We Oppose This Immigration Bill
President Bush Did Not Take The Middle Ground. He Sided With The Left.
By The Directors Posted in Immigration — Comments (43) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In the immigration debate, balance is almost impossible to achieve. On one hand, you have the interests of security, of ethnic communities, and of business—all in varying degrees of conflict. The vast majority of these interested parties do agree on one point, if only one: the current state of affairs is untenable.
Something must be done, yes. And there is much to appreciate about the current bill. It outlines a timeline for change, provides resources to our Swiss cheese border security, and takes some small steps toward needed reform.
Yet these strides—as we've seen with so many other pieces of legislation during the Bush presidency—come at an enormous cost. In fact, there may be even fewer good things in this bill than were in Medicare or No Child Left Behind.
There is a point where "taking the bad with the good" ends, and you realize you just traded your island for some beads and blankets. And these beads aren't even that shiny.
Read on . . .
In the midst of the larger forces arguing about this bill, an important segment of observers has been completely ignored. They are the small voices halfway between both sides, the smart think-tank folks descended from Moynihan and his peers, who've been pointing out the massive social fallout that will result from the creation of a permanent helot class of sort-of-Americans.
Consider: under the current system, the vast majority of illegals here are Latino men between the ages of 18 and 50. They work, and work, and work. They send home money to their families, and live in communities outside the law. Their sons back home, without father figures present, are raised to consider it their duty to follow in the footsteps of others—to come to America themselves, to earn money, and to send it home.
If this bill works as it is intended, it will essentially ghettoize these hardworking people for the foreseeable future. Rather than pay the extra costs (the costs of the Z Visas are both too low for what they offer and too high for most illegals to reasonably consider) or jump through the legal hoops, they will either only participate as scattered individuals (and thereby perpetuate the current system, but with legal endorsement), or - more likely - they will abjure the process entirely.
Over and over, research has shown us that most legal immigrant families are Americanized within one generation—many speak fluent English and view themselves as Americans first, not as displaced residents of their parents' country of birth. But this bill will not leverage this knowledge to help create a stable, law-abiding community of fully legal American citizens; instead, it will simply manage human beings as if they were another commodity, and provide a false promise of a solution for politicians eager for a cover story.
As conservatives, we believe in the Rule of Law. The law is not a convenience, and we should not wink and nod at its mockery in this case, particularly when so many have gone through extensive legal trials and made sustained efforts to become legal citizens. The knowledge that this bill will aid and abet the illegal acts — gang membership, tax evasion, and even terrorism — of millions is not one that we should dismiss lightly.
What is more frightening, on many counts, is that it is reportedly the Bush Administration that pulled out the requirement to pay back taxes — while Sen. Kennedy's staff had left it in. Perhaps that's one of the reasons for Rep. Boehner's recent colorful-yet-accurate description of the bill; if not, it should be.
Even beyond our opposition to this legislation, we reject the idea that this bill is the only real opportunity for reform, as some advocates have suggested. "This is our only shot," Lindsey Graham wrings his hands and says. To which we say, in classic McLaughlin fashion: Wrong. This is your shot to claim credit for a victory, nothing more. The idea that it is "this year or never" is simply false, and we are not interested in rushing into a foolish, bad, poorly evaluated half-measure solution to our immigration challenges simply to give President Bush a really snazzy photo op. We suggest you check your priorities and try again.
What does it mean to be an American citizen? The answer to that question proposed in the current immigration bill is, quite simply, unacceptable. Does being an American citizen mean you can be a tax evader the IRS ignores, a criminal absconder the Courts cannot try, or a gang member or terrorist the Justice Department can't touch? No, it does not, and it should not.
True American citizens deserve better than this bill. They deserve better than the Congress that would vote for it, and the Administration that would construct it. And if this President and this Congress do not recognize this fact, they will be remembered by history as leaders who preferred a photo op to principle, and winning a news cycle over passing sound policy.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | The end of the American political order. — Comments (33) »
We Oppose This Immigration Bill 43 Comments (0 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm amazed at the tin ear that our representatives have in DC.
