Redstate

...free from carrying the water for Bush & co. anymore. This immigration bill is outrageous. I hope and pray that that at least the House can put a stop to this disaster. Bush is now the albatross around the conservatives (and Republicans running in 2008) collective neck. We need to repeat what Sarkozy did to Chirac with Bush in this country.

For conservative to survive and thrive, we need to shed Bush - it's unfortunate that I have to say so, but yes.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I still believe 60% of the country is right of center when you get down to the issues; 60% want less government (although less for others), lower taxes, freedom and a sovereign nation state. This may be the issue that breaks us out of the status quo death spiral we've been in for over two years now, just in time for a 2008 candidate to take the leadership role for the party. It's an open seat, no incumbent and no VP running for the top job.

This issue effectively ended McCain's candidacy and Bush's presidency. If nothing else, it's a new day.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Here is Fox News panel discussing the President's put down of conservative critics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vlog/2007/05/bush_vs_conservatives.html

They never have been able to take a punch, like Democrats and shut up, nope we always have to stand on our principals, no matter the consequences. As a matter of fact, maybe that isn't all that bad.

Mr President, enforce the border, hire the agents, enforce interior immigration security, allow the agencies to share employment data, build the 856 miles of fence, show us that the new promises mean something and are not as empty as the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Then we can talk about the rest, once the border is secure. No new laws needed, just the WILL to do what was promised in 1986.

Does anyone actually believe that when the illegals become legal, demand legal wages, demand the employers pay taxes on those wages, that the same thing won't happen that did with the 1986 AMNESTY crowd ... the employers just hired more illegals at sub-wages and no taxes -- The jobs Americans won't do, the ones that pay sub-wages cash only. Unless the spigot is turned off, it will be 1986 all over again. Reagan believed he had solved the problem in 1986, and the Liberals would uphold the bargain and fund security at the border ... we know how that came out. What makes anyone believe it will be any difference this time... Except we will have a porous high tech fence instead of no fence.

When he was re-elected with a slight majority of the vote, he claimed he had "political capital" and would lead accordingly; i.e. according to the preferences of the people who voted for him. Not liberals. He became Mr. Nice Guy when his second term didn't go as advertised.

The main point he made was that he was going to spend it on a guestworker program that gave illegals a path to citizenship. He had barely mentioned that during the 2004 campaign. As I recall he talked about it once during the Stat4e of the Union Address (and got absolutely hammered by his base) and he mentioned it in a one sentence answer during the third debate. Otherwise he was silent. But a week after the election it emerged as his second term legislative priority along with Social Security Reform.

I think he was hardly being dis-congenial to liberals. He was mainly shafting his base who would not have turned out for him if he had campaigned on amnesty.

of that speech was the war on terror. Not a guest worker program.

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041104-5.html

Loyalty to whom?

If he isn't well, my guess is it will be much like the end of red sun. Where all the japanese executives distanced themselves.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

This is not productive at all. And how is it going to be Bush's undoing? He's not running again. It will only hurt the Party.

The only way the party can win the 2008 election is if they campaign AGAINST the policies of the failed Bush administration. This backlash hopefully will allow the party to do that once they realize that Bush has lost all support.

Bush is our Jimmy Carter.

I am a bigoted Nazi that wants to send all the illegals to death camps. Thats a mashup of what lindsay graham et all have characterized the position of anyone against this bill. The president that I voted for twice comes out and says I am not doing whats best for America.( Funny thing I am still certain voting for him was the correct thing to do) and we shouldn't air the dirty laundry ?

To borrow from a democrat If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Respect is a Nash Equilibrium. If you think otherwise, you're deluded.

I'm done with him if this passes.

...this Econ major thanks you for it.

And agreed completely... if somebody wants my loyalty, the first thing they should do is show me why I should be loyal to them in the first place. I was too young to vote in 2000, and voted for Bush in 2004 as a "lesser of two evils" candidate... we all deserve better.

"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.

Those comments were not those of a rational president.

that your 26% statistic for "we the people" can't stop 50-60 percent of our representatives from doing it anyway?

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).

...elected representatives won't see the electoral carnage coming either if they are this blind.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

We took the collar off the Dragons neck with the 17th.

Sad to see so many Republican officeholders buy into that twisted logic.

basically the status with the Iraq war.

