Redstate

Not even in any of my nine.

There was never going to be any enforcement. The only chance was to demand enforcement before considering "reform".

That's what people did... and this is where they ended up. That's the point. There was compromise legislation. Now there will be no compromise. It will be whatever McCain, Bush, and the Democrats want.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

But not much. The idea that one should pass a really bad bill, just to avoid passing one that's even worse just isn't a good one. Should you allow yourself to be shot in the head once today, to avoid being shot in the head twice tomorrow?

This was always going to pass in some form after the election because the "moderate" Republican "leadership" wants it. The question was whether or not there could be anything passed along with it.

And if Rs follow this up with more anti-Hispanic and anti-legal immigration tirades...

Most of them/us will be former-Rs should this come to pass.

But that said, can you point to many Rs who were engaging in "anti-legal immigration tirades" over the last year or so? And is it possible to criticize mass illegal immigration without being perceived as being "anti-Hispanic"?

Just asking.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Just realized those are prime threadjack bait. My bad. Me maxima cupla.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Paul Cella has called to a complete end to all legal immigration from Muslim nations. And Tancredo has not exactly tried to draw a line between legal and illegal immigrants. His characterization of Miami wasn't about immigration, it was anti-Hispanic. Here are part of his comments:

pointed to Miami as an example of how ''the nature of America can be changed by uncontrolled immigration,'' the story says.

''Look at what has happened to Miami,'' the WorldNetDaily quotes Tancredo as saying in an interview. ``It has become a Third World country. You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you're in the United States of America. You would certainly say you're in a Third World country.''

That's not about illegal immigration. There are many who are good faith anti-illegal immigration advocates. The problem is that most of the leaders of that group are also anti-immigrant and some (although not many) are outright anti-Hispanic.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

... nevermind. It's not an appropriate topic for this particular thread.

A perfectly good subject for a diary, however.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

You could have just as well said something to the effect of "if the Republicans continue to call for the nuking of Mecca..." and it would be just about as accurate a characterization. This is a case of picking an extreme example that isn't representative of much and tarring everyone with that brush. Many people who did not support the "comprehensive amnestyimmigration reform bill" last year that are not opponents of legal immigration or Hispanics in general.

I happen to agree with his comment about Miami, but it isn't immigration that turned it into what it is. It's liberalism. I could say the same thing about places like Detroit or NOLA.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"There are many who are good faith anti-illegal immigration advocates. The problem is that most of the leaders of that group are also anti-immigrant and some (although not many) are outright anti-Hispanic."

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

the law by entering the U.S.A. Hispanic?

Take a look at some of the less glitzy parts of Metro Dade. There are elements of American Society that have been erased. Thats not Anti Hispanic thats Anti too much too fast.
______________________________
"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

that was not true?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

...then it is inevitable that someone will call you anti-Hispanic for the simple reason that latinos make up the largest segment of current immigration.

Is it possible to critcize mass legal immigration, and call for lower amounts of legal immigration, and not be called names by the various organs of the Left -- media, Democrats, professional ethnic grievance groups -- and by some voices on the right, namely the WSJournal?

Polls consistently show a majority or pluarlity of Americans support reducing the amount of legal immigration we admit. Can there be no political expression for this widespread, mainstream position? Or must it be suppressed for fear of the name-calling by demagogues on the Left, and for fear of offending people whose sole purpose in life is finding things that offends them?

Is it possible to critcize mass legal immigration, and call for lower amounts of legal immigration, and not be called names...

No, it is not.

And that IMHO is a very, very large part of the "problem" with any "debate" on immagration.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Well, it just goes to prove that diversity is no strength at all when it comes to reasoned, rational debate of contentious issues. In fact, I think its safe to say that diversity is poison not only to open and reasoned discourse, but to free speech in general. I wonder how long it will be before the US starts passing the draconian speech-code laws we already see all over Europe?

legal immigration numbers, as long as we do the math and allow immigration that will benefit US. I have no problem with a seasonal worker visa - if it's managed - and high tech and well educated people should always be welcome here. If US college graduates whine that they can't compete with techies from India, they should be reevaluating the money they are paying US colleges who are turning out people who know how to feel and can't think.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

... allowing some time for the assimilation of the massive number of immigrants (legal and otherise) that have come since the 1986 amnesty mess?

Or is that not a "good" argument?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

"...as long as we do the math and allow immigration that will benefit US."

By your own definition, we must restrict legal immigration because doing so is to the benefit of the United States. We could just say that anyone who wants to come, and who meets the usual qualifiers about not being a terrorist criminal threat, can do so. But I think only the leadership of MALDEF and very extreme libertarians actually believe that would be in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

The whole debate should be over setting an immigration policy that best serves the country as a whole. I believe that such a criteria demands reductions in the amount of immigration (both legal and illegal).

Adam, I agree in part. I am on record as willing to accept the Senate Republicans April 2006 Senate Republicans compromise on illegal aliens. I didn't support the 850 page bill that the Senate finally passed.

FWIW, that wasn't directed at you necessarily. But that is the compromise that I was referring to. As mentioned in your post, that compromise required:

Those who have lived in the country at least five years would be put on a path toward guaranteed citizenship, provided that they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English, a senior Republican aide said. The aide said this group accounted for about 7 million of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living here.

Those who have lived here for two to five years, said to number about three million, would have to leave the country briefly before reporting to an American port of entry, where they would be classified as temporary workers. They would be allowed to apply for citizenship but would have no guarantee of obtaining it. Those who did not would have to leave after participating in the temporary worker program for six years.

The remaining one million or so, those who have lived in the country less than two years, would be required to leave. They could apply for temporary worker status but would not be guaranteed it.

When the hardliners refused to support this compromise, I think it became practically inevitable that the current legislation was going to happen. And during the election cycle, it was not hard to identify immigration reform as one issue where President Bush and the Democratic Congress would find an agreement.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

You can add any number of tiers based on time here illegally and tweak those times however you want, but it makes no difference. I haver zero confidence that 1) they are enforceable and 2) that anybody will care to enforce them. So that was pretty much a total non-compromise in my book.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So you're a deport 12 million people or nothing type. That's fine, but that puts you outside the debate and discussion. As far as people debating things that might actually happen, the old bill was better. But the perfect was the enemy of the good for a lot of people.

Now we will have this bill. Hope that was a better result for you.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I've been around long enough and have never called for deportation of everyone here illegally. I'm not sure where we ended up with only two possibilities: give everyone who cares to come up with fake documentation "a path to citizenship" or send out the troops to round everybody up on buses. If those are the only two possibilities in your mind, it is you who are not open to compromise.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

once it goes to the House and freshmen Democrats from Red districts see a chance to hang onto their seats. And after that triangulation, the GOP becomes a permanent, stunted minority party.

There will be enough things done in the house by San Fran Nan that they will lose the right on other things.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You are well-versed on this topic enough to know that the 'path to citizenship' vs 'rounding up and deporting 12 million illegals' is a false choice.

Adam, According to Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, it was the Democrats who scuttled the Senate Republican's compromise:

A compromise fashioned by Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida had toughened the earned citizenship portion of the Kennedy-McCain bill and made it more palatable to Republicans yet still acceptable to Kennedy.

But according to the recollections of those close to the principal figures, a battle ensued over how many amendments the Republicans would entertain, and Democrats feared that the GOP would use the amendments to strip away the progressive elements of the bill. Kennedy argued that he and McCain had the votes to defeat any troublesome amendments.

This is the U.S. Senate, Kennedy reportedly argued. The leadership has to allow for amendments. But the Democrats were dubious. They’d been burned before. And it didn’t take much persuading when New York Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer reportedly made the case that the failure to get a bill would be good for the Democrats. As the head of the Democratic campaign committee, Schumer is focused on getting his party back into power in November.

Schumer and the Democrats turned their backs on the proposed compromise to resolve festering problem of how to stem the ever-rising tide of illegal aliens flowing across the border and deal with the 12 million illegals already here in a crass attempt to gain a political advantage.

If they wanted to do it, they could have. But there was not support from the right for it. So without cover in the middle, there was no motivation to do anything. And nothing is what happened.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The only reason Giuliani hasn't gone out of his way to push this is because he wasn't in Congress. He seems like one of those people whose own family immigration story renders him incapable of any thought on the subject other than Ellis Island romanticism.

aren't you seeing? You have 51 Dem/Socialist votes plus at least seven to 10 CrapWeasel&trade, votes. It will not get "toughened" up and it will blow through the House like bacon through a goose.

The only question left is just how McCain and Kennedy are going to grease the wheels for the 50MM relatives of the 12MM new citizens are going to be legally fast tracked from their current horrid living conditions in their home country to their new home here in the HooHessHay where they will also become citizens.

Somebody's gotta do those jobs that 'mercans won't do, even with a higher minimum wage.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

I can be every bit as snide as you. What did I say? I'm not going go off the deep end just because Kennedy has announced he and his ilk have crafted a bill. I simply pointed out that those 7-10 "Crapweaselandtrade" votes may not be there. I did not state as fact that they wouldn't be, I'm just speculating that there may be a backlash against Kennedy for how he has handled this.

When I read it, it came out nastier that it was intended. It was supposed to sound snarky and it didn't. My bad. And I screwed up my HTML too. All in all, not a quality effort by me. Heck, it wasn't even a pretty bad effort.

Again, I apologise.

And I hope you're right on the CrapWeasels.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

From what I gather, Rahm Emmanuel won't let the legislation go to the House floor unless President Bush can promise at least a third of the GOP caucus will go along with it. FWIW.

Rahm Emmanuel, one of the brighter Democrats, doesn't want to go down this road without a large number of Republicans to share the blame. So the question is whether there will be enough Third World Chamber of Commerce type Republicans, willing to provide political cover for the Democrats in return for keeping wages low for unskilled workers.

b/c being the anti-immigrant party worked so well in 2006. That should definitely be repeated.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

from Republican-leaning districts sink their teeth into it. And if that trinagulation happens, the anti-law enforcement Republicans will be responsible for turning the GOP into the neo-Whigs.

The real reason we lost in 2006 was the war, spending, the "internet gaming ban," the kind of socks that George Allen wore while campaigning, or [Error: Buffer overrun in Bloggyhorse file].

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

repeating that worn out meme. Funny how stronger immigration enforcement always wins about 70% of the electorate in every poll, but sure its a "losing" issue. If you believe Kristol and the polyannas who run the WSJ editorial page that is.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Enforcement plus earned legalization polls well. That was the compromise. Alas, puritans didn't want that. They wanted to ship 12 million people back to their home countries. And that wasn't popular. So now we get no enforcement.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

there was never going to be any enforcement with the previous scheme either, that is why it had to be enforcement first or nothing. If you believe otherwise then you are not very bright.
At least I am old enough to remember the last time a bipartisan government told me that there would be amnesty and then enforcement. Guess what? They lied.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

for deportation, seriously? The simple truth is that any bill that ties these issues together will only adjust status and not enforce the laws or secure the borders. That was true in 1986, that was true in 2006, that would be true now if this gets out of the Senate (it will in some form) and through the House (iffy at best if Rahm Emmanuel continues to insist on a third of House Republicans as human shields).

As to the polls: I imagine most people would know, in a poll, what "illegal immigrant" (less loaded) or "illegal alien" (more loaded) meant, but almost no one would know what a "guest worker" program was or what "pathway to citizenship" meant. It is pretty obvious where the American people are, Adam, and your side has done a very poor job of persuading them that enforcement requires status adjustment.

Until the illegal immigration doves and open borders advocates can honestly debate this issue without blurring illegal and legal immigration, I just see permanent gridlock. And perhaps that is better than what has been proposed, particularly if you are a Republican who doesn't want to see the party reduced to rubble.

All those "enforcement" guys did real well in 2006. When you explain to me what happened to Rep. Bonilla and why something that supposedly is so popular has so little support, I'll listen more.

But most people realize that Tancredoism is not popular. A combination of enforcement and earned legalization is the best that can happen. The choice is between that, the status quo, or amnesty without enforcement. I think the status quo is unacceptable. So I support compromise legislation. But many here have chosen status quo over a compromise. Now it is more likely an outright amnesty will occur.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

We know what you think now, We just disagree. In fact I don't really disagree, I just think we had no hope for anything good to begin with. You see, I don't trust them, that is our representatives, Don't trust them at all, neither party. Don't believe a word the President says about it. Don't believe anything will happen.

Get used to being the minority party, and soon, a minority race
(I am assuming you are white)and culture. So many pollyannas just smiling and nodding like jackasses while Rome burns. But here on the frontlines, we know whats happening.

The only assimilation going on is our assimilating into their culture. I have come to accept it. I am forced to learn Spanish just to stay employed. My taxes go up every year while our schools collapse and our hospitals shut down their emergency rooms. But what the hell eh? I can listen to tejano musica and tomo la cerveza

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

vs. those that claimed to be for enforcement, Adam. Seriously. Explain to me why 20 or more Democrats in swing districts were elected after they embraced enforcement first. Then I will look into the Bonilla loss. I look forward to the political commercials in swing districts that embraced amnesty, by the way.

But if it is more likely that an outright amnesty bill will come out of this Congress than stalemate, the president will veto it, right? He has told us ad nauseum he only will support a comprehensive package. If he signed into law amnesty only, he would be widely perceived as a liar and ethical degenerate. So I'm certain he will whip out the veto pen. Aren't you?

No, Tancredoism isn't popular. But put it head to head with the WSJ position of open borders, and my money would be on Tancredoism.

I would prefer Tancredoism but its not just feasible. But there is no excuse why we can't build a fence from San Diego to Brownsville. I remember when Lamar Alexander ran for President and he proposed making Border Patrol a military branch. I always liked that idea. So if we need to forgive the felons who already here, fine but we need to stop more felons once and for all.

How much would you really want to be that Bush follows through on a veto threat? He’s made something like 300 of them since he was elected and but for the stem cell research bill, he’s always found a way to weasel out in the end.

IMO the best bet for Republicans might be to have a vote on Bush’s impeachment before taking up immigration.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

Why is it that the McCains and Kennedys of the world feel the need to keep the public in the dark about how their 'comprehensive' bill would unleash enormous increases in permanent legal immigration?

If their position is so popular, then why not brag about it? Why was it left to the Heritage Foundation and Senator Sessions to point this little tidbit out to us rubes?

b/c being the anti-immigrant party worked so well in 2006

On what basis do you claim Republicans, or specifically Republicans opposed to rewarding illegal entry with cheap green cards, were/are generally "anti-immigrant"?