We want small government, border enforcement, rule of law, and an ethical congress.
They give us big spending, an amnesty bill, and Ken Calvert.
Didn't they learn anything in November of 2006?
I have several friends who have remarked to me lately things along the lines of "I feel as though I have no party."
I'm especially disappointed in my Georgia Senators who have quite often been the voice of reason. It seems like we're down to DeMint and Coburn as the only true conservatives in the Senate any more.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
and not with you personally...BUT.
whatever mess the Repubs made THROUGH '06, THIS bill is not a Republican bill. It was a Dem dream when we were in the majority, and it still is now.
As we have all said, elections have consequences. When we were in the majority, this bill's grandmother was effectively killed. This spawn of Kennedy/McCain under new management has less chance of getting put out of its misery than before, to be sure, but this is not the "Republicans"...this is "the POLITICIANS" now managed by the left and controlling a higher number of RINO's and spineless jellyfish hoping to stay elected.
I only ask that you blame ALL of them, not just these RINO's...including the esteemed Senator from AZ who wishes to be your Commander in Chief...and wishes to increase the size of your neighborhoods and the size of the Federal doles.
Directors:
I couldn't agree more.
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).
There are 49 Republican Senators.
At least 9 of them didn't stand up and filibuster this bill from the get-go. In fact, it was more like 29.
That's my point.
Further, it will only advance if the GOP let's it advance. I blame them all, but the Dems don't and never have represented me.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
wanted to make sure we hold the Dems accountable for being behind the wheel here
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).
She is 83 and donated so much over many years to many Republican organizations and we both rec'd our NRSC request for money today and she is sending hers back with the message that she will never directly support them ever again and this woman who would have given her life for President Bush is beyond disgusted with what the party has done, she said she does not recognize this Republican party. I noted on my request, next to Hillary's picture that they labeled the enemy, that at least she was the enemy I know and that the Senators who worked this deal are the enemies I didn't think I had. It is all so really sad.
No bill is better than this bill...for the moment. The status quo has existed for 42 years with "fixes" that only exacerbated the problem.
We need to drain the swamp, revamp the entire immigration system while enforcing what current law exists.
This bill calls upon the party of Lincoln to abandon every principle and noble deed that made it worthy of support. We would undo the great work our forefathers paid in blood to accomplish and for what ? A manicured lawn.
______________________________
"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
The two main problems you cite here:
Over and over, research has shown us that most legal immigrant families are Americanized within one generation—many speak fluent English and view themselves as Americans first, not as displaced residents of their parents' country of birth. But this bill will not leverage this knowledge to help create a stable, law-abiding community of fully legal American citizens; instead, it will simply manage human beings as if they were another commodity, and provide a false promise of a solution for politicians eager for a cover story.
As conservatives, we believe in the Rule of Law. The law is not a convenience, and we should not wink and nod at its mockery in this case, particularly when so many have gone through extensive legal trials and made sustained efforts to become legal citizens. The knowledge that this bill will aid and abet the illegal acts — gang membership, tax evasion, and even terrorism — of millions is not one that we should dismiss lightly.
make this legislation unacceptable even to people who would predisposed to it. How we ever got to a point where our D.C. officials need to be reminded respect for the rule of law is a good thing and that the creation of an ethnic/linguistic ghetto is a bad thing is a question we need to address rather quickly...after we work hard to see this bill go down.
Well done.
Democrats and Republicans should unite against the people inside the beltway. If the people at Kos and Democrats in general took a hard look at this bill, I think they would be as opposed to it as we are. A majority of Democrats voted against the guest-worker provisions. They should be congratulated for that. Let me be the first to do so.
The plan is also objectionable from a pro-family perspective.
It would encourage fathers in Mexico to leave their families. Detrimental to the family, detrimental, therefore to the long term safety and prosperity of Mexico--and therefore detrimental to our interests.
If Mexico should ever drag itself into the First World, our border problem would be largely solved. Encouraging millions of fatherless-families in Mexico will not make that struggle any easier.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Even if you disagree with the bill's general approach it appears that the bill is being improved on the floor. The Grahm amendment, which was adopted by voice vote to prevent Democratic senators from being put on the record, has
a) Enacted a mandatory minimum sentence for those illegally crossing the border with a higher penalty for subsequent offenses.
b) Enacted sentencing for violent felons who cross the border after deportation.
This should provide a great deal of specific and general deterence if there is not a wholescale abdication of federal prosecutors to bring such charges.
Senator Gregg just had an amendment which again passed by voice vote that enhanced the substance of the triggers.
As of now it appears that Kennedy is losing control of the bill with respect to the position of his caucus. My suspicion is that this bill in the end will not be getting majority democratic support.
if we end up with all these trigger mechanisms and add 12 million Democratic voters, the GOP will be a minority party for the next 40 years.
Romney or Fred.
Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com
at NRO says it looks to pass with about 60 votes, and McConnell is working with Reid to get it done. It will certainly get majority Democratic support, because the conservatives are not being allowed to add their amendments.
it is possible to "improve" this bill to the point that it ought to be acceptable to any patriot. The question was once asked "What profit is it to a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?" This bill doesn't even gain us the world for the price of our soul.
I couldn't agree more. To me the very worst aspect of the whole debate revolves around the (lack of) law enforcement and border security. IMHO we've been sold this bill of goods before and it was and is a pack of empty promises.
- Security first, with assured funding.
- Repeal the birthright citizenship at the same time or we just simply continue to 'destroy families' when one of the family members manages to give birth here.
- Enforce laws concerning businesses hiring illegals.
- Create and distribute tamper-proof documentation methods.
- Cease welfare and education programs for illegals; we must remove the incentives!
In other words, provide the enforcement tools, then we can talk about fixing the mess caused by the last 20 years of uncontrolled illegal migration supported by our friends inside the beltway.
I just wanted to point out these remarks by Milton Friedman.
The two chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals on the one hand and businessmen on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he’s opposed to freedom for others.…He thinks…there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities.…The businessmen are just the opposite—every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that’s a different question. He’s always the special case. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing…
In this case, we see an assortment of businessmen who want to maximise their private profit while socializing their labor costs and passing them on to the taxpayers in general. The "other thing" here is a guest worker program and the right to set labor costs at what the employer thinks is best.
Unfortunately, too many Republican Senators have convinced themselves that if they do what their agrbusiness donors want, they are seving the best interests of the free enterprise system. And too many Republicans in general enable them in this.
...that pay illegals under the table now, or accept forged documents as identification now, happier than for this bill to be smothered in the crib by conservatives.
Employers who depend on illegals can operate more freely under the current law, that requires no verification of documents beyond their surface appearance. They give each piece of paper a glance, and they're legally off the hook. It's how we got into the mess we are now.
let me give you a hint, (1)The illegals with the zvisas will be instantly legal residents and will not have to fear deportation.
(2) This will encourage a large number more to come in, (through the areas not addressed by the pathetic fence called for in the bill that won't even be built anyway.)
(3) The employers will have even more illegals to choose from and there will of course be no enforcement of this law just the way there was no enforcement of any of the previous laws.
Your problem dear child, is that like the tooth fairy and santa claus you actually still believe the promises of your rulers in Washington, how cute!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
No I'm not joking. This is the current state of things:
I-9 FAQ
From: http://www.greencardlawyers.com/answers_for/I-9FAQs.html
excerpt:
If I believe a new hire is an alien, can I ask the person to produce a Green Card when filling out the I-9 Form?
No, employers can not specify which document or documents are acceptable from an employee. If the person provides a document from List A, or a document from List B and a document from List C, the employer may not request any other document to verify employment eligibility.
[...]
What is my responsibility concerning the authenticity of documents presented to me?
You must examine the document or documents. If the documents reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them, you must accept them. To do otherwise could be an unfair immigration-related employment practice. If a document does not reasonably appear on its face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting it, you must not accept it. You may contact your local Immigration Service office for assistance.
Could it be because of this?
Employers who depend on illegals can operate more freely under the current law, that requires no verification of documents beyond their surface appearance. They give each piece of paper a glance, and they're legally off the hook. It's how we got into the mess we are now.
People have been suggesting for decades that we fix the problem you point out. The employers have led the charge to stop the fixes.
We can certainly correct this problem right now without including all the other idiotic things in this bill.
there is all sorts of stern wording in the laws we already possess, But there is no WILL to enforce, and until they actually do some enforcing I will not believe them.
Let me explain, its has been a long time since the border fence was approved and money allocated, guess how much has been built?
two miles. See what I mean? You still don't get it,
The administration, John McCain, the democrats, the republicans, THEY ARE ALL LYING TO YOUR FACE! They will not enforce the border, there is no desire to do so, I do not trust them, they are liars.
i>"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Employers are the people twisting the GOP's arm to go along with this. That very much includes the agribusiness and construction employers who currently employ illegals.
Under this bill they will be able to employ the same people but do so in the open and not have to worry that some day some government will come to power and get serious about prosecuting the law breakers.
If employers were against it we would not even be having this discussion about it. There would be no bill.
As reflected in my prior comments to Charles Bird's tentatively-positive post, but I'm beginning to have grave doubts regarding the merits of this attempt at it. It's fairly clear now that this bill is not going to pass in any kind of acceptable form, and that the problems in the bill will not be corrected -- as I had hoped -- but will be exacerbated by those who wish to tank the entire enterprise. The problem is that neither side, left or right, is strong enough to strike a grand bargain on the issue, one that no one loves but everyone can live with. So you get a bill that is both unloved and unliveable.
The status quo is bad, but there is always worse. It is preferrable to let this bill disappear into a lengthy debate, and the issue not to be raised again until after '08.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Why not attempt border security first, move into reforming the legal immigration laws and boosting the ins next, then move on to other aspects of the bill.
That would appear to me to be far preferable
.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
What folks commonly regard as "border security" won't actually bring security to the border and will have negative secondary effects -- as was the case with prohibition in the 20s and drug interdiction in the mid-80s. To take the latter example, drug use started to decline not because of enforcement efforts, but because we saw enforcement coupled to (1) substantial economic growth and (2) welfare reform.
The lesson is that you can fight the market -- or, more broadly put, human self interest -- but you won't win unless you can harness the market for the greater good. Enforcement first is a delaying tactic that fights the market. It may have short term effects, but it is not sustainable and will cause a significant amount of collateral damage. It's also not politically acceptable.
Indeed, aggressive enforcement was tried, and abandoned, in the 1950s. It was a short term fix that was neither sustainable or able to solve the problem. In avoiding the mistakes of the 1980s, we should not repeat the mistakes of the 1950s.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Sam Gamgee is back to comment on immigration.
I fully identify with the Director's mention of the "small voices halfway between both sides" on the immigration issue. In the end, I would be happy to have some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, including even some sort of amnesty.
BUT I have come to understand and agree with the total lack of trust in the will to enforce immigration laws, and so I am NOT willing to support this or any other comprehensive immigration reform now. I agree with the statement made by Fred Thompson that Americans have lost faith in those in Washington to actually do anything real about closing our borders.
Republicans and conservatives should insist on an "enforcement first" approach. If and when the government convinces us (and the would-be illegal immigrants) that they are willing to seriously and consistently enforce our laws, then we can (and in my opinion, should) talk about some sort of limited amnesty. But the only way to convince us is to actually do it. Completely stop "catch and release." Enforce a zero-tolerance policy for illegal aliens who are caught breaking other laws (including driving laws -- especially drunk driving or any other law resulting in arrest or incarceration, no matter how short the incarceration). Build the fence (not just say you will). Come down hard on gang members who are illegal immigrants. Actually establish a biometric ID card for all immigrants. Develop and test the SS# database system, and phase it in over a 2-3 year period (making it voluntary at first for employers, with the idea of making it mandatory a few years down the road).
When, and only when, our government proves that it has the will to take the hard steps necessary to enforce our borders (including the deporation of the most undesirable of the illegals), then we can (and should) find ways to allow limited amnesty in such a way that will encourage all the rest of the illegal immigrants to either come out of the woodwork in order to stay here legally, or face deportation.
"I wonder what sort of tale we've fallen into."
For an emerging and much fought-over constituency, Hispanic voters, immigration is one of the most important issues, perhaps the most important. For the vast majority of non-Hispanics, immigration is something that upsets us but is unlikely to supplant abortion, the war, or our economic fortunes at the top of our list of concerns. It is interest group politics and little more. I think this bill is a capitulation, and without substantial improvements to enforcement and border security the idea that two amnesties in two decades is not going to encourage more people to come to this country is flatly absurd.
The proposed bill is supposedly an attempt to solve the illegal immigration problem by encouraging it through "regularization" (a.k.a. amnesty).
Clearly the real motivation behind this legislation isn't a concern that the US has lost control over its borders. If that were the motiviation, the legislation would look radically different. Instead, this legislation is designed to appear as though it is directed against illegal immigration while it is actually an attempt to increase the supply of labor for businesses and increase the supply of voters for Democrats.
As for the business lobby's interest in a larger labor supply, they should support an increase in legal immigration by people who have not violated immigration law to date. This ham-handed attempt to put together a confusing and contradictory piece of legislation so as to give people of both political parites "cover" for their real agendas will hopefully fail.
If you want more naturalized immigrants, say so. But don't reward those who have violated our immigration laws by giving them legal status and say that you are trying to reduce illegal immigration.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
The sad fact is that of the current 12-20 million illegals in the United States today this administration has allowed over 25% of that total in themselves. They have no desire to limit illegal immigration. It has been Bush's grand (Rio Grande) plan to provide American business with a bottomless supply of cheap Mexican labor ever since he thought of running for president when he was governor of Texas. If you will recall, his administration's photo-op efforts at enforcement only started during his second term when they realized that they would need to demonstrate their enforcement bonafides to get a comprehensive bill considered last year. Prior to that they did zilch, nichts, nada on border or employer enforcement.
"Trust us," they say. "Based on what?" I ask.
Now their Senatorial co-conspirators in this sham are trying to ram through a comprehensive bill that accomplishes Bush's task of keeping the cheap labor spigot open while asking us to trust them on a Rube Goldberg mechanism of "enforcement triggers" that have nothing to with slowing down the flow of cheap labor, but have everything to do with legalizing it, regularizing it, and paying for it with our tax dollars.
This is a monumental cheat and a fraud being foisted on the American people, and I whole-heartedly agree with the Redstate Directors. This MUST be stopped.
I read this article from the Heritage Foundation that settled the issue for me
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1468.cfm
I have written to my congressmen and have gotten back garbage about NAFTA causing the immigration problem. The problem is that no one is enforcing the current laws.
I will continue to write and call until this piece of @#$% legislation is killed.
Small minds discuss people
Average minds discuss events
Great minds discuss The FairTax.
What needs to be emphasized over and over again, is that Congress has sold out this country on immigration. While the Kennedys and the Malibu crowd live in their walled estates and are chauffer driven to work and take their private jets abroad, block-by-block major American cities are now the equivalent of Third World barrios. Islamic mosques, Hindu and Buddhist temples sprout all over the medium sized cities and even parts of the countryside. This has substantially replaced our heritage and, western civilizations great religious and cultural traditions that have contributed this nation's uniqueness- city shining on a hill. Pat Buchanan has called this Bill "national suicide" and so it is. The title "patriot" should be applied to everyone who does anything to stop this Bill. This is an unmitigated disaster and worse, it is a fraud.
like nearly all Democrats and certainly some Republicans WANT to change the country, they hate us the way we are. If we were more like europe, or better yet more like those quaint and compliant little south and central american peons then our betters can tell us what is good for us.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The entire bill is nothing but a pile of fire starter. Heck, it probably wouldn't even burn.
NO AMNESTY, NONE!
Managing Editor
One reason that GOP elected officials feel like they can ignore their constituents with impