail, that must not touched!
It is so sad that the whiners forget that we are a Representative Republic. I didn't elect anyone here as my Representative. Most Americans do want something done. The extremists in both parties are the ones getting all the attention because they have the blogs and radio talk shows.
There is no desire for a sensible solution, as one can see in most of the comments here.
I thank you for your work in government and your attempt to find a solution to the enormous problems that face us.
___________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
your echo chamber, however since no one here stated they were elected just that they do not agree with this bill that particular statement is neither here nor there. We are adamant that a lot of us are the grassroots and we are the ones who either will or won't donate, will or won't go door to door, will or won't work the phones and that is how you all get elected, no? Comprehensive is securing the border and again once that has been proven I think the going thought is 18 months then the Z-viza can kick in, why does it have to kick in immediately upon signing of the bill? so extreme we are not however untrusting we are.
Call and write your own Congressmen and Senators. Don't speak for me! That is how our system is supposed to work. Not a few bullying the many.
___________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
as well I will call and fax every Senator and Congressperson, why as a matter of fact I have spent a good deal of money to ensure that each and every one of them rec'd a fax from me, that is how I see my role and I believe the majority of Americans and not the bullying few should be heard.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_16_believe_...
It's just that this bill won't solve it. It will make it worse. And that is not "sensible".
Also notice that no one here has stolen your screen name. No one claims to speak for you. We all speak for ourselves, and I have certainly spoken to my representative. And my money is now going to my kids 529 plan and my 401(k) instead of campaign committees on the Republican side.
And for the record, I am not a whiner. I am just a guy that lives with the effects of illegal immigration every single day. This issue happens to matter to me.
"that must not be touched."
___________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
I couldn't have said it better. Excellent post.
Fair enough. But the Congressman did impugn the motives of some of us in his initial post. While my tone was caustic, it was not meant to harass nor was it disimilar in tone from other posts on this thread. More importantly, I think I raised fair facts and arguments and would love a response.
Frank Katz
And some of you ('you' being defined as 'the class of people opposing the recent immigration reform bill') deserve to have said motives impunged. If you're not one of those people - and you're still, you know, here, which is diagnostic - then don't take it personally. Or at least don't take it personally enough to offer the insult direct in response.
No huhu otherwise.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
To ask if this Congressman has accepted money from individuals and corporations that profit from Illegal Aliens? Has he accepted money from First Data Corporation? Has he accepted money from Western Union? Has he accepted money from Bank of America and Wells Fargo? Has he then voted on laws that directly affect these corporations? If he has then his motivation in supporting illegal aliens is suspect. So Moe can I ask the question? Since I obviously have to clear it through you!
Second: consult the Posting Rules. Subject to their restrictions, ask whatever questions that you like.
Grok?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I ended up with it in a crossword puzzle as a synonym for "empathize." I just figured I made a mistake, but now I see it in your note.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
is from Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land".
Also, referencing Stranger, Jon Lovitz wore a shirt with "I Grok Spock" in the famous "Get A Life" sketch on SNL.
to have a strange question unrelated to politics and see another unrelated reference to it on Redstate a few days later?
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
To get. To savvy. To understand intuitively. See Wikipedia's entry.
-
NARF
grok: /grok/, /grohk/, vt.
[common; from the novel Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert A. Heinlein, where it is a Martian word meaning literally ‘to drink’ and metaphorically ‘to be one with’] The emphatic form is grok in fullness.
1. To understand. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge. When you claim to ‘grok’ some knowledge or technique, you are asserting that you have not merely learned it in a detached instrumental way but that it has become part of you, part of your identity. For example, to say that you “know” LISP is simply to assert that you can code in it if necessary — but to say you “grok” LISP is to claim that you have deeply entered the world-view and spirit of the language, with the implication that it has transformed your view of programming.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Or "grokking," however it might be spelled.
It's heck to be unsure of a word and not have the puzzle key available.
"Grok" was indeed the correct word and I can throw the puzzle away, but remember the clue.
I used to read a lot of SF, but I never read that classic (that I remember, anyway) even though Heinlein was one of my favorites.
Old age is when you trade "Rock Around the Clock" for a "Walk Around the Block."
But strangely, enchantingly........broadened, and I don't mean from too many fly-by's at the donut shop. Horizons opened up, kind of a 'hills are alive with the sound of music' moment.
I may be starting to grok on this grok thing.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
We got porous borders, Democracy, wonderful institutions, generous and welcoming folks, and a statue in New York Harbor that says everyone can come on in! Legally- I know.
The illegals( Mexico, Central America and points South as well as non-river crossing immigrants fro Europe and the Mid East not to mention Asia), but we are speaking largely about Mexican illegals, want a better life, work & etc. Si Su Puede, Amigos!
Now we have alot of PO'd American citizens - I ain't one because I suspect that many of my cousins might have been 'two-boat Irish' back in the 20's, 30's, 40' 50's - they ain't coming over any more - who want to do a Jerry Bruckheimer on all these people and sticker every bumber on every make and model under the year 1998.
John McCain has a pretty good plan and the other chaps running against will use this Great American Time-out on Immgrantion to co-opt most of what he has worked on.
Let's identify the illegals, round up the bad guys, issue SS- and Tax identification on the folks who make great Americans, scale back on the Entitlements ( eliminate the ususal goof-ball ones and keep the common sense ones - there that's the hot-button) and make a clear path to citizenship.