I know that you like to attribute Tancredo's views to anybody opposed to green cards for illegals, but that's as silly as saying since most Republicans agree with Tancredo on funding troops in Iraq, that means you can associate Republicans as a group with his advocacy of bombing Mecca.

Advocates of the reconquesta annexation of the U.S. southwest to Mexico, agree with you on giving green cards to illegals, but that isn't a basis for accusing you of supporting the reconquesta.

from people b/c they saw Rs as anti-immigrant thanks to the leadership of people like Tancredo. It would really behoove well-meaning anti-illegal immigration Rs to find some leadership that isn't also anti-immigration.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

b/c they saw Rs as anti-immigrant

That's an excellent distinction, between being anti-immigrant, vs. being successfully slandered as anti-immigrant by advocates of cheap green cards for illegals.

I suppose if enough people use "immigrant" as a euphemism for "illegal alien", and characterize opposition to rewarding illegal behavior as "anti-immigrant", a significant number of dimwits might start actually believing it. And certainly La Raza, Bush, etc., even some posts here, have used those misrepresentations.

Whether that actually did succeed in costing net votes for Republicans, is another assumption you make with selective anecdotal evidence. A lot of Republicans lost, and where one of the losers opposed the cheap green cards scheme, that's obviously the reason he lost; but where a Republican supporter of cheap green cards for illegals lost the election, clearly it was Iraq/earmarks/Abramoff/Schiavo that cost him the election, not his support for rewarding illegality.

Gensec, so intentional blurring of "legal" and "illegal" immigration is required. Otherwise, people have to admit they are for nullification of the laws of the United States--which they are, obviously, but won't admit.

If opposing increasing already large-scale legal immigration and supporting actual reductions in legal immigration makes one anti-immigration, then anywhere from 40-80% of the nation is anti-immigration.

Most restrictionists support allowing between 200-300,000 immigrants to come here each year. How can that can honestly be called anti-immigration?

You are being disingenuous. So you are pro-invasion?

How exactly was the GOP the anti-immigrant party in 2006? Because they refused a dishonest, deceptive bill that would grant amnesty to illegal aliens and enormously increase permanent legal immigration? Because they wanted a border fence? Because they didn't take too kindly to millions marching under in American cities under Mexican flags? Because Democrats, the media, and the professional ethnic grievance groups said so?

What you don't seem to accept is that ANY position short of amnesty + massive increases in permanent legal immigration will get one called names. Someday Republicans and conservatives will stand up to this stiffling, suffocating pc garbage, or we can just go ahead and surrender on all issues, because to willingly play by rhetorical rules of the Left is to slowly commit political suicide.

And the idea that a refusal to embrace dishonest 'comprehensive' reform cost the GOP in 2006 is nothing but nonsense put out by the likes of the WSJ and Fred Barnes. Of all the defeated 'hard-liners', the only one whose defeat can really be attributed to that hard line is Bonilla of Texas. In virtually every other instance, the Democrat did not run as a liberal on immigration, and most times tried to sound as tough or tougher than the Republican.

Iraq and the corruption scandals were the primary agents of the Republican rout in 2006. You can't really believe that a refusal to embrace amnesty and gigantic increases in permanent legal immigration cost the GOP Congress, do you?

Birthright citizenship is the rock upon which the pro-restrictionist ship the debate constantly founders. The other side will not engage in any plan where it is contemplated - and 'other side' in this context includes 'at least half of the Republican Party'. Including me, by the way. The rest of your plan can either be implemented as-is or after some discussion over flexibility, but #3 is a non-starter - and trying to push it will crash and burn your whole plan.

This is not a debate point, by the way. This is the way things simply are.

Moe

PS: Yes, I've heard all the arguments against birthright citizenship.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

1) I said thought should be given to it, not that it had to be included in this plan. If all of the other points were adopted, I would accept such a plan (and estimate that most other's on the right would as well - on the left it would depend entirely on who proposed/got credit for the bill).

2) A question I have for the people who are so passionate about "birthright citizenship":

aside from the fact that it is how some interpret the constitution, what is the argument FOR birthright citizenship? I have never heard anything remotely persuasive (an argument, NOT a statement such as "well its what I believe the constitution means"). I am actually interested in what arguments there are FOR birthright citizenship.

I'm don't really understand the passion about keeping birthright citizenship as it currently is interpreted.

Put another way, even if that consitutional interpretation is correct, what is the rational argument for NOT amending the constitution to do away with birthright citizenship (let me define what I mean by birthright citizenship here so we are all discussing the same thing - I mean that someone born in the U.S. but not whose parents are not here legally would not be granted citizenship automatically by virtue of being born here).

3) Why then, do you think the rest of the plan - or something similar - has not been proposed by anyone? (Please, don't claim that any of the "comprehensive" reform plans actually come close to this, b/c they do not). [I put comprehensive in scare quotes, b/c it seems to me that to be truly comprehensive, there has to be something (real) and significant in a plan about actual border security and enforcement].

1). Fair enough.

2). We have fought, by my count, at least three wars* to eradicate the notion that there is such a thing as 'good blood' and 'bad blood' in this country; I have absolutely no desire to allow it back in. Note that I am not saying that you support such a notion: I merely note that it will flower in a land where a man's citizenship may be revoked for the sins of his father and/or mother. That door stays closed. Locked. Welded shut. Bricked up behind cinderblocks. The entire building encased in lucite. Then the valley that it's in gets filled with concrete.

In other words, the current state of affairs.

3). My answer depends on my mood, but it generally revolves around the notion that a lot of people involved are more interested in having the fight than in finishing it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*Revolutionary, War of 1812 and American Civil. The middle is the iffy one, but why should that get in the way of a good rant?

...fought a war or passed any Amendments with the understanding that they could be used to justify the granting of automatic birthright citizenship to those born here to parents who are themselves here illegally.

We have fought, by my count, at least three wars* to eradicate the notion that there is such a thing as 'good blood' and 'bad blood' in this country; I have absolutely no desire to allow it back in. Note that I am not saying that you support such a notion: I merely note that it will flower in a land where a man's citizenship may be revoked for the sins of his father and/or mother. That door stays closed. Locked. Welded shut. Bricked up behind cinderblocks. The entire building encased in lucite. Then the valley that it's in gets filled with concrete.

So, basically there is no actual argument? I mean, c'mon that is ridiculous on many levels.

All eliminating birthright citizenship for illegals would do would eliminate AUTOMATIC citizenship based on geography of birth for illegal immigrants. It makes no good/bad distinction as to blood. It does not mean that child would never be allowed citizenship. It does not mean that citizenshp would be taken away from anyone.

If that is all you have, then I still do not understand the passion for this.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Moe,

do you really believe there is any logic in that?

Not only is it not an argument, it is based on a misunderstanding of the very concepts at issue.

1) person comes into country illegally;

2) person has child while in country illegally;

3) Child is not automatically citizen of country born in, instead is citizen of country parent is citizen of;

4) Child never had citizenship, so citizenship is never revoked;

5) child grows up, comes into country legally, applies for citizenship - if he/she meets requirements, would be granted citizenship.

No citizen's citezenship is revoked. No citizen's citezenship could be revoked.

Thus, what you said as an argument makes absolutely no sense. Are there no real arguments to be made in support of birthright citizenship. I mean arguments about the merits or usefulness of having it the way it currently is - not what your emotional attachment to it may be (even if based on a misunderstanding of the concepts at issue)?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Why make citizenship automatic for anyone ? Is the concept that citizenship should be earned so alien ?

Theres some criteria that could be used possibly in a non exclusive fashion.

Citizenship earned by service. (this is already in place in a limited way)

Citizenship dependent on demonstration of an ability to participate in the republic. (this is how we naturalize legal immigrants)

There would be some inherent problems such as creating a separate class of inhabitants in the country. But the people occupying the class would be doing so voluntarily.

______________________________
"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

and chain migration, though.

I actually agree with Moe in this one narrow area: there should be no constitutional change to the concept of solis juris. Because illegal aliens, their employers and even our own government corruptly break and/or nullify our laws, constitutional change should not be driven by criminality.

However, one thing should be changed and it won't upset the constitution. "Chain migration" is statutory and permits a naturalized citizen to bring in elderly family members, siblings, parents, and so forth. It can be eliminated, and certainly should be if citizenship ever is conferred upon those who entered illegally. This concept expanded with the 1965 Kennedy immigration law, which began to bring poorer and more illiterate people into the United States. The touted "brain drain," whereby immigration was reserved for those who actually would benefit the United States began to take a second seat to emotional considerations. Even at the time, the lunacy of such a policy was condemned.

The open borders/illegal immigration doves often engage in many frauds and deceptive language, but none is greater than the claim that a "pathway to citizenship" or whatever the amnesty du jour term is will bring in only 12 to 20 million new citizens. No, with chain migration the numbers would be much greater.

So until the amnesty proponents can honestly discuss this and other aspects of what they propose, and agree to eliminate chain migration, the opposition only will intensify to any "comprehensive immigration reform" plan.

Although your language is hardly value-neutral itself. :)

But, anyway: I can live with this policy change. I'll want something that can handle tricky cases, but I can live with it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

To the serious point, though. Even prior to 1965, there always were hardship provisions that allowed a small amount of chain migration. It seems, though, that once the policy shifted from "beneficial to America," many (now many's value netural!) declined to revisit the issue because it was viewed as some sort of fait accompli.

And for full disclosure, I was a major advocate for this change at the time of the 1986 debacle and from what I recall Sen. Simpson tested the waters and was slapped down when he even mentioned chain migration. If anyone wants to get a feel for how bad legislation such as the well-intentioned but ultimately horrible 1986 IRCA or the currently proposed bill can come about, check into the committee hearings from back then. You'll encounter a lot of the same rhetoric.

If, in fact we enforced the borders, got control of immigration, and ended chain-migration, as you say, then you are right, there would be absolutely no need to change the current understanding of "birthright citizenship."

You've got other things to do.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I merely note that it will flower in a land where a man's citizenship may be revoked for the sins of his father and/or mother. That door stays closed. Locked. Welded shut. Bricked up behind cinderblocks. The entire building encased in lucite. Then the valley that it's in gets filled with concrete.

Wouldn't you same the same situation applies when a mother carrying her 1 month old baby crosses into the United States illegally? Or 1 year old? Or 5 year old? Or an 8 year old? Should we give all kids who can make it to this country automatic citizenship because we don't want them deported "for the sins of their father and/or mother?"

How is a kid that was born in Mexico and smuggled across as an infant any more responsible for his plight than one who was smuggled into the USA in the womb and born here? Or heck, a kid that was born in Mexico and grew up in Mexico. After all, he didn't choose that fate for himself. He might want American citizenship as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Anyway, my answer is: your hypothetical scenario is a potential tragedy, yes - but irrelevant. The child was never a citizen in the first place. To be somewhat cold about it, tragedies happen.

In other words, this is a line in the sand situation. Lines in the sand make for nightmarish hypothetical cases, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. I frankly trust no man, woman or group with the power to retroactively determine a person's citizenship on either a case-by-case or group-by-group basis; someone will inevitably work their way down to me and mine. Regardless of whether this was the original intent, or not (please note that I understand that this would be a case of 'not').

And that's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. Anything more will simply be me repeating myself.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Also, I like how you term the debate in emotionally laden terms:

Birthright citizenship is the rock upon which the pro-restrictionist ship the debate constantly founders.

How, based upon the plan I outlined, am I "pro-restrictionist"? I put right in the plan that congress can set whatever numbers they deem appropriate for immigration, and gave no opinion as to what those numbers should be. So, how do you perceive "pro-restrictionist" from that?

Maybe "pro-border security" or "pro managing immigration properly" or even possibly "anti illegal immigration". but, how do you perceive "pro restrictionist"?

It seems to me that your view of anyone who disagrees with you is somewhat jaded if you have to throw out such labels immediately.

Does that make you anti-restrictionist? Meaning you don't want to restrict immigration in any way whatsoever? Have no border security?

'Tancredoites'? 'Anti-illegals'? I've heard people object to those fairly strenuously, too. As fo your suggestions, 'pro-border security' won't work: I'm one myself. A proper border fence would be fantastic. 'Pro managing immigration properly' is too long to write. 'anti-illegal immigration' implies that I am for it, when I'm not. A lot of the Democrats are, I'll grant you.

Dude, if you think that 'pro-restrictionist' is a slur, you're going to get precisely zero sympathy from people who disagree with you. Particularly since the word 'amnesty' is thrown around with such vim and vigor on your side of the debate.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Since a plurality or majority of Americans consistently express support for restrictionist (i.e. less legal immigration) policies, and since only a person with a leftwing mindset could believe that restrictionist motives must be racist, then I would consider it a label of honor instead of a slur.

I mean, I went to some trouble to find something at least value-neutral on the subject. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

The problem is, it is used as a slur (despite what Moe Lane now claims). The idea is to blur the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and infer that anyone who wants to control the border is a racist b/c they want to "restict" immigration.

Why did he need a label at all to respond? His comment did not require throwing a label at me. It is a mindset wherein you believe everyone who disagrees with you has a bad motive.

I have seen it quite a bit on this site when immigration is discussed.

And I am telling you that you are incorrect in your inference that I am calling you a racist; and so now you will retract that inference, sir.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Or what, you will ban me?

I have seen you diretly call others racist on the issue of immigration in the past - so it is not hard to believe that is what you are inferring.

However, maybe you were not. that does not change my argument about why the term is used.

Again, how exactly does anything I wrote equate to pro-restrictionist? do you want to be called anti-restictionist (which infers you want no immigration laws)? If so, then I will go by pro-restrictionist.

Blam.

(Looking around). All right, ladies and gentlemen: here's the lesson you should all be taking from this particular banning. This is a honking big debate and a lot of people are angry about it - and, honestly: they have reasons to be. People got lied to in the 1980s over immigration reform, and they're naturally going to be mistrustful about this now.

But it's a bad idea to go Snark hunting in comments; you never know when one of them's going to be a Boojum.

So. Carve yourselves up in little strips for all I care. I think that many of you enjoy it. But 'tude against a moderator is not a viable long-term strategy. If you think that one of us is a problem, complain to the Directors. They will actually listen.

And now I go to lunch, muttering. This was not one of the fun bannings.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

[...two seconds to delete. When we say 'go', go. - Moe Lane]

---"The idea is to blur the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and infer that anyone who wants to control the border is a racist b/c they want to "restict" immigration."---

This is true, but let me ask you for a bit of clarification. Surely you don't think that the desire to restrict legal immigration is bad, do you? I mean, illegal immigration and legal immigration are both related, and separate. Obviously the illegality of illegal immigration makes it a much easier and obvious target, but the only reason to be concerned about ONLY illegal immigration is if one thinks that the illegal nature of immigration is the only problem with immigration overall. But this is a position than does not make sense, because so many of the problems created or exacerbated by illegal immigration are also similarly affected by legal immigration.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to restrict legal immigration, and reduce it from the current levels we currently admit. People can argue about this all day long, but we should reject out of hand the idea that restricting legal immigration (more so than we do now) is somehow an unclean position to hold.

I think I actually said I would prefer anti-illegal immigration, as that is more honest. but, stick with what you think helps your side of the argument. You know as well as I, that your side uses the term "pro-immigration restrictionist" to eliminate the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and to casually infer that those against "comprehensive" reform are racist.

I simply hope for better at this web-site.

So my wife and I are over to your house, and she happens to give birth in your living room, my child will then be part of your family (since you didn't realize it, but we sneaked in when you weren't looking (You left the door unlocked)). So now, as part of your household, I will be suing (no-demanding) your support for my child. And I want to be added to your health care and retirement plans. NOW! And you must pay for my child's education since you have a better job than I do!

It doesn't matter that I wasn't invited. I'm in now and you will never get me out. I am already in your house so it would not be possible or humane to make me leave. Plus, you haven't got the guts to enforce your own rules (laws).

And besides, my child is now part of two families. So my child is in your house legally (???) even though I might be in here illegally. But you will be happy about it. I'll take the cleaning job you don't (allegedly) want. Just give me a path to permanent residence in your house. A $20 fine and a promise to be good. Yeah, cheap rent!

Now we will get around to changing the culture in this house! Give me that TV remote!

Got a problem with that. Then your are a xxxxphobe, yyyyphobe, zzzzzphobe (take your pick)! I won't take you seriously!

I'm even ok if you fix the lock on your door. We know it won't last forever. Grandpa wants to come live with us too!

The downside to such an honest approach to increasing legal immigration is that it stands in contrast with public opinion (which when polled in the most simple terms reveals overwhelming opposition to increasing legal immigration, so its probably a safe bet that the opposition would be even greater if the public were told of just how massive an increase the McKennedy bill would allow), and it might just be the spark that ignites a formidable restrictionist campaign.

But its not as if the pro-increase side would be w/o powerful weapons to combat this. The media would, for example, unleash a barrage of immigrant success stories, and immigrant sob stories. We'd see countless homages to the Statue of Liberty and we'd hear a constant refrain of the standard platitudes associated with this debate; all in an effort to make people feel guilty about not wanting more immigration. Who knows, it may very well serve to break down the natural restrictionist sentiments of the public, and the pro-increase side could actually pass a bill that achieves their goals w/o duping the public.

If we are too increase legal immigration, should it come about as a result of open and honest discussion and debate, or should it be hidden in a bill so that the American people are caught completely unawares when these hidden provisions kick in?

Aurelian: I keep hearing this meme being discussed -- namely that the legislation in the offing will vastly increase legal immigration. Can you specify what you mean by this? I'm aware of the phenomenon of "chain migration" (I personally would like to see family reunification immigration criteria sharply tightened, FWIW) that enables more immigrants to come the US. But I was under the impression that the main outcome of amnesty for illegals in this regard would be to lengthen immigration queues. Does this legislation increase explicitly raise quotas? Because if not, it's not going to mean a big jump in lawful immigration. Rather, it's going to mean much longer waits for everybody who aspires to come here. If what you say is true, though, you've just made a convert in opposing the bill. I'd be interested to hear anybody's insight on this subject.

http://jasperblog.wordpress.com/

to portions of the Senate bill that dealt with--in my view, inexplicably--legal immigration quotas and were inserted into SB 2611 last year. Apparently, and I haven't seen the draft, this "new" bill will do the same. From what the Hertitage Foundation study found with the failed 2006 omnibus bill, it would have (from memory) increased legal immigration by about 66 million on top of whatever happened with adjusted status for illegal aliens and eventually their families via chain migration.

I fully admit that I never read the entire Senate bill, though I doubt many Senators actually read the full thing either. I got most of my information from the Heritage Foundation's analysis of the bill, and from Senator Sessions floor speeches against it. Heritage initially found that the McCain-Kennedy bill would add over 100 million additional legal immigrants over the next 20 years, but that estimate was reduced (as spanishirish said) to 66 million after the Senate adopted the Bingaman amendment which capped the number of guest workers admitted each year at 200,000 (earlier it started at a certain point, then contained escalators which allowed the annual number to grow indefinitely). Their research and analysis comes firmly down on the side that the actual annual inflow would be increased instead of the backlog simply growing.

It should be noted that some doubted these findings, as noted in the second link. But I was particularly struck by how little the champions of the bill bothered to object to these findings, and deny their accuracy. Of course, one could argue that this can be explained by the fact that the media did not give much press to Heritage or Senator Sessions, so there was therefore no need to launch an aggressive counterattack, but I believe that something they had hoped to hide was discovered, and they didn't really have a response. The only sponsor of the bill I ever saw questioned on the matter was Senator Martinez. I believe it was Tucker Carlson who asked him about the bill's effect on legal immigration. Martinez did not dispute it. He instead said that it was not the intention of the bill to so massively increase permanent legal immigration, but he did not deny that the bill would allow it (and I'd say, pretty much guarantees it).

I simply do not trust politicians on this issue. It goes back in part to the 1965 bill, support for which was built upon certain promises about the bill's effects; pretty much all of which turned out to be false.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/nr051906a.cfm

...because the GOP is doomed either way. If it runs on restrictionism, then according to you it will result in defeats now. But what you and Adam fail to see is that if they instead accept and embrace 'comprehensive' (i.e. amnesty for current illegals + gigantic increases in permanent legal immigration) reform, then they will be doomed demographically over the long run. Its a pipe dream that the GOP can even break even with immigrant communities so long as mass immigration persists.

Of course I disagree with the notion that taking a hard-line cost the GOP in 2006. Of all the defeated GOP candidates, only with Bonilla can we attribute the loss to taking a harder line on immigration reform. Other issues were more important in all the other oft-cited races. I mean, do you really think that the GOP majority would have been saved by embracing 'comprehensive' reform? How exactly would that have prevented millions of white voters from abandoning the GOP? And it was the large drop in the white vote that most dearly cost the GOP last year.

They are now called "blogs". Here's a suggestion - rather than writing 3 near blog-length comments why not write a diary of your own so that people can argue the merits of your POV without cluttering an already long thread?

Piece of advice though, to go with that suggestion - you might want to leave the "rounding-up 12-million people at gunpoint" talking point in the bag as no one - not even Tommy T - is talking much about that anymore.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Why do you insist on using leftist-style rhetoric? How does opposing amnesty and enormous increases in permanent legal immigration (or 'comprehensive' reform as you call it) make one 'anti-immigrant'? So long as you believe that legal immigrants should be treated fairly and given an opportunity to succeed, then I really don't see how 'anti-immigrant' applies, unless of course you are using leftist rules for lableing whereby anyone who dares disagree is some sort of bigot. Same thing goes for the whole 'starving them out' bit.

As to polls showing that people favor your 'comprehensive' reform over attrition; well, I've seen a poll that shows just the opposite, so I guess it depends on how its worded and when you ask it. But frankly its hard to take any pro-comprehensive/pro-path to citizenship poll seriously when the public is not fully informed. Its a safe bet, for example, that most Americans have no idea that 'comprehensive' reform would result in a a massive increase in already mass levels of permanent legal immigration. So it would sure be nice if some pollster asked if respondents would support comprehensive reform if they knew it would result in tens of millions of additional permanent legal immigrants on top of those we would admit under current policy.

What do you think they would say then? Because if you follow polls on immigration, then you'd know that when people are asked about their preferences for legal immigration, they almost always voice majority or plurality support for reducing it. 'Maintain current levels' also polls well, and sometimes battles it out with 'reduce' for top status, but one thing is constant -- support for increasing legal immigration is always small. I've only seen it crack the 20% mark once! So again, what do you think the public would say about a plan that would unleash humongous increases in legal immigration? Surely you'd agree that they should at least be made aware of this little nugget before they sign on to 'comprehensive' reform, right?

It would also be nice if a poll was taken of only Republicans/conservatives, and they were asked if they would support comprehensive reform if they knew it would add millions of new Democrats and demographically render them a permanent minority party.

What do you think they'd say about that?

Yes, you heard me right, YOU HATE IMMIGRANTS, that is to say you are very unfair to them. How so? well because you want to make excuses and let in millions of illegal invaders from mostly just ONE nation. and at the same time what happens to all those poor Nigerians, Indians, Easter Europeans, Filipinos, etc. Who are waiting in line and want to do thinks the right way,

You know, all those EDUCATED people we could actually use in our moder workplace. But to you just one nation gets all the perks, gets to disobey our rules, gets to force its masses on us. What are you a bigot?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Great post, but you should be wary of giving the open-borders crowd any ideas. Some of them are so fanatic that they may suggest the US -- in the interests of being fair to the rest of the world, and not being so latino-centric in immigration --fund a program whereby we transport people here from places outside of the traditional sources of illegal immigration.

my tone was a bit nasty, and as you can see from the misspellings I wrote in haste. It is just that, I am so angry whenever I hear any Pollyanna's trying to make light of what is really the biggest problem now facing our nation.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

But im not for this, we need to deport 12 million people.

I am calling BS on this entire line of thought. Who, precisely, in this thread, is talking about deporting 12-million people?

When you operate starting from this BS assumption - and this goes for several far more senior members of this community who have spoken thusly upthread - you end-up with BS conclusion (ie, that saying "Bye-gons" to 12-million criminals is a swell idea).

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?