Attention, Immigration Bill Opponents: Your Work is Not Done.
Negative reinforcement alone is not very effective.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I wanted to take this opportunity to expand on some of my thoughts from RedHot last night, and encourage some of the folks who've been irate the last couple of weeks to think about changing gears somewhat. It's important to realize a couple of things: first, Republicans, not Democrats, killed this bill. The 41 Republicans who opposed cloture were enough to defeat it by themselves, and Republicans by a 6:1 ratio opposed the cloture motion. Yes, a handful of Democrats also opposed cloture. Contra Polipundit's assertion, I have not seen a single statement from any of them other than Dorgan that the reason they voted against cloture was because the bill did not provide for sufficient border security; in fact, I've been led to believe that the poison pill for almost all of these Democrats was the Allard amendment which removed the "points" earned for work performed while in the country illegally. In other words, insofar as the Democrats who opposed this bill are concerned, most of them did so because the bill was too tough on immigration. Second, I think that the bill is really dead for good. If the Allard amendment and Dorgan amendment aren't removed from the bill, it'll never pass cloture, and I think the two sides have created enough bad blood during the compromise that I don't think a new one can be forged. So, congratulations to those who vociferously opposed the bill; you've won a victory.
But the job is not done. While Senators don't like hundreds of angry phone calls, necessarily, they can read polls like the ABC/Washington Post poll which indicated that even within the Republican party, there were roughly as many supporters of the bill as there were opponents. And insofar as they are cognizant that a lot of these angry phone calls are coming from out of state, what they really like is knowing why they should care if out-of-state activists are angry. Which is why, after Miers was withdrawn, I sent donations to a couple of key Senators who were up for re-election who had done the right thing. Which was why, after Alito was nominated, I sent a donation to the RNC. Which was why, after Alito was confirmed, I sent some donations to some other key Senators who voted to confirm him (and a donation to Steve Laffey as well). None of these donations were particularly big (as a student, I live in perpetual near-poverty), but they were all accompanied by a note explaining why I was donating, and I like to think that 100 such donations would probably speak as loud (if not louder) than 600 angry phone calls.
So keep that in mind when donating season rolls around. Why not send a small check to John Sununu, Gordon Smith or Susan Collins with a note of thanks? I know, I know, Susan Collins? Hey, you never know what a slough of checks from conservatives expressing their thanks might do to a Senator. Or maybe, given the cloture vote as a whole, you want to send the dreaded NRSC a small amount with a note of thanks attached.
It's something to consider. Working the phones is fine, and sometimes gets the message across, but politicians - especially those facing re-election - are prone to be extra sensitive to their re-election war chest, and those are the things they'll really remember.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | I Think John McCain Did Well At the Debate — Comments (72) »
Attention, Immigration Bill Opponents: Your Work is Not Done. 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
So a clear majority of both the House Republicans and Senate Republicans opposed the immigration bill and were able to kill it, so you feel betrayed.
Classic.
All I can go by is the official position of the GOP.
You do understand what "official position" means, don't you?
Classic.
The mask slips, and he admits all he knows about the GOP is what he sees on a website, and then starts talking down to us.
I bet he loved "What's the matter with Kansas?"
Run like Reagan!
I was talked down to, and thus replied in kind.
And I know a lot more about the GOP than what I see on a website. If you can somehow discern the status of my thoughts about the GOP from a few lines of a post, more power to you. As for the choice of my verbiage ("all I can go by"), I was referring to the immigration bill specifically, and being succinct in the summary of the GOP's position thereof.
Your silly attempt at a Strawman about my reading habits was similarly flawed.
You were talked down to because your reaction is juvenile.
An official position on a website versus the way the GOP actually votes.
By the way, I'm pro-immigration and pro-immigration reform and opposed this bill too.
The official position on the website favoring amnesty is also the position of the President and leader of the party, the RNC, the minority leader of the Senate, and a majority of the Senate Republicans.
Just because you personally draw some line between this amnesty bill and some other comprehensive bill that provides amnesty that you would support, doesn't mean that most of us do. The individual you talked down to is correct. The Republican Party is a pro-amnesty party that refuses to enforce existing immigration laws.
1. Tries to portray anti-illegal immigration people as anti-immigration
2. Pushes Ron Paul out of nowhere
3. Calls for abandonment of the GOP
Given that libertarians tend to be radical open borders types, this set of positions says moby, not Republican dissenter.
Run like Reagan!
Libertarians aren't necessarily "radical open borders types". I am a libertarian, I should know. You just made the same fallacy of composition our mobying friend did: impute the party's position (or, for that matter, the position of Ron Paul) to its members. Granted, the Libertarian Party's leadership is out there in Kooksville somewhere, but those with libertarian views can have wildly divergent viewpoints on border security (there are some that consider it as an essential form of national defense, there are others like myself who thought that the proposed bill was fixable, given enough time, and then there are the open-borders people).
Just thought that distinction might be helpful.
"To all those whom I have not yet offended: Please stand by, and I will work to remedy the situation as soon as possible."
Patiently waiting for a Fred Thompson / John Engler ticket.
I said "tend to be," not "are." If you're going to be over-sensitive and over-generalize what I said, rephrasing what I said won't achieve anything.
Now obviously the Libertarian party doesn't represent all libertarians, but even before that party took its lefty turn it was the party of open borders.
I stand by my statement. Heck, to most mainstream liberals AND conservatives, ANY libertarian-LEANING position is somewhere toward kooksville. I wish I could dig up some of the exchanges I've had on this site opposing a new national ID card on libertarian-leaning grounds, heh.
I assume any libertarian-leaning position is one that would tend to favor rolling back much of the 20th century of government expansion, from the progressives to the New Deal to the Great Society on. Is that a fair assumption?
Run like Reagan!
I've outlined some stuff along those lines in the past in other things I have done, and yes, some of them would be considered definite lunacy by most (give me unfettered will over the government, and we'll be left with five Cabinet-level positions). However, the rollback would not only apply to progressive and leftist expansionism of government, but also to the government-bloating public policy of both Bushes and Nixon (heck, there were even a few things that Reagan did that would probably be targets to be undone, although I'd have to look those up, they aren't as obvious as the aforementioned GOP troika).
I also accept your point in how I'd be portrayed by most moderates and even conservatives... I tend to get whacked on a semi-regular basis for my lack of prioritization on social issues, and I know that, in terms of most economic issues, I'm well to the right of the Republican Party (bordering on anarcho-capitalism at times). That being said, although I support some form of a guest worker system (even a modified version of the original proposed bill may have worked) on economic reasons, business sense also dictates a certain sense to your labor flow, which can only be obtained through taking control of the borders (and expanding visas for skilled workers... why is it that Congress was "this close" to allowing millions of unskilled workers in, while we keep extraordinarily tight limits on H1B visas, meaning that the world's best and brightest, many of whom are educated here, can't work here?). If businesses need more workers, and Mexico can provide them... I have no problem with that. But I won't go as far as to condone lawbreaking just because it provides some very ripe fruit for the unskilled labor market (no pun intended).
"To all those whom I have not yet offended: Please stand by, and I will work to remedy the situation as soon as possible."
Patiently waiting for a Fred Thompson / John Engler ticket.
I'm all in favor of increased legal immigration (if combined with enforcement of our borders and immigration labor laws), but I hate H1B visas. H1Bs aren't at all a pro-market program, in that they lock in employees to work for the company that brought them in.
If H1B holders had mobility in the labor market, it might be different, but as it stands they just skew the market thanks to the lack of flexibility the visa holder has.
But we digress, heh.
Run like Reagan!
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones
A libertarian-leaning solution is any solution that advances the cause of individual liberty. Since the New Deal and the Great Society both greatly reduce individual liberty, libertarian-solutions are in opposition to the New Deals and Great Society (the last time I checked most non-libertarian conservatives also oppose both the New Deals and the Great Society). The border issue is not so cut and dried. A very good case can be made that our de facto open boarders have undermined the natural rights of citizens (life, liberty, and property). In consequence I suspect that a lot of libertarian leaning individuals favor the fence and enforcement of our immigration laws.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Do not give one dime to AMNESTY Mel's RNC. Give your contributions to conservatives of your own choosing. Otherwise, AMNESTY Mel will just funnel funds to the same old same old AMNESTY supporters.
Change the rules.
Why am I down on Mel, before he won the Florida Senate election, Mel was against AMNESTY, and look where he is now on the AMNESTY issue.
We need better.
As reasonable Republican primary challengers pop up, they will get my donations in South Carolina and elsewhere for 2008, 2010, and 2012.
Until the Establishment flotsam is eradicated from the Republican Party, not one dime to the NRSC and NRCC until a purge is complete. My vote won't be automatic any longer, either.
Lost trust is hard to earn back. The post-Bush GOP has a monumental task ahead of it. We need to be smart, of course, but we must clean up the wreckage now.
Give to the people you called, who ended up voting the way you wanted. Don't give tot he NRSC; I agree with that. But show some support for the people who showed some support for you.
Run like Reagan!
And I know what I've said about them in the past, but I'd think that having Republicans in the Senate was a pretty big factor in what happened yesterday.
Also, Dole isn't running the show anymore.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I guess my eyes jumped over that last sentence. Sorry all. Maybe it's an anti-NRSC defense mechanism :-)
Run like Reagan!
It's not going to look good in your primary challenges when you show such a relatively anti-GOP attitude, I think. Look at how much it's helped Rudy Giuliani to be the 'team player' even though his positions are so radcially outside the party mainstream.
Run like Reagan!
Agreed. I tend to think that sending money to specific Senators is probably better than sending it to the NSRC. Isn't Senator "Amnesty" Martinez the guy who's in charge of that, anyway?
The important thing is to let the Senators know why you're doing it. I thanked my Senators today, though one, being a Democrat, didn't get a donation.
I'm also mulling over sending a message to Graham to the effect that I intend to donate to whoever challenges him in the primaries.
Graham must go.
Graham must go.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Ensign runs the NRSC.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
When I saw your subtitle, Leon, I thought this was going to be about policy. But yeah, you're surely right.
Run like Reagan!
You might also consider that Coburn and Enzi didn't vote yesterday. Additionally, the Wyoming seat has yet to be filled, and there's a great possibility that it will be another vote against the bill. Tim Johnson may even end up voting against this, if he gets back to the Senate.
So we may have gotten 53 or 54 votes yesterday, if everyone had been there to vote.
If all we do is pick, pick, pick, but never show any SUPPORT when a BIG BILL goes our way, they'll stop listening to us.
Run like Reagan!
I count Coburn, Enzi and Brownback as "no" votes, since that's what "not voting" effectively means for a cloture vote. Plus, I think all three voted against the original cloture motion from earlier in the day. I'm open to corection on that point.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
1. I didn't try to portray anybody as anything. I was summing up the official position of the GOP, as stated on their own website. Sorry if that summary was a bit terse, but I can't spend hours writing papers on the subject on a chatboard.
2. Ron Paul is not out of "nowhere". You did see him on the presidential debates, didn't you? You did see how he won - by a huge margin - the post-debate polls, didn't you? Try to keep up with current events.
3. ????. You're engaging in mind-reading here. Ask for a refund from whoever you took classes in that from.
I sent the RNC a nice check while they were actively supporting this bill, ironically, in response to a Redstate blog gloating that donations were down because of RNC support for the immigration bill.
It seems to me that the D. campaigns are largely caving to their angry faction. R.'s, to my liking, yet appear to be resisting that and so we are witnessing the desertion of our irate wing.
I wonder what R politicians will do. Will they do like the Dems and move toward the hard-side and vociferous? Or will they move more toward the middle?
I don't like movement either way, but I do believe the measure of my support would be greater in case of a move toward the middle than it would be in case of a move toward the angry right.
John E.
If filibustering a Sen. Kennedy-led bill is an extreme right fringe thing to do, then I don't even want to KNOW what you consider moderate.
Run like Reagan!
I don't think that is what I said Neil.
We each have our own positions on policy, immigration in this case. Political maneuvering is all fair play. The else-I-quit attitude is a kind of arm-twisting that I bemoan. It appears to me that is a very real phenomenon and if so it is going to change the political dynamics.
Oh. And it appears to me that you personally are not in favor of the all-or-nothing approach.
John E.
As a person who was personally supportive of the bill, I was okay with the bill getting killed because it was clearly more important to its opponents than it was to me, and keeping the GOP coalition together is, I think, more important. If, however, after the bill is defeated, the same people who were hopping up and down continue to extend the Hawaiian good luck salute to the GOP after getting their way, my opinion (and the opinion of the people that matter; that is, the people who vote on such things in Congress) is going to change.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I agree with you Leon. Though perhaps I am out ahead of you a bit on judging the outcome. As I have worked my way through the comments during the course of this immigration debate and the last one I have formed a very strong impression of the nature of the feelings/attitudes. I fear that we will only witness the return you are yet holding out hope for if there is some gut-wrenching repentance.
John E.
Your position is not the middle. This bill was opposed by most Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. In fact independents opposed it more than those affiliated with either party. The people supporting this were mostly the corporate right and the cultural left.
I'll make the same challenge to you I make to all the pro-immigration people - put up a blog making the arguments for you position. Nobody has ever taken me up on this yet, but hey, there is always a first time.
"most" constistently means less than half.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.
The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the legislation.
But you go ahead and read the WaPo if it makes you feel better.
Could that be because, as the Gallup poll noted, 60% of people didn't know what the bill contained? Could it have something to do with the fact that the bill is associated with the immensely unpopular Bush? Nah.
I'm sure the discrepancy has nothing to do with the fact that the WaPo poll asked about a bill which it described rather than a bill about which most people have no clue what it contains or even basically does. It's all because the WaPo is a lefitst and unreliable rag, while Gallup is trustworthy because it's allied with the bastion of conservatism CNN, right?
P.S. I've already written such stories and diaries, before your "challenge." I see no need to repeat them.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
as the Gallup poll noted, 60% of people didn't know what the bill contained .... Could it have something to do with the fact that the bill is associated with the immensely unpopular Bush ....
You started out arguing that the bill was popular. You now seem to be conceeding that it is not, but are offering suggestions for why it is not.
I've already written such stories and diaries
The nearest thing I can find to what I'm looking for is this. If you are willing for me to take that as your statement on the issue, I'll write a response to it.
But one thing I don't see there, and have not seen from you elsewhere, is the impact of immigration on the pro-life cause. I can only assume you think it would not have a negative impact. Is that a correct assumption?
My challenge to johne is extended to you as well. Why not put up a post making your case for why this bill or something similar would be a good thing? For the party, for the country, for the pro-life cause.
Ok. I admit I have not studied the polls. My intuitions of "the middle" are based largely on anecdotal evidence, you know, feeling out those with whom I am acquainted. So I can't prove that there is anywhere else for politicians of my ilk to move. Maybe your assessment is correct, in which case you all should be feeling confident that you will triumphantly apply the bit and reins to our Critters. There is a good model for that on display elsewhere. Then again maybe not everybody is quite so intense over this issue as you all are.
What is the point of your challenge Jon. I had thought about entering the debate again, but it seemed to me I would just be provoking people, an effect quite the opposite of what I prescribe. You have been around long enough to remember past dialogue about this subject. There was a time when pro-immigration arguments were posted in blogs and some civil dialogue (along with the uncivil) ensued. I participated in some of those discussions and that is when I formed my opinion. Some of the causes for disagreement reach so deep into our values and world-views that we can't muster the energy to pursue them. All the dialogue I see now on this subject is bollixed head bashing. I don't expect to convince you of anything and all I have to do is read this site without saying a word and I can comprehend all the arguments you all have to offer. And since that does not bring me 'round I can also of course see what names that earns me.
The shame I am imputing is for the unrestrained anger and the rallying around cynicism. It is not befitting a conservative philosophy that advocates the high calling of virtue. I am casting a stone. There are proverbial admonitions about that so I am prepared to be humbled.
John E.
Along with last years tax return so he can see how much it hurts.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I do not accept the spin that only Republicans can take credit for taking down this bill. I am not doubting that for some like Bernie Sanders (I) Vt. the reason for his NO vote is completely different from Jeff Sessions. That is how politics make strange bedfellows sometimes. The Wednesday after the '06 election a blogger named polipundit posted the position statements of 3 newly elected Democrats and 1 newly elected Republican to the Senate. They all spoke strongly in favor of border security. link:
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=15912
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
new opponent in the primary and I will give to anyone who challenges Lindsey Graham however I will never again give to the RNC. It is not just this illegal immigration bill, it was the Chafee incident when the RNC inserted itself into a primary and really I could go on about how they don't deserve my money but I won't. I see no reason not to subvert the process and give directly to candidates around the country that I agree with and like. I cannot give to a group that would support Specter or Graham or McCain, I just cannot.
Is NumbersUSA.com a legit website? They seem like they are immigration hawks and can send free faxes w/ form letters to your congresspeople.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. The Unknown Politician
I don't always use their write-ups however I do send faxes through them and I consistantly get email updates and action items to follow up on, so to my mind they are legit. I have been a user of theirs for over a year from when the last immigration debate came up.
Yeah, I just sent one of the immigration faxes to MN Sen D Amy Kloubachar which voted for amnesty and it was harsh! LOL. Hope she doesn't have me audited.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
and they made calls and faxed and were loud. That is fine it worked.
Now is time to reward the ones YOU called for listening.
Pretty simple actually......the old "carrot and stick" approach.
You gave them the (stick) calls/faxes, now give them some (carrots) money!
This MAY also include some Democrats. Dorgan of N.D. comes to mind. If YOU called him, you should (reward) him for listening.
are we talking about grown politicians or children. I did my thank you call to Webb this morning but only because he voted Nay both times, Warner only the last time. I believe the carrot and stick is either they get re-elected or they don't. I am amazed at the "stand down" responses I have seen here and at other sites. I was not blustering or lying when I talked about looking at the Conservative Party or the American First Party. This is not the time to go back, this experience was a teaching moment. I would suggest that people not forget this travesty of elite old school party politics and by the way when the vote was going on last night I told both my kids to remember this moment because the old way of doing busines was done. I don't think we should go back to being reactionary we should be on the offensive to make sure this never happens again. I do not see this as one bill I see this as a culture of bad thinking in the halls of Congress and changes need to be made and I support those who want to help to effect those changes. This was an attempted sellout of America by the richest and most elitest pack of individuals for which the bill would have had no effect other then enriching themselves. I will not forget.
There was no vote on passage, and the vote on cloture went our way. There was no attempt, there was merely debate.
Run like Reagan!
Nice to have you on record as not being someone anyone currently in office should listen to, since voting your way is apparently worth nothing in your estimation. If we get enough people who take your position on the record standing for this, how do you suppose things are going to go for your issue for the immediate future? Because if you think you can establish a third party infrastructure with sufficient resources to compete in even small statewide races in less than 20 years, you're dead wrong.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
am the only one who feels this way and I would suggest I am not. I believe the 40% drop in money to the RNC is proof of that. I refuse to spend the second half of my life as I did the first, which is to say that it has always been the lesser of two evils in voting for Senators and Congressmen and yet today there is a movement within the conservative branch of Republicans for primary challengers to step up and take on those who only call themselves such. My point is I do not have to walk in lockstep with someone because they have a R in front of their name. I will feel better as an American to walk with those who will walk with me on a variety of issues.
I know you're not the only one (as this comments thread would indicate) and I don't care. And I didn't say you had to march in lockstep with the Republican party - my point is simply this: if, after having thrown your fit, the party capitulates to your desires, and you thank it by slapping it across the face, how well do you think they're going to listen next time, hmm?
If I was, for instance, John Sununu, I'd tell you all to take a flying leap next time. People who are not susceptible to persuasion are not people Critters need to care about, and they don't factor into their decision-making process. And if you think, based on your success in this legislation, that there are enough of you to launch a viable third party, then be my guest.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I will send money directly to candidates to voted no on this legislation I just will not give to the RNC as they would give to people who I would never give my hard earned dollars to ie: Graham, Specter. I am not ungrateful for those no votes and I am angry for the yes votes, that's all I am saying. My money is going to those, yes even those already in office who helped kill this bill.
I can certainly sympathize with not wanting to give money to Graham and Specter.
The ones who voted against the bill, though, deserve support.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
is that you give Republican Senators like Susan Collins undeserved credit. Yes, she voted against cloture. But not because she opposed the underlying bill. She simply wanted more time to debate. In fact, when you look at her vote on specific amendments that might have made this fraudulent legislation less bad (i.e. Cornyn's, Coburn's, Coleman's, Vitter's, Allard's), she is an embarrasment. She and like minded Republicans who opposed good amendments and supported this shamnesty every step of the way deserve no credit or support.
Frank Katz
Your points are well-taken Frank Katz.
Susan Collins believes that millions of illegal aliens should be rewarded with legal status and a path to citizenship.
Susan Collins is an amnesty supporter. She voted for last year's Senate amnesty bill, S. 2611. She, along with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other senators, were supporters of last year's Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Jeff Sessions and David Vitter are two Republican senators that do deserve support.
Both of those senators correctly called last year's senate immigration reform bill an amnesty. While Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, Sam Brownback and Lindsey Graham were working to pass an amnesty bill last year, David Vitter and Jeff Sessions were working to prevent an amnesty bill from passing.
David Vitter tried both last year and this year to strip the amnesty provisions from the senate bill. Jeff Sessions has effectively spoken out against the amnesty provisions of both last year's bill and this year's bill.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
If I were donating to a GOP senator or senators, it would not be Sununu, Smith or Collins. I hope they win re-election and have no objection to sending them an e-mail thanking them for voting against cloture. In fact, I will actually send them an e-mail thanking them for their vote against cloture.
However, if I were sending money to a GOP senator or senators, it would go to someone like Sessions, Vitter or Coburn.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
I initially thought Sen. Cornyn's bill was a genuine attempt to improve the legislation. After reading this post I realized it was a crafty "poison pill" strategy.
It follows then that the characterizations Sen. Cornyn applied to those who voted against it were disingenuous, even if you consider that those means are justified by the ends.
Point being, I wish you would reconsider using Cornyn's bill as a marker by which to judge other Senators.
John E.
how Cornyn's amendment was a poison pill. I know it was from Ted Kennedy's perspective, but so what? The amendment stands on its merits. How could anyone who truly cares about security and enforcement oppose a measure that denies amnesty to, among others, those that defied valid deportation orders? If this was intended as a "poison pill" to kill the bill, I say good.
Frank Katz
According to my very meager understanding, the criticism of the Cornyn amendment (I believe he rejected this criticism on the floor though) was that it essentially turned all illegal immigrants into criminals because somewhere in the course of their border-crossing, working, or normal course of living they would have had to make false representations in paper document filings. Hence they would all be guilty of breaking the law as defined in the Cornyn amendment and necessarily have to be deported upon filing for a Z-visa.
I did not believe that Cornyn would be quite so disingenuous until I saw that he voted for Dorgan's poison pill. Now I see that his name has been crossed out of that report. So I am back to not knowing what to think. Actually I prefer to think that he is not such a disingenuous sort. Nevertheless it was reported that his amendment was a poison-pill. So some of the Sen.'s you mention might have voted against it not because they want to "Leave no Felon Behind" but because they supported the bill from a broader perspective. I am not asking you to reconsider anything on that score.
John E.
I think you're correct that his amendment would have excluded many of those illegals that engaged in identity theft, but I view that as a good thing. After all, if an American engages in identity theft it can be a felony, but if an illegal does he nevertheless would have been rewarded with a path to citizenship. As we all know now, that is just one of the many, many problems with this legislation.
Frank Katz
Wouldn't this disparate treatment (prosecution of citizens, amnesty for illegals) have been an Equal Protection violation, and all this have landed in the USSC anyhow? I would submit this would apply to other forgivenesses extended for felonies like tax evasion, forgery and identity theft, as well as civilly making it harder for legal immigrants vs. illegal immigrants in some instances.
Would anyone with constitutional law experience explain how this legislation wouldn't have been a violation of Equal Protection? There may be an obvious answer but I never heard it.
...but lets' take it to its logical conclusion: let's get rid of the squishes who created this mess to begin with, and fractured the party, by supporting their Republican challengers with out of state dollars next time they run. In my opinion, the four most responsible for fracturing the party over an issue of NO immediate urgency:
Graham (R, SC)
McCain (R, AZ)
Kyl (R, AZ)
Specter (R, PA)
I know, I know - it pains me to see Kyl included with that lot. But as per Leon's call for clear communication, we need to let the national party now that we can and will take down not just the usual suspects, but anyone who tries to subvert national security concerns to currying favor with special interest groups.
Your question is a good one. As a purely academic excercise, the only possible distinction I can offer is that because the illegals are not yet citizens, the equal protection issue does not arise. Though I think the outcome is perverse, I suppose the argument would be that Congress has a right to determine what the requirements for admission or citizenship should be. And if Congress chooses to ignore those actions that would qualify as felonies when commmitted by American citizens, it can. (By the way, the same perverse logic would apply I guess to other criminal law issues like payment of back taxes, etc.)
Now, I think there would clearly be an equal protection argument if the government selectively ignored identity theft violations by illegals after they received their citizenship. In any event this disparity simply highlights, yet again, how awful this legislation was.
If anyone else has an equal protection analysis, please jump in.
Frank Katz
quite work (this isn't a dis, but a compliment). The only thing I also could see was a before/after legalization distinction as you pointed out. Yet, as you point out, there still would be uncharged/unindicted crimes after legalization. There the Equal Protection problems would rise anew--again as you pointed out.
Then we have the problem with those who have abided by the law vs. those who get special benefits precisely because they did not. It seems that would be ripe throughout the process.
Even if this had become law, the USSC would have been clogged forever.
Like you, I want to hear other opinions as to how this would have escaped Equal Protection flaws.
And thanks, Frank, for a very thoughtful response. It is a shame that so many lighweights now disgrace our Senate that such questions aren't even posed.
We won -- again!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/06/we-won-again.html#links
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
JTAN
1. If it is not already available, I would like to have a list of Senators' names that I can keep conveniently, those who supported amnesty and those who fought this idiotic attempt to legalise criminals. I want to suggest to all Americans, to work towards offering on the former group, a "path" to political retirement.
2. The White House (and members of the Hill) should take note of Americans' wishes. Don't introduce more laws just to have a personal "legacy"! Americans want existing laws to be enforced vigorisly, to be fully funded, applied across all levels of government, and fully coordinated across all government agencies. Non-compliance shall result in financial snctions and prosecution.
3. God bless America.
What these crazy liberals want? They want to sell US Green Cards to anyone who has certain points???? Ridiculous...
Funny - people have created website to calculate your GC Points..
If you head over to gop.org, you'll find the official position of the GOP is pro-immigration, and pro-immigration bill.
Enough said. These guys don't represent us anymore. Ron Paul is looking mighty good to me right now.