Let's get back to being great Americans the neighbors are watch - Hey, it was my illegal Irish cousins sending back home that staightened out the economy in Ireland - like I said they ai't coming any more.
Pat Hickey
These paragraphs caught my attention…
"John McCain has a pretty good plan and the other chaps running against will use this Great American Time-out on Immgrantion to co-opt most of what he has worked on.
Let's identify the illegals, round up the bad guys, issue SS- and Tax identification on the folks who make great Americans, scale back on the Entitlements ( eliminate the ususal goof-ball ones and keep the common sense ones - there that's the hot-button) and make a clear path to citizenship."
Point by point…
Let’s identify the illegal’s – I believe they get to self identify; they can remain in the “shadows” if they wish. Granted you could say “Hey but what about the enhanced enforcement” to wit I say what about the non-enforcement now?
Round up the bad guys – Actually the bill is A-OK with adding felons to the list of new citizens. Gang members are Ok too, if someone was a member of MS-13 all they would have to say “I’ll be good now” and their a new citizen!
Scale back on the Entitlements – Actually I believe the plan lards on the entitlements. They get everything you get plus tax exemption. I’d love that deal myself!
If I am incorrect, please feel free to explain the error of my ways, perhaps other Red Staters can expand on my thoughts.
venture than to discuss the immigration bill here at Redstate.
I applaud your heroics but question your sanity for that choice since you have been reading here recently.
A few points if I might...
Clearly there is a great deal of angst over the perception that there is currently no enforcement of established law.
You may take it for granted that we are fully informed on this subject since clearly it's a source of great animosity toward those that have been elected to serve in Washington.
We are not fully informed on these issues, I assure you, not only that though, I suggest that we are very uninformed.
Surely there must be a way to do a better job of this, someone needs to get out in front of this and clearly articulate what is and has been achieved over the recent years concerning this.
If you want a bill in any way shape or form, education will be your friend. Many will/have contend[ed] that the lack of this data, or it's being loudly disseminated, equals a lack thereof.
You see it over and over in this thread, the talk of enforcing existing law and how it's not being done in any way shape or form. From my personal research I have found a good deal of factual evidence that the administration is active in this regard but the "perception", as you can clearly see, is quite contrary.
This is the "trust but verify" issue, the absolute lack of trust could be based on a false perception, if it is, then the education effort would be well worth your, the administrations or any member of congress that hopes for comprehensive immigration reform.
Then if possible, if it clearly articulated how the provisions of the reform package will address the gaps in current law and provide better enforcement tools for this purpose.
If you were to then provide, or to cause to happen, some clear no nonsense information about "the fence".
Again, you can see from this thread that many people are unaware of all the provisions that were part and parcel of the fence bill last year and the followup revisions to it.
It would be beneficial if it was clearly articulated what progress has been made, in terms of legal hurdles, groundwork preparation and then some outline of a time line, in realistic fashion, of what we can expect in terms of progress.
I believe if these two objectives could be dealt with you might find more people on your side if the case was made that enforcement is/has been ongoing and then some straight talk on the fence.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
This Administration may attempt to do a dog and pony show of enforcement however again new media is on the tail of that lie. I can read every day about catch and release however someone who really watches is Malkin http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/005037.htm
I appreciate that you think we need to be educated strangeguy however I would disagree with you, we are educated and that is dangerous to politicians who see us a ignorant, those days are gone my friend I thought they'd never end:)
This just in from Michelle Malkin's blog:
Police gagged by day laborers
By Michelle Malkin · June 11, 2007 05:16 PM
File this under Sanctuary Nation: Open-borders activists sued the Mamaroneck, NY, police to prevent them from inquiring about the immigration status of "undocumented" day laborers. Not only did the open-borders crowd win the lawsuit gagging police, but the federal judge in the case, Colleen McMahon, also ordered the village to pay more than half a million dollars of the workers' legal fees. WCBS-TV reports that the ruling has far-reaching implications (hat tip: Noam Askew and reader Mark R.):
Strange guy, you are 100% CORRECT!!!!
Perception vs. reality is an issue of education indeed. What may (or may not) shock, is that there are far too many members of Congress who are misinformed.
Now, that is not to say someone's belief is wrong. Believing we should enforce our laws is absolutley correct. But, as you have said, the reality is, the problem isn't enforcement, as it is manpower, technology, etc. I recently visited the Yuma Sector of the border with Mike Pence and Ben Nelson. They have cut border incursions in half due to the new fence and some monitoring technology. So the issue is not "enforce the law" - it is more, what resrouces do we need to enforce the law to drop border incursions to zero.
We cannot simply say enforce the law. When two border partrol agents are asked to stop 100 people running across the border, telling them to enforce the law is like throwing 100 oranges in the air and telling them to juggle.
I am sorry I will say this, but "well said" now Mr. Franklin's quote "well done" must be in our future.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
I would think "enforcing the law" means the appropriate agencies getting the appropriate tools and resources to do the job effectively.
It's the folks in Washington who are responsible for appropriating the funds. I am confident the border patrol will readily do their job. "Enforcement" for purposes of Washington means getting off your collective duffs, appropriate the necessary money/tools/personnel to get the job done.
If government cannot or is unwilling to figure out what we need to effectively reduce illegal immigration then c'mon home, we'll get someone else who can.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
If it were simply a matter of numbers, there are not too many who would quibble.
What myself and others are genuinely trying to accomplish is to figure out exactly what we need.
But, and I CANNOT stress this enough, I have to make sure 61 Senators agree and 217 other members of the House to agree, then get the President to agree. I don't say this to whine or complain, but what it means is I am going to have to accept a few things I don't like to get things I do like.
Similarly, everyone who writes here, the thoughtful to the caustic, are going to have to accept that they are not going to see everything they want as policy, but they have to prioritize and let's work to make sure our top few priorities are made a reality.
So everyone can talk about replacing people (and sometimes that is the way to go), but those who are most strident and unbending, in this body, are not invited to the table. That is reality in Congress or in Business (and yes, I have been in both). For example, If you want a seat at the table, maintain your principles (like not rewarding illegal behavior), but be flexible on the punishment.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
I can appreciate that. I know it isn't easy gaining some support there. I believe this immigration situation plainly shows Washington being stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are forces at work all pulling in different directions. Corporate lobby, politicians looking for new voters, and American citizens. On other issues there is enough overlap so they can be compromised. However it is not the case here. The overwhelming wishes of American citizens should trump the other two forces.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
You mention, "You can't always get what you want". A good theme song. I agree. I bet if you pass a separate bill to secure the border and execute it properly, the American people will be much more flexible with solutions in dealing with "path to citizenship."
The problem is Washington wants everything. They do not want to compromise with the American people on this one. They tried to play games of short debates, streamline the vetting process, call us bigots, all or nothing ploy, as good as you are going to get ploy, all without compromising one bit.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Common Cents, you are right. Washington wants everything. I think the 4 points outlined directly above our thread articulte 4 points that we could all agree on (some on the left would want citizenship, but if it is a worker program and not a register Democrat voter program, they will accept non citizenship).
But you make a great point, that many people are being pulled in different directions, but they are waiting for leadership and a sense of inevitability. Once we start this ball rolling, we will pick up support. The RSC and Blue Dogs Dems and others could start a movement. That movement is in it's infancy, but the actions of you, and others who have posted here, and those who read this and contact their members, not with vitriol, but stern principles, are moving this discussion.
- Rep. Chris Cannon (UT - 03)
You very practically state, we
"are going to have to accept that they are not going to see everything they want as policy, but they have to prioritize and let's work to make sure our top few priorities are made a reality."
Fair enough. As you've probably already figured out, the top priority for almost, if not all, of us is to stop the flow of illegals into the country. Once it is stopped, deal with its effects. At least that way you'll know the extent of the problem you're dealing with; it won't be a continually growing problem.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
but those who are most strident and unbending, in this body, are not invited to the table.
La Raza was at the table, were they not. A group that argues the 'Reconqueror' principle for the return of southwest America to Mexico.
You know really, it doesn't matter if we're at the table. When I brought up the possibility of getting Congress to hear us at work, the general conclusion is that would be impossible, and this immigration business will be handled on the street.
Oh, the following is really intended as a favor for you, Sir. You may not like reading it. When you throw out phrases like you did about Americans being incapable of building houses, we think of people we know like my friend Dick who was once squarely in the middle of the middle class working as a finish carpentry contractor, with 5 or 6 decently paid employees. As you say, Americans cannot build houses, not when they need to bid against Mexican crews who live 20 or 30 to an unfinished unit, getting paid survival wages. Dick's crew is gone. Dick changed occupations, financial stress burdened him and his family, and now he works enough to scrape by. His high school graduate sons sit at home idle, also incapable of building American homes. In sum, your rhetoric offends in the deepest and most personal way imaginable.
And IMHO, any legislation you come up with is bound to add misery to the lives of people like Dick. Please just go on vacation.
Let me be thoughtfully caustic. Compromise is surely the game you must play, and I am sure that holding your nose gets tiring after a while. We understand that.
The problem is that the government, particularly as far as enforcement goes, is now considered guilty until proven innocent. The lack of enforcement has led to the problem we face now, and we are able to see and understand that. The pleas for comity and understanding and compromise are falling on deaf ears largely because we have been down that path time and time again in the past six years. Friends have been abandoned, and enemies rewarded. Republican leadership, even the President, have no political capital left among most conservatives. None.
What Ted Kennedy wants is generally not good for America. I don't know what needs to happen in order for everyone to understand that. The fact that any Republican is seriously considering partnering with him, or any of his ideological allies absolutely stuns me. Just turn your back to the mirror and look at the knives that are firmly planted there in order to understand why I feel this way.
What you are going to have to accept is the fact that my money, and my support, and my vote is going away. I am a conservative first, and a Republican second. If you want to compromise, that is fine. Do not expect me to come along. There are some tables at which I would prefer not to be sitting.
Jack said;
What you are going to have to accept is the fact that my money, and my support, and my vote is going away. I am a conservative first, and a Republican second. If you want to compromise, that is fine. Do not expect me to come along. There are some tables at which I would prefer not to be sitting.
To have stuck with us this long is gratifying.
I'm sure you know that there is no way any of us here can lay out "the plan" that will solve everything. The details are tricky, and of course, we don't have all the knowledge to even recognize all the little problems and possible solutions.
That's why we are reduced to our own talking points, because they address the issue at a high level, with the details to be filled in by Congress. At the same time, those high-level talking points set the parameters within which the details should be worked out. Border Security First. Eliminate the "attractive nuisance" of easy illegal employment. Then deal with the millions of illegal residents in a humane way.
A principle I haven't mentioned before is that whatever you do, it must not put the desires of cetain employers who use illegal labor ahead of the good of the American people. It seems to me that the primary "good" of the people is to protect our country, not individuals within it.
You analogize above,
"When two border partrol agents are asked to stop 100 people running across the border, telling them to enforce the law is like throwing 100 oranges in the air and telling them to juggle."
Although Common Cents partially addressed this, I want to add that a secure, physical barrier at the border will either eliminate this problem or make it manageable. It will also increase the effectiveness of our Border Patrol for obvious reasons.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express ourselves to you without questioning our motives or our sanity.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
You are right to say that the Congressman and other representatives should inform us of the specific enforcement measures that have been enacted. However, it is important to note that those on the front line of this illegal invasion, the Border Patrol, unanimously denounced the Senate legislation through their union. For this and a myriad of other reasons, we should be skeptical. I'm not saying the presumption can't be rebutted, but don't hold your breath.
In addition, any legislation (such as the Senate's) that rewards illegal behavior will only encourage more illegal behavior.
Frank Katz
The "education" I referred to, or data would be a better term, has to do with past tense, as in what success has been accomplished over the past years to show credibility that they have been working on the problems that we have been so loudly claiming, have not happened at all.
I have made an attempt over the past two weeks to present data showing that the administration has been active in that arena and it has fallen on deaf ears. As I have said again and again I myself had the same perception, and in the performance of due diligence I found I was in error.
You see it in this thread, we are uninformed, "catch and release" was replaced quite some time ago by Expedited Removal.
I'm disappointed that we are so quick to be tossing around these "known fact" sound bites that make us sound like ignorants.
My point is that if this issue is so huge for us, that we are willing to rant and rave, call our congressmen and women, have newspapers and reporters use our outrage against our President and party, then we should at least have a clue about the current factual state of affairs.
This is not an endorsement of the bill folks, try and get that out of your head.
If this is where we make our stand then we should at least not feed the perceptions that we are a bunch of ignorant, uninformed, fearful, out of touch, fringe element types that can be discarded and rebuffed by anyone willing to do some research.
Take a deep breath and imagine the damage a reporter could do with this thread alone, how we could be portrayed to all of America, if we keep talking about issues that changed two years ago if not longer yet we arrogantly stamp our feet and base our opinions this way.
How can others not see and be mindful of this! BTW "catch and release" is certainly not the only "known fact" being tossed around.
Ever heard the expression "just give them enough rope to hang themselves", I am very mindful of this and I wish we could tone it down to a much less emotional and far more rational discussion.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Illegal immigration is overwhelming the resources of my state, my city, my kid's schools. Right here and right now. Where I live and work and eat. Today. My friends with companies in the construction business are losing tons of work because they refuse to hire illiegals, and do not have the benefit of their cheap labor. My friends that do carpentry and tile and plumbing and HVAC and drywall have seen their wages cut severely because of the influx of illegal immigrants. My children's education is so superficial and worthless that we are very serious about moving. And you know something? I was here first.
"Tone it down", huh? Look at the "data", right? Get a "clue about the current factual state of affairs"?
I am emotional, yes. This issue is huge, yes. But please, please don't lecture me about the current state of affairs with your government supplied data. I know the situation full well, thank you. I have all the clues I need, and I do not give a crap about how someone portrays me.
Other than that, I think we're OK.
Those who have true power are the only loser's in compromise. We control our country, why do we care if Illegals protest for sufferage; when they have selfinflicted their own demise. Do we compromise because our correct view is not accepted? Or do we have the courage to face down true cowardice, "compromise". There are A few of us who beleive in the rule of law, without that there is no base for society.
You Republicans that just want to "get along" dont understand one compromise of the law, compromise's all law. Either we have open borders or we dont. If we dont have open borders, we should build A wall with A mote stocked with Sharks or Pirahnas for 2000 miles. If we do have open Borders we quite the war on terror and Invite every Tom, Dick and Harry from every country to join our new Mosaic of A country.
We can require the government to print all materials in several languages like Farse and Russian. At least that way we bankrupt the country properly in the next 10 years.
There is A right and wrong answer to this question, do we have the fortitude to fight this "Compromise". Or do we roll over like trained dogs, and except lawless behaviour as the standard of the "New Republic".
Representative Cannon,
I - like most of our posters on RS - appreciate the dialouge that you have started here. If only more of our elected officials would talk to their constituents instead of listening to agricultural lobbists and hired consultants we wouldn't be at the point we are now.
I had been a registered Republican since I was 22 years old and have devoted many of those years to working tirelessly to build our party through getting non-voters to register, calling talk radio shows, writing letters to newspapers editors, serving as a poll watcher and volunteering for the GOTV effort on election days. Over the last 8-10 years I have donated to the RNC and been a stalwart member. Almost 3 1/2 weeks ago I quit the party. It was the day after the so called " Grand Bargain " was struck. I just couldn't go on any longer supporting a party that just isn't serious about enforcing established law and playing politics with the issue.
The people in our country illegally are CRIMINALS, plain and simple. They broke the law, and they and the people hiding them and supporting them need to pay for their crimes. I am tired - very tired - of constantly having people make excuses for this bunch. When I hear someone say " Well, those people work hard, " I nearly lose my lunch. You know what, Representative Cannon? I work hard at my job as well. Does that mean I can go rob a bank tomorrow and not go to jail?
When you consider my argument you will see how absurd the excuses made for these non-citizens sound to law abiding, tax paying citizens like me.
I could go on and on, but I think you understand my boiling anger about this issue. If there is a group or even a handful of people in the GOP who still care about the voters they claim to represent, then I suggest they look at these four basic demands of their formerly loyal base. Any deviation from these four, you can forget it.
The four things that Conservatives demand as regards to illegal aliens and our borders.
1) Fully fund and build ALL of the border fence and road barriers mandated by law.
2) Expand the border patrol and give them real power to enforce the laws on the border. Give them teeth and arm them.
3) Put the people hiring illegal aliens IN JAIL and fine them heavily so they won't soon forget. These people are the ones I blame the most for prostituting our culture for the almighty dollar.
4) A temporary worker program that is TEMPORARY and does NOT INCLUDE a path to citizenship. We have a process for citizenship to enter this nation already and don't need to change it for the sake of criminal excuses. Also, no taxpayer benefits should be given to a temporary worker unless those workers are taxed like every other working American.
Read them, remember them and take them to heart Representative Cannon. There will be no compromise on these specific demands.
I would strongly urge you also to throw your support behind Representative Mike Pence and Senator Kay-Baily Hutchinson's immigration plan. It addresses all four of the demands I just outlined. Their plan is one that I and many like me could support.
Thank you again for your time and attention. We hope and pray you guys do the right thing by America. Put us first, not law breaking non-citizens.
Im with you On your points Haley:
Good is the new Bad, White is the new black. What is said and repeated will only be spun. People would rather shop at the mall than try to understand how their country as they know it is being raped.
Just look at Mit Romney, "let me preface this by saying Im Mormon" this guy is two faced. When he was running for governer of Mass he was on the record as Pro-choice, now hes Pro-life? As A Mormon this Guy and Harry Ried disgust me, Why? Because they will do anything to achieve their ambition's. How does this relate to Haystack's post? My observation Amongst Mormons is they love Mit despite his blatant Hypocrisy, which leads to one of two conclusions. Either 1.We dont care if some one has shady character, so long as they look the part. 2. They are blissfully ignorant, because its to inconvenient to learn the truth about what our politicians say and do.
My opinion Apathy will be the undoing of this nation. We will continue to speculate on "Hale Mary" solutions while we squander our fortunes fighting what should be no brainer Issues. The solution is creating A DMZ on our southern border, repleat with land mines and machinegun nests. Have no doubt this is A hostile invasion. Want proof of an invasion, check the pics on this site. http://www.jonkylisaliar.blogspot.com/
You tend to lace your comments with an excessive amount of off-topic ad hominem statements that border on bigotry. Please tone it down and keep more to the topic of the post. Anger needs to be productively channeled to be effective.
Wow! You are what’s wrong with the Republican party. You have bought into the entire ideology of left-wing guilt and are now trying to integrate your limp-wristed philosophies into our Grand Old Party. You are worried about me being to angry? I am not angry enough! We are all not angry enough! Our party is losing its effectiveness from the inside. We are being pacified into inaction by weak willed individuals like yourself. To afraid to talk about sensitive issues because we are terrified of being cast as bigots. We are losing this political and moral war because the left has nullified our only weapon, righteous anger at injustice, hypocrisy, and illogical thought. It is amazing that as a nation we are held hostage by moral fairies like yourself. In 1943 we would have just taken you out back and beaten you with a hose. I will end my comments with another off topic ad hominem statement: you're an idiot.
Note tense.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Hi-
Passing through and wanted to clarify two things.
First: someone questioned the true diversity of opinions on Congressman Cannon's Advisory Committee.
Note that in addition to the varying interests laid out, others were asked to be on the committee, but they weren't able to attend the meetings; and thus, didn't make it onto the list. More importantly, however, a MINUTEMAN representative attended many of the meetings and engaged us a great deal. We listened, and we thought he also listened to us. Many of the points made in the report are a result of some of this discussion and give and take. But in the end, he refused to put his name on the report. (for what it's worth)
Second: someone found the following lovely sentence: "Border security must come first, yet it cannot be done in isolation of comprehensive reform. It is probably not realistic to doggedly enforce until other measures, such as a guest worker program, have been adopted."
Being the person who wrote that sentence, I say, "Thanks for catching that. I can see how that looks bad, especially from someone who is probably already cynical."
At least the word "doggedly" is there.
Does this make better sense: "It is probably not realistic to [think that border enforcement is going to completely solve our illegal immigration problem unless and] until other measures, such as a guest worker program, have been adopted."
Certainly the sentence was not meant to say that we should simply not enforce at the border and let everyone come in until we get a guest worker program.
I agree that we should drastically improve our border enforcemnt and do it now. No bill needed (as mentioned, bills have already been passed that just need to be implemented).
But if we have to wait until illegal border crossings have reached 0 or near 0 before we can consider any kind of guest worker program -- then, that's what's unrealistic.
Think about it: what are our choices when someone is crossing illegally? (1) we can incarcerate them; (2) we can deport them; or (3) we can shoot them. If we use number 2, they will try again. So -- don't we want to decrease the flow of illegal border crossers (by creating a way for the good and necessary people to come legally). Then we won't be overpopulating our prisons . . . and we won't be shooting people, unless they're "shooting at us."
Sorry for the long post.
tiani
for a response and an opportunity for conversation. Your post isn't too long; the subject is complex in its details.
"It is probably not realistic to {think that border enforcement is going to completely solve our illegal immigration problem unless and} until other measures, such as a guest worker program, have been adopted."
Since the word "completely" is used, I agree. But I don't think anybody has ever claimed that Border Security alone would ever "completely solve our illegal immigration problem." It's just the essential FIRST step.
Yet, if you think about it, the Bill was promoted as being necessary by two contradictory arguments. First, we're told that the Border Security measures it contains will protect our borders, and they must be passed as a matter of Homeland Security. Yet we're also told they won't work unless we give significant concessions, not to the folks who are still outside wanting in, but to the ones who are already here. Now, how does granting concessions to the current illegal residents discourage those left out from coming in?
"I agree that we should drastically improve our border enforcemnt and do it now. No bill needed (as mentioned, bills have already been passed that just need to be implemented)."
That's a positive starting point. Where we might part company is that many of us don't think much else should be done until the enforcement is improved, and to us that means the barrier/wall/fence is well underway or complete--certainly more than 300 miles of "virtual" fence. Until that time, current enforcement measures should continue, and all talk of "other measures, such as a guest worker program" should be held in abeyance--as a sign of good faith by the Congress and to eliminate the "attraction" that a publicly announced "non-deportation" plan would create. Perhaps you can understand this point and agree.
"But if we have to wait until illegal border crossings have reached 0 or near 0 before we can consider any kind of guest worker program -- then, that's what's unrealistic."
I have never, ever, seen a report of any responsible Border Security advocate insisting that illegal crossing reach zero before those other measures come under consideration. That is a red herring tossed out by the folks who want to cut off debate and approve that whole Immigration Fiasco Bill. We want the physical measures in place, because they will work even without the other stuff.
As far as counting "crossers," it might be a good thing, but since we really don't know how many are crossing now, we can never know how many are "reduced." No. Get the Border Security measures in place first, and make sure they are being monitored and made effective. Then, deal with the illegal residents.
"what are our choices when someone is crossing illegally? (1) we can incarcerate them; (2) we can deport them; or (3) we can shoot them. If we use number 2, they will try again. So -- don't we want to decrease the flow of illegal border crossers (by creating a way for the good and necessary people to come legally)."
In response, I have a two-part comment.
Part one: I have no problem with eventually "creating a way for the good and necessary people to come legally," after the border is really secure.
Part two: You've created a false "trichotomy." There is a fourth choice: Build a barrier that will keep them from entering (in most cases) in the first place, and that will (in all cases) make if much harder for them to enter and easier for us to detect and turn back.
"we won't be shooting people, unless they're 'shooting at us.'"
This may be just an aside on your part, but I have to ask, what if they are carrying weapons, although not "shooting at us"? Doesn't this effectively constitute an armed invasion of the country? Why do we have to "not shoot"? Maybe that's a question for an international law expert.
Of all your comments, which I appreciate very much, the one that troubles me most is the "three choice trichotomy," because it illustrates perfectly the big-picture problem I have with the details of the proposed Bill. They seem to have been decided after consultation among a group of people who all had the same outlook on the situation. Nobody seems to have been there who was participating from the standpoint that a "comprehensive" solution might not be the best solution, let alone might be counterproductive as part of the intital solution. (This is in no way a criticism of Rep. Cannon's advisory group--I have no knowledge about what you did.) The Senate's insistence on a bill setting up a "path to citizenship" which favors illegal residents over the folks waiting oversease, and which allows illegal residents to stay for years after only a cursory background check, told me that they were interested in a differrent agenda than simply solving the illegal immigration problem.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I was the one who posted the link to your committee report. Among other things, I found the contrast between its actual composition and the way Rep Cannon described it to be a little odd.
As for the actual contents of the report and its recommendations, I disagree with them.
The underlying assumption of the entire thing is that immigration into the US is a positive good and should be encouraged, in fact that immigration is "neccessary" as you say here.
This is not a conclusion which the committee members derive based on careful examination of data and rigorous use of logic. It is an axiom, the underlying starting point of everything that follows.
I belive it to be a flawed axiom, and If you wish I'd be happy to tell you why.
Does this make better sense: "It is probably not realistic to [think that border enforcement is going to completely solve our illegal immigration problem unless and] until other measures, such as a guest worker program, have been adopted."
I'm familiar with this line of argument. It says that the number of immigrants into the US is fixed by factors beyond the control of any mortals, and that the only question before us is whether the immigration will be legal or illegal.
This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". You ask everyone to accept from the outset your own view of the very point under discussion.
The fact is that every other country on earth does a better job of controlling who enters and who leaves than does the United States. This is true for wealthy countries such as Switzerland and for poorer countries such as Mexico. I won't accept being told that the United States cannot accomplish what every other country can manage, and what the United States itself used to be able to do fairly successfully.
I appreciate your input, but so far you have only provided your opinions and not the reasoning behind them.
...I am the one who picked on your sentence:
"Border security must come first, yet it cannot be done in isolation of comprehensive reform. It is probably not realistic to doggedly enforce until other measures, such as a guest worker program, have been adopted."
And even after you restate it as:
"It is probably not realistic to [think that border enforcement is going to completely solve our illegal immigration problem unless and] until other measures, such as a guest worker program, have been adopted."
I still have the same question - why is it "not realistic" to implement enforcement until "other measures" are in place? Why does enforcement predicate any other actions? There seems to be some unspoken justification within the CIR crowd that requires this, and I fail to see what it is.
Most of us here are of the "enforcement first" ilk. And I agree with flagstaff - we're not saying that crossings need to be reduced to zero. But surely someone can come up with an acceptable "leakage rate." It's not zero, and I'm sure there are people smart enough to figure out what the crossing rate is today and set some sort of > zero (shudder) benchmark to say "OK, we've done a pretty good job, now let's work on some way to fix the rest"
And per your last paragraph, wrt. what to do with the crossers...you say that those who are deported would just come back. Well, that's where the rest of the enforcement equation needs to kick in - make a return unappealing - make it so miserable for an illegal to be here that they don't want to come back. Ensure that they cannot take advantage of ANY social services in the U.S. (drivers licenses, public schooling, healthcare, etc.). And finally, make it VERY difficult for them to find employment by severe punishments to employers who hire illegals - eliminate "sanctuary cities" (thank you, Rep. Tancredo), establish tamper-proof IDs and better SSN checking (one of the better parts of the current CIR bill) and issue extremely steep fines (ie. "put them out of business fines") to employers who violate the law by continuing to hire them.
Well, I really thought I was just passing through, but since you all have engaged me . . .
First: let's make clear that favoring comprehensive reform need not be synonymous with anti-enforcement or pro-amnesty (I am neither). Nor do I support the current Senate bill (which, technically, using Webster's definition, is not amnesty, but wrongly rewards illegal behavior and fails to really solve the problem).
For those who are in the "enforcement first" crowd, our views are probably closer than you might think. I think comprehensive reform must come in steps, real measured steps. So long as we're not trying to get to 0 or near 0 through border enforcement before taking any other steps, then we might be able to work together.
As to bs's comment about the need to make it difficult for illegals so they won't come back -- you're right! Remember, my sentence didn't say that it was unrealistic to think that ENFORCEMENT on it's own would solve the illegal immigration problem, just unrealistic that BORDER enforcement on its own would.
Flagstaff says I laid out a false trichotomy - and he offered the fourth option of building a real barrier. But my trichotomy holds with or without the barrier. Even as you admitted, it will mostly just slow people down. It won't stop them completely. Does anyone argue in favor of a wall or a fence with no guards or border patrol? I didn't think so. Why? Because people will still come and the guards are still faced with the trichotomy of what to do when those people come.
So we get back to bs's comment on enforcing other laws so they won't come. Well, I agree that it's the enforcement of those other laws that will ultimately solve our illegal immigration problem: heavy fines and penalties on employers, no social services, tamper proof IDs and SSN# checks, etc. etc.
Which then brings us back to Jon's comment. Jon: are you saying, then, that you are of the ENFORCEMENT ONLY variety, and not just Enforcment FIRST? Do you think LEGAL immigration is bad for our country? Do you favor Buchanan and Tancredo's moratorium? If so, do you favor a lifetime moratorium, or just a certain number of years?
You said the report's general stance that LEGAL immigration is good for our country was on a sandy foundation. Granted, we didn't spend pages in our relatively short report on this. And this could and should be fleshed out a lot more.
But isn't it somewhat self-evident that when we have an economy where we know we have 12 - 20 million illegal immigrants and average unemployment is still at 4.5% (2.5% in my state), then it would be irresponsible to get everyone out through attrition, without providing a LEGAL and PROPER way to fill in the big GAP that would be left in our workforce?
As I said in a recent editorial that wasn't published, "It would be fine for people to claim they support legal immigration while calling upon illegal aliens to go home and get in line if (1) there was a real line they could get in; or if (2) our economy could handle losing these people for a good long while. But if we support legal immigration we must also support REAL immigration reform that creates a realistic line people can use to do it the right way."
I recognize that many of the 12-20 million do not have jobs. And nobody should be able to be here without a job (or dependents supported by those who have a job). Nor should they be able to be here if they fail a background or medical check. Nor should they be able to take government services. Nor should the jobs be at lower than normal wages, replacing Americans.
The program should be for non-green card (temporary) workers. It should not lead to automatic green cards. Only those who follow the law and prove over time a real desire and ability to positively assimilate into our society should be able to get greeen cards. [And I would even go so far as to say that the Supreme Court should revisit birthright citizenship so as not to include in the future the children of illegal immigrants, foreign diplomats, students, temporary workers, etc. . . . anyone but permanent residents and citizens].
too long this time for sure,
tiani
So long as we're not trying to get to 0 or near 0 through border enforcement before taking any other steps, then we might be able to work together.
I don't think anyone realistically believes we can totally eliminate illegal immigration. Our borders are too vast and our coasts to indefensible for that. However, a porous border with no serious attempt at enforcement (what we have now) is unacceptable.
Just a small nit-pick: You say,
"Even as you admitted, it will mostly just slow people down. It won't stop them completely. Does anyone argue in favor of a wall or a fence with no guards or border patrol? I didn't think so. Why? Because people will still come and the guards are still faced with the trichotomy of what to do when those people come."
You still misunderstand--perhaps it's my fault. As I said, "Build a barrier that will keep them from entering (in most cases) in the first place, and that will (in all cases) make if much harder for them to enter and easier for us to detect and turn back."
We aren't talking about a 6-foot-high chain-link fence here, but a real barrier, similar to what they now have in San Diego and in Israel. They work, and few penetrate them, if any. They do stop many people, completely. The very fact that they exist discourages many from even trying to get through, and the ones that do try choose another way.
We will then have a situation where the numbers our BP agents have to deal with is suddenly manageable. Most don't get through, so your three choices can be properly made. Lower numbers mean that jail is a real option. Harder to get back again means deportation can work. And gunplay can be reserved for drug smugglers once Campion and Ramos are released. The ones that never get into the country are the ones we don't have to deal with.
Furthermore, I never even implied that this would work with no border guards. but it will take fewer guards to do a better job than we have going for us now. And I have no problem at all with interior enforcement to dry up the attractiveness of illegal jobs, both during barrier construction and during the post-border-security shaking-out period.
You added,
"It would be fine for people to claim they support legal immigration while calling upon illegal aliens to go home and get in line if (1) there was a real line they could get in; or if (2) our economy could handle losing these people for a good long while. But if we support legal immigration we must also support REAL immigration reform that creates a realistic line people can use to do it the right way."
That's fine. It just doesn't have to be part of the initial legislation, because we don't actually have to start trying to send people home immediately. If they're here and behaving like good citizens, don't bother them. Address their problems when the inflow is essentially stopped.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I have to ask the following:
Don't these two comments directly contradict each other?
"And I have no problem at all with interior enforcement to dry up the attractiveness of illegal jobs, both during barrier construction and during the post-border-security shaking-out period."
"That's fine. It just doesn't have to be part of the initial legislation, because we don't actually have to start trying to send people home immediately. If they're here and behaving like good citizens, don't bother them. Address their problems when the inflow is essentially stopped."
My fear is that if it isn't addressed the right way initially, it will be addressed the wrong way. People want to see the laws enforced, and thus they will start enforcing them in the interior without correcting the very broken system that has brought us to the point we're at. That will not only amount to arbitrary and capricious enforcemnt, but it will destroy our economy. Let's fix the laws asap, so they can be enforced strongly and consistently across the board.
Like I've mentioned before, I favor the approach of fixing the laws so the "good and necessary" people have a way to come. We direct those who are currently here illegally to take that route, thus allowing the "good and necessary" among them to get on a path to temporary legalization for work purposes (not an automatic path to citizenship). These new temporary visas (that are not currently or realistically available as part of our legal system) would only be available at U.S. consolate offices OUTSIDE of the country, thus keeping people from running the borders to take adavantage.
This would also help us have fewer problems at the border -- since the incentives for the "good and necessary people" would be channeled towards taking a legal approach rather than an illegal approach. Thus, those attempting to cross the border illegally would begin to be primarily those who are "not good or necessary."
A first and necessary step in this whole process would be to get the infrastructure in place: neccessary BORDER personnel and infrastructure; a workable employment verification system; a system of tamperproof IDs, etc.
As for the BARRIER on the border. Yes, I agree we need to get secure and workable border infrastructure in place FIRST. I'm not so sure I agree that that infrastructure should be a BARRIER similar to that in Israel. Isreael is a completely militarized zone; nearly every citizen (male and female) is expected so serve in the military-- and they shoot people (primarily because people attempting to come tend to be terrorists). I think we have other things to do before we can declare we've reached that point. Cost alone tells me we'd better not jump to conclusions here. Our borders are much vaster than Israel's. Israel's nearly 400 mile wall is estimated to reach $1 billion. To create 700 miles of the same will come at an astronomical price (and we will still have much border not covered). Let's just make sure the benefits are well worth all of this cost (and I don't just mean financial cost).
tiani
"Don't these two comments directly contradict each other?"
No, they don't. One says, "It's OK to improve enforcement on employers immediately, too, while the barrier is being built." That effort won't be counterproductive to the intent of the barrier construction. That could include better ID's and harsher penalties against employers, even direct actions against the illegal residents themselves.
The other says, "But it isn't NECESSARY for those steps to be taken, and it isn't necessary that we initially create provisions for the current illegals, whether they be provisions to legalize them or provisions to deport them. If they aren't causing trouble, don't bother them YET." Enacting either of those types of provisions before the barrier is effective will only result in an increased attractiveness to enter (easy-legalization will be available, or more illegal jobs will be available) for those still considering an illegal entry.
Since this is now officially a dead horse, my only further comment is to ask you at what point do you think it would be all right to start using force to defend our borders? We already have at least 12,000,000 invaders in our midst. Had they all shown up at once, we would have recognized it as a real invasion. Since they came piecemeal, we want to pretend it didn't happen or that it isn't so bad. Isn't it about time we got serious about border security, at least serious enough to STOP THE DANG LEAKS? A credible threat of bodily injury or death would do wonders to "concentrate the attention" of the ones who are still just "considering it." Instead, we prosecute the Border Patrol agents who actually treat the illegal crossers as a threat.
An effective barrier will be worth EVERY PENNY we spend on it.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Wow, O.K. and this is helpful how? I appreciate your candor as to how you would like to fix this problem however there is but one fix and that is to follow the laws that are on the books, which of course has never been done. 854 miles of fence not only signed by the President in Oct 06 but a billion dollars has been funded to it and the result? 11 miles in 8 months and the new bill shorted that to 370 miles. The sheer ignorance practiced in Washington where not one of those rich congresspeople will feel the effects of what they are attempting to shove down the throats of my family (we are the middle class) is beyond reproach. My only suggestion is that those who feel it necessary to vote for this legislation and are up for re-election are prepared to sit back and watch someone else do the job that they will not do and by that I mean doing what the American public wants them to do not what they want to do. We vote you all in to represent us not big business, not your personal ideals however wonderful you may think they are and I am sure you all are compassionate however I am asking you and your colleagues to be compassionate to the middle class of America bottom line.