...

Write a 500 word essay proving the following assertion:

Most of the people who come to the US want to be American and assimilate.

And this time, try backing it up with some facts.

This is not an optional assignment nor is it extra credit. This is a requirement for your posting privileges to continue. Do not post again anywhere in any thread until this assignment is completed and submitted as a diary. If you do, your account will be summarily terminated.

You see, if you want to have the privilege to post here, you must want to engage substantively on the issues, not just wave Pointy Sticks™ and cast aspersions at conservatives.

In other words, you must assimilate or be deported.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

You know better. You can't ask a question without answering my question. When did immigration become a "Conservative" issue.

As you've probably noticed by now, the account's off. Guess you should have taken Mark seriously.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The Reagan amnesty law promised to tighten our borders and then provide amnesty. I agreed with it at the time. Unfortunately, the border tightening never came. Most people against the current bill would support amnesty if our government would really and truly provide a secure border, but we will not be fooled a second time.

I don't blame Reagan for making the mistake the first time. Besides, Reagan's amnetly involved probably about 2 to 3 million illegals. It is absolute insanity to make the same mistake again in the face of historical evidence showing that amnestly only exacerbates our problems, and this time with 12 to 20 million illegals.

I do not fear Zen.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

But seriously...
it appears that you've bought Bush's line, hook/line/sinker. Take a look at the Heritage Foundation report on the "No Illegal Left Behind" bill for the real picture of the financials. That "immigrants will be paying our Social Security" is a Bush fantasy.

http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm

With respect to your comments, you might read the section titled "Do Low-Skill Immigrants Contribute to the Solvency of Social Security?"

Your logic sounds much like the old joke "we're taking a loss on every item sold, but we'll make it up in volume"

thru trailer park college campus. Sheesh, how do things like you go through life so ignorant.

1. Simpson/Mazzoli (the act Reagan signed) was a trojan horse, created by Congress and sold to the President. The bill promised enforcement, the Congress promised enforcement. Reagan signed it because he thought it was "better than doing nothing". Sound familiar?

2. You will find virtually no one on this site (who's been here more than an hour) who "fears" immigration. What we want, and expect our government to deliver, is an immigration policy that works for the United States, without respect to what any other country wants. Twelve million landscape day laborers is not good policy. Has nothing to do with how "they" may vote.

3. We want the borders secured. It's a matter of national security. I suspect you are just too stupid to understand that so I won't press it any further.

4. Illegal immigration is NOT the solution to our entitlements problem. It will, if anything make it worse. You are incapable of understanding that either.

5. Europe's problem is not a lack of workers. It's a lack of national will to expect people to work.

6. People who immigrate here legally want to assimilate. People who sneak across the border illegally do not learn the language and don't give a rip about assimilating. Visit Phoenix, you'll see a great example. Or LA.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

and have something positive to contribute then I'll gladly sit through your lecture.

Until then, let me give you one of my own.

1) I have several friends who are legal immigrants. I treat them no different than I would anyone else I know.

2) A country can absorb only a certain percentage of their population at a time to be able to blend those people in culturally.

3) If the illegals "want to be American and assimilate" then why aren't they learning English and flying American flags (right side up) instead of taking the American flag down and flying the Mexican one.

Romney or Fred.

It is a sort of strange thing that there really hasn't been a conservative-on-immigration President since...well, I'm not sure...probably since Eisenhower. I know some conservative supporters of unending mass immigration would like to believe that the above indicates that holding liberal views on immigration is a political winner, but the truth is that Republican Presidential victories have come in spite of the candidate's positions on immigration, not because of them. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II -- not one of them made their liberal stands on immigration a key part of their agenda, and none of them were elected because of it. The same goes for Clinton.

But anyway, Reagan was a bit of a mixed bag. His rhetoric on immigration varied between the naive romanticism that so often infects the debate today and the sensible, like his comment about a nation that can't control its borders is no nation at all. As to his policies; well, he did sign that amnesty, but the subsequent failure to enforce the law is more the fault of his successors. Who knows how he would have handled the problem as it truly got out of hand.

As to why immigration is a conservative issue; well, I guess by that you mean to ask when opposition to the type of nonsense embodied in the pending bill became a conservative position. Well, again, immigration makes for some strange political bedfellows. Many otherwise-conservative individuals support very liberal and leftwing immigration policies. That's their right, but it is frustrating when they try to stake their leftwing views as the 'conservative' position, as the WSJ is prone to do. Of course, maybe I'm being presumptuous about defining the conservative position on immigration, but I think I'm on solid ground in saying that there is nothing conservative about unending mass immigration.

As to the part about 'zenophobia'; yes, of course, one cannot oppose mass immigration and amnesty unless they hate Mexicans. Are you by chance Linda Chavez? Seriously though, such thinking is ridiculous. It is, however, completely fair and sensible to question the cultural impact of mass immigration, especially in light of modern day views on assimilation and multiculturalism. If that makes one a xenophobe, then I guess I'm a xenophobe, as are most people I would bet.

As to Europe vs USA; well, we agree about Europe. It probably is a goner. The challenge facing the US is different, and we have been better at assimilating immigrants. But again, things change. Not only is assimilation no longer demanded here, but there is also the problem of the sheer numbers involved. Even if most immigrants want to assimilate when they get here, the fact is that the rapid growth of their populations makes assimilation less likely, and less necessary.

As to the political effects of immigration generally and this bill specifically; yes, most of the legalized illegals (as well as most other legal immigrants) will vote Democratic, just as they have in the past and continue to do now. There is very little that can be done about this short of the GOP simply copying the Democrats in virtually every way.

He accused all Conservatives of being xenophobic; basically we only oppose this bill because we are all racist. This is a typical liberal talking point.

This is a hot button issue for most conservatives, and there have probably been 50+ diaries on the subject over the past year. The new bill just stirred the pot.

say that at all.

It was just Bush being Bush and talking the way he always talks, plain spoken and with sincerity.

If this big to do is about the speech, as much of it seems to be on this thread, I suggest actually reading it instead of someones interpretation of it.

Transcript of Speech by President Bush, Glynco, Georgia

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

and I read the speech already...here's what it DID say to anger the base:

Will we be a welcoming place, a place of law, that renews our spirit by giving people a chance to succeed?

Meaning if we are against the bill we will NOT be a welcoming place.

We're working hard to enforce the border. The immigration debate, you hear people say, well, they're not doing anything to enforce the border. They're wrong, and you know they're wrong. And I'm here to thank you for doing -- for working as hard as you can.

And now we've got to build on the progress. It's important for our American citizens to understand that the immigration system is in desperate need for comprehensive reform. And Congress has a historic window to act. The system isn't working. Think about a system that encourages smugglers to stuff people in 18-wheelers, people that want to work, people that want to provide for their families. Think about a system in which there's tremendous document forgery.

Which is it sir? Is it working or is it in need of comprehensive reform? (the insult here is that he thinks we're stupid, see...)

A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems. And my answer to the skeptics is, give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving. Give us a chance to make it easier for the folks who wear the uniform along our borders to do their job.

Um...what was the last 26 years...dry run?

I suggest you go back and LOOK for how the President offends with his assertions that we are too dumb to comprehend, or naive enough to believe that we are running out of time....out of time for WHAT exactly? It's been broken this long, what's the rush? Is the sky going to fall if we don't hurry?

Close the borders. Then we'll talk.

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).

To John6078's post. I did not mean Bush.

----------
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake - Napoleon

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 did some post and someone follow posted with 5^5^5 or something like that.

I thought he was poking me, but he was agreeing Five to the fifth to the fifth.

First off, if you do in fact loathe having to have read the speech again to respond to my comment, my condolences.

Aside from that though it's a pretty typical Bush speech, just on immigration. Lets face it, almost anything can be taken and turned around a bit to prove a point if you want.

Mind you I respect your view here at Redstate tremendously as a supporter of the troops and your posts that convey that so strongly. Should you choose to, I imagine you could take apart many a Bush speech and convey an image of him as not being supportive of the troops if that was the impression that you had. We both know it's a perception thing.

I read the speech not looking for offense but for the overall tone and context, but seeing the lines you have snipped out to prove your point I can see some of what you refer to, although in my first read I admit to being nonplussed.

To do my best service to the time you took in rebuttal I will attempt to respond, but not to argue with you, at best to convey my own impression.

Will we be a welcoming place, a place of law, that renews our spirit by giving people a chance to succeed?

You took this as Meaning if we are against the bill we will NOT be a welcoming place.

I read this in the context it was conveyed, as in the President had just acknowledged two outstanding "legal" immigrants, Senator Mel Martinez and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. Two people who came to America the right way, sucked it up and made something of themselves, sort of an ideal immigrant, although being a politician or appointee is not necessarily the ideal but you know what I mean.

So his full quote in the context of those two men, while a bit disingenuous as a whole to many of us, is appropriate and sounds good.

And I want to mention those two men because, to me, they represent what the immigration debate is all about: Will we be a welcoming place, a place of law, that renews our spirit by giving people a chance to succeed?

Let's face it, if the immigration debate were about qualified people with this type of potential would we even be having a debate? Although this could be exactly how the president does view it and would explain a whole lot! Talk about faith in humanity... But Bush also mentioned that they both came here from Cuba without a lot of high quality skills that would have made them the "ideal" immigrant in the first place, they earned their place here.

Before I do, I do want to introduce some people. I want to introduce Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez -- I appreciate you coming, Mr. Secretary. (Applause.) Carlos wasn't born here, see. He was born in another country -- Cuba. And now he sits in the Cabinet of the President of the United States. There's something great about a country that welcomes people, people who uphold our laws and realize the great blessings of America.

With us, as well, is Senator Mel Martinez. He wasn't born in America. He's a Senator from Florida. He was born in Cuba. I don't know if you know his story, but his mother and father put him on an airplane to come to the United States of America, to be raised by total strangers because they didn't want their son to grow up under a tyrant named Fidel Castro. He used to sit in the Cabinet of the President of the United States; now he sits in the United States Senate. What a wonderful country it is, where people can come to live in a country based upon liberty, and realize the great blessings of our country.

Of course these ARE jobs Americans want that these two immigrants have but at least he didn't make that claim in regard to them!

Moving on to the, he thinks we're stupid part...

In your snippet, yes I concede that once again without the context of the preceding paragraphs it seems out of place but he had just finished talking about how they had put an end to "catch and release", the use of predator drones, increasing Border Patrol Agents to 13,000, adding detention facilities, ICE investigations and THEN he talks about the current system.

Hell we all know the system is busted and needs to be fixed and that's what this is supposed to be part and parcel of. He makes the claim that what they are doing IS having an effect and makes it sound like, at least to me, that some of the new legislation is a natural extension of the ongoing efforts.

To me that's a sales pitch and not a blatant, "you're stupid" statement.

As a matter of fact, you can tell when the border is better defended because the number of arrests go down. In other words, when people know there's a consequence to trying to sneak across, there's less likely to be people sneaking across. Arrests have gone down by 27 percent over the past year on the southern border. That's a sign of progress. It should say to the American people that we're doing what the people expect us to do.

Now to me, anyone can play games with percentages so I'm not necessarily impressed with a 27% decrease. OK so the research..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/national/main1838869.shtml

This MediaMatters story is a hit on Bush but has numbers that shows the administration IS getting results although the numbers are a bit dated, 2004 and 2005.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704110003?offset=20&show=1

AND now as to your last contention, Close the borders. Then we'll talk.

Hell, I'm with you there brother, I just don't see Bush attacking us the way that you do, I just see him being him and I'll admit my bias, I love the man, I honor his integrity and beliefs even though he and I see this immigration stuff a little differently.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I appreciate your time spent reviewing and adding context. I got to this point in the thread because the question was asked: why would Bush's comments offend anyone? We KNEW he was for this from the beginning...I used these snippets as examples.

Your larger point is valid to the extent that the President is just being himself. I am just tired of the relentless hammering of half-truths and have been made even more deeply cynical by the sales pitch efforts on THIS while crickets chirp on Iraq...you seem to be in favor of this bill, so I wont debate it on the merits...we part ways on whether this bill is good or bad, but I stand by my insistence that we could have two bills...do the border first, THEN come back and talk about what to do with those left inside the borders.

This, in a time of war and battles over funding soldiers is just NOT necessary right now...but I appreciate the shout out...

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).

IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ, first and foremost, I am so with you there alas that other issues intrude on that most important of issues. I've got a boy/man/son leaving for bootcamp next week and am with you on the list of issues that trump all.

One quibble, I am NOT in favor of THIS bill as is, I AM in favor of a bill that does work though and I can make compromises in the interest of achieving a bill.

My defense was for our President, he is well intentioned and a good man I believe and so far despite some disappointment with some things, like I said, I love the man.

I respect you and your work, this is a hot button issue that has many people up in arms and I was just attempting to add some perspective.

Over!

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

and MY GOD-my prayers for your son and you and yours...and thank him from me for his willingness to stand tall in our stead and for his (and YOUR) sacrifice

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).

in loving America. This will be my third in uniform and damn do they all look good.

Patriotism is a contact sport.

God Bless

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Thanks for the spelling correction. Xenophobia does not translate to racism.

... that any Republican or conservative is not xenophobic. It is just something about the word "illegal" that makes us bristle. I have no problem with expanding legal immigration, or even a guest worker program.

However, it gets my dander up when someone tries to insult me and say I am a racist or something equally bad just because I think the rule of law is a good thing.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

This bill is not an amnesty bill. If you want to scare the American people, what you say is, the bill is an amnesty bill. It's not an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our fellow citizens.

and

Oh, I'm sure you've heard some of the talk out there about people defining the bill. It's clear they hadn't read the bill. They're speculating about what the bill says, and they're trying to rile up people's emotions.

Romney or Fred.

check to see if the power is shut off.

Sandra, I suggest that you check over earlier threads on this topic. This is a super priority issues for many in the RS community. If you still don't quite understand why people are upset, I suspect that they'll let you know here real soon.

This is probably also a good idea for other hot issues here at RedState so that you don't repeat arguments that have been made and refuted multiple time before.

Again, it's a good idea to know the lay of the land before saddling up your horse. Good luck. And welcome to RedState.

And Rightly So!

You may not like the bill, but answer the question. When did it become a "Conservative" policy position?

I don't see how your question pertains to my comment, which was intended as friendly advice to a new RedState member.

And Rightly So!

"If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America,"

Those are strong words. Not wanting to do what's right for America is how we would describe somebody who is anti-American, or unpatriotic, or even treasonous.

I badly want to kill this bill but I understand that other reasonable people with the country's best interests at heart might feel otherwise. I think it is extremely insulting for him to say that "I don't want to do what's right for America!"

I wonder if President Bush is aware that the American Legion, the largest organization for Veterans, are actively lobbying against his shamnesty bill? Just imagine a person who has had to repeatedly and unconvincingly defend himself against charges that he deserted from the National Guard, telling veterans who served and in many cases fought and suffered egregiously for this country, that in his opinion they are not wanting to do what is "right for America".

Essentially President Bush just called the 49% of Americans who oppose this bill, including most of what is left of the Republican Base, un-American or worse.

1) It forces id checking for all Americans. Although some of that may be necessary, I wish to minimize it.

2) They will receive social services. If they are actually in need of social services, how could we refuse? If they show up at the ER, how will we distinguish them from other uninsured? Even if you think that is a good idea, most Amercans would not. I do not place that American predilection in the "bad" catagory, even if it creates externalities.

3) You don't have to be a union member to aid union functions. Particularly public activism. They will be co-opted. And you can't blame them, since they won't know what the heck is going on.

4) The need for cheap unskilled labor is not that important when looking at the entire distribution chains for most jobs temporary workers would perform.

5) I would rather have labor wages increase via market mechanisms than by artifical mechanisms.

6) If wages do increase much, there is a lot of mechanization efficiency that is presently being avoided which should kick in.

7) If wages increase too much - or are legitimately predicted to do so - and we actually need more labor, then we can increase legal immigration and welcome a Citizen of the United States instead of an temporary alien with mixed loyalties.

I can't think of any other explaination for this. "Follow the money" seems to explain most of the decisions coming out of Washington.

Perhaps we can begin with the people (besides the obvious Left) who actually want this to pass. A recent full-page ad favoring the amnesty in the Dallas Morning News sheds light on this. Among the businesses (most of them were associations) in favor:

Agriculture, apartment associations, restaurants, motels, construction & related contracting companies, landscapers, and chambers of commerce.

Besides a car dealership that was also in there, all these businesses are in trades notorious for employing illegal labor. Call me cynical, but it sure seems like modern gov't is no longer "by the people, for the people" but more like "for sale to the highest bidder".

www.scottbomb.com

According to the following it is expected to pass:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070528-095955-5141r.htm

A number of Republican senators are extremely obstinate on this issue. If they weren't then they wouldn't have voted for McCain-Kennedy last year.

to stop this thing. Can I be cautiously optimistic about that at least?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

necessary to filibuster before it even gets there.

I say "tad" about the House because the GOP caucus seems pretty secure, and there are a number of Blue Dog Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus who conceivably could kill the bill on an up or down vote (I understand it is either way right now. And even before that point, there are a few tricks to be pulled--the Blue Slipping, for example).

One thing is for certain, though: Bush will sign anything put in front of him, so pressure has be applied at the congressional level.

Not unless you are daily calling, emailing, or faxing.

Optimism won't accomplish anything. Pressure will.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I've already written Renzi. Twice.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-plots-blue-slip-attack-2007-05-3...

My letters to McCain and Kyl? Signed, sealed, delivered and falling on deaf ears.

______________________________

The absence of war is not peace.
Harry Truman

Use the "Search" feature at the top of the page and don't bother us again until you've read, and understand, all the diaries on this subject that address your issues.

Until then keep your opinions, and your questions, to yourself.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You know that anyone on this site that is further right than I am ought to be institutionalized. And, if I were in charge, I would impose some pretty draconian penalties for various parts of the illegal alien problem. However, I am not and the option is the reality of trying to address the reality of where we are or continue to do nothing. Blaming Bush for compromising is unrealistic because he is confronted with Dems in control and a bunch of RINOs in his ranks.

Don't get carried away by the 20something snotnosed conservatives who have never had to make a payroll, find a guy who is willing to swing a pick all day or get a crop in, and, consequently can enjoy the luxury of pure conservative thought unencumbered by actually doing something other than engaging in political rhetoric.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

First off.... this bill does none of this. It does nothing but give stuff to illegals while preparing a highway for more illegals and their families. It should be called the "US De-Sovereignty Act".

a) Secure border:

a) Big tall fence - makes it hard
b) employer sanctions - reduces inflow

b) Deporting..

I question your "sincerely"... deportation isn't on the table. Nor is it needed. Employer sanctions. They will go home if they can't send money home.

c) tamper proof ids don't scare people. I don't think they are critical to this problem however.

--Neoken

The plan most conservatives favor his "Attrition through Enforcement". Essentially we realize that it took a long time for this problem to get this bad and it will take a while to fix it. Right now we deport about 250,000 illegals per year and maybe 1,000,000 new illegals take their place. We need to get that ratio reversed. It would not be that huge a jump in enforcement if we stepped up deportations to 1 million and cut the inbound flow to 250,000. And along with the deportations we could expect many illegals to self-deport as life got steadily more difficult and the jobs dried up. In a few years the problem would be solved.

It starts by making an honest effort to secure the border. If that takes deployment of the army so be it. In that little tiny postage stamp of land we call New York City there are about 36,000 cops. By comparison, guarding the 2100 mile Mexican Border AND the 3000+ mile Canadian Border there are 12,000 Border Patrol Agents. The current effort could hardly be deemed serious and expanding the border patrol to 18,000 won't be enough to secure the border. It is still just window dressing to pretend like they are doing something. We need a serious effort and that might be expanding the border patrol to 50,000 plus building the fence plus deploying technology. Not all of those 50,000 need to be highly trained. There are ways to "leverage" skills and knowledge onto less skilled people.

The nonsense about deporting 12 million per year is just a false choice that the open borders shills like to throw out. Nobody is talking about jack-booted gestapo agents conducting mass roundups and sending children to concentration camps. But it is not too hard to image quadurupling enforcement over the minimal efforts we had this year either. How many construction sites got raided in that last 12 months? I think most Americans would be happy to see about 10 of those raids per month. Every meat packing plant should be raided annually or more until they quit hiring illegals.

About the only reforms that are needed are some improved tools for employers to verify the legal status of their workers. Every other law needed to fix this problem is already on the books.

All that is needed is sustained enforcement of existing laws which makes America a very unhappy place for illegals to look for a job. When we achieve that, border security will be far less difficult.

On the otherhand, an amnesty will send the message to the world that if they can get here we will eventually let them stay and border security will become impossible.

A. Imagine the cost when a nuke that came across the border goes off in one of our major cities. Even without the terrorism threat, the cost estimates of this amnesty are running in the low TRILLIONS. I have yet to see a secure border even come close to those costs.

B. Enforce current immigration laws and most of them will go home since they can't find a job. Besides, I think you'll find that the majority of us are willing to compromise and work out ways for some people to make themselves legal. The problem is, we don't believe that the gov't will enforce these new laws because they don't enforce the laws we already have. Take a teenager as an example. If he/she wants to be trusted, he/she must be trustworthy. If the child screws that up, he/she has to change his/her ways to earn that trust back. Our gov't has not done this.

C. Tough. The time for a national ID has arrived - yesterday. You need an ID to drive and you should need an ID to buy beer, vote, get a job, rent/buy a place to live, open a bank account, etc. Wait a sec.... we ALREADY need IDs to do those things. The problem we currently have is we don't have a uniform way to identify people. Like anything else. You iron out the glitches as you go.

www.scottbomb.com

But isn't the common "excuse" from employers is that they do check documents - but that it is unreasonible to expect them to tell a fake set of documents from ones that are "real"? Thus the problem with workplace enforcement. As long as you don't have a tamper proof id it is hard to dry up the economic incentives. I have always thought that was the best answer - just that I doubted that the american public would accept the "glitches" in a system that would inevitably leave some "legitimate" american citizens screwed in bureaucratic limbo.

Plus is the 250K number crosser detained or short term visa overstayers deported or illegals here (picking an arbitrary number, 6 or more monthes) sent home?

And no, I do not believe that a solution needs to be perfect - only that it is realistic and actually could work given were public opinion is likely to end up.....having a system that requires every high propensity senior voter go get 3 pieces of ID for a tamper proof ID is probably NOT in the realistic category ;-)

And it is a pretty good one. It ought to be because they very deliberately got the law written so that they would have the excuse. If you don't think the Chamber of Commerce has had a big role in gutting our current immigration laws you have not been paying attention. Apply the reasonableness test. When 80% of an employer's employees speak little or no English do you think that they don't know damn well they are hiring illegals? They may not be prosecuteable but I have no sympathy for them if ICE shows up, rounds up their entire workforce and leaves them in a serious jam.

The "excuse" only goes so far and while it may work for businesses it does not relieve the government of its responsibility to enforce the law. The IRS has quit sending out no match letters and they have all but given up on raids except for the token efforts this year designed to pave the way for amnesty. The President could remove much of the "excuse" with some simple Executive Orders that clarified that when an employer refused to act on a "no match letter" in a reasonably timely manner either by clearing up the error (name change due to marriage) or terminating the employee that their was a presumption that they were complicit in the employment fraud.

In anycase, the government could raid and deport the illegals. Even if they could not prosecute the employer, employers would bear a substantial cost in hiring and training a new workforce and probably in legal fees. They would be a lot more careful about who they hired and they would suddenly become a lot better at spotting those fraudulent documents many of which are laughably bad.

What you insist upon is that we set forth the perfect solution. Thus, you can seize upon any flaw and declare the current abomination acceptable.

We don't have to build a wall--not another inch.

We don't have to deport all of the illegals, not even half.

We don't need a new form of ID, not even the suggestion of one.

All we NEED to do is enforce the laws we have now: NO MORE, NO LESS.

WE DON'T NEED ANY NEW LAWS!

That's why we are so angry here. Over and over we are told there is a crisis, that we need a new law, a better plan. But all we need is simple, serious, plain enforcement of the laws we have. Two years of enforcement--that's all--will have amazing effects. Five years and the "problem" will be solved. That's it. And we can't even get that.

Nearly 6 years after 9/11--all of them wasted in relation to the border. Simple, easy, complete, committed enforcement of the existing laws on the day after 9/11 and we would not be in this mess. Not even close. And that's sad, really.

It just takes some will power.

Add the 18000 Border agents that in this bill.

Put in 100 family processing centers that can handle 1000 people at a time.

Put in 50 more immigration courts.

Each of the 18000 catches 2 illegals a week and you're up to 1.5 million a year on the way out. Add in the millions of existing law enforcement agents and it won't take too long.

Now, having the will to do that is another story.

To make things go quicker, $10,000 fines to any sized business that hires illegals, period.

Romney or Fred.

Inflation:

Jimmy:

1977 6.70
1978 9.00
1979 13.30
1980 12.50

GWB

2001 1.60
2002 2.40
2003 1.90
2004 3.30
2005 3.40

Hey... I wasn't wanting Carter back. Just saying he failed and so has Bush. You can fail in different ways, yet equally completely.

Bush has been lucky on inflation, but his over-spending, entitlement processing, non-action on new power sources, and non-action on Social Security is laying the ground work for hyper-inflation. I pity the President two terms from now.

I pity my wallet and after tax income two President's from now.

--Neoken

Wow, those Carter inflation numbers were truly staggering. This time 30 years ago I was a 16 year old getting ready to hitchhike to a Led Zeppelin concert at the Greensboro Coliseum in North Carolina. Great show, May 31st was John Bonham's (drummer) birthday. Thankfully, I was too young and dumb to feel the full effect of the Carter years though I did get a little taste when I joined the Navy a year later.

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

only has so much influence on the economy. That is particularly true in their first term.

Carter was no doubt the worst President and attacking him is easier than clubbing baby seals. But Carter inherited stagflation and it is unfair to blame him.

Stagflatioon was a hangover from the guns and butter deficit spending economic policy of the Vietnam War (might give you some insight into what's coming for us next decade after our current prolifigate round of guns and butter) that was considerably worsened by two major oil price shocks caused by OPEC oil embargoes, the wage and price controls and the major currency devaluation from the Nixon era, and decades of a Democratic controlled congress.

One of the very few things Carter did right was to appoint Paul Volker as Chaiman of the Federal Reserve who brutally attacked inflation by severely restricting the money supply. Volker deserves as much credit for the prosperity of the Reagan through the Clinton years as Reagan does. And Volker was a Carter appointment.

from making pilgramages to their conventions and kowtowing to their racist demands. I believe Lindsey Grahmn was at a La Raza event when he said about the mjority of us: "we are going to tell the bigots to shut-up". I remember Chris Cannon (R-UT) said something really offensive too when he was accepting an award from La Raza for pushing the AgJobs Amnesty along with Larry Craig (R-ID).

I guess the days when we were the "Color Blind Party of Principle" are just a bitter sweet memory. Now Republicans are all about hispandering Karl Rove style.

Jackbenimble, excellent points.

On February 26, 2002, Sam Brownback and Tom Daschle received the Capital Award from the National Council of the Race. That each of them would receive an award from La Raza is not surprising since both support rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status and a path to citizenship.

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.teamtancredo.org

Right now I'm on the Romney bandwagon and I think he can do it although Mike Huckabee or Fred may have a better chance.

I don't think any Washington "insiders" do ... and I know Fred is sort of in between.

Romney or Fred.

Romney/Fred Thompson would be a good ticket.

--Neoken

I have to get to my Senators and Warner and Webb I believe at this time will be voting yes on this bill. I will be keeping the pressure up here and I hope to God that those proud Americans in SC are giving him an earful.

It doesn't have to be "deportation".

Securing the border, pressuring employers, and driving the number of illegals in the country down through attrition is fine with me. Returning to realistic immigration numbers is what is needed. Oh, and they might as well be people that actually DO want to assimilate.

I am not interested in "winning over" anyone that is here illegally. Who are we kidding? There are millions of Mexicans in this country illegally for the sole purpose of earning money and sending it home. They have no interest or inclination to assimilate. And until they have a reason to actually want to stay in their own country (meaning Mexico needs to fix its problems) they will continue flooding ours.

When people come here for money, and not to become Americans, you assimilation question is answered. When groups aren't forced to join in, they do their own thing. Many Mexicans didn't leave because they hated Mexico, they just wanted money. Hence hanging their Mexican flags instead of American flags. La Raza's state's their main goal is to take back the Southwest that is rightfully theirs. The Muslim population is another story. The problem isn't allowing them in, it's allowing to many at once and not knowing who they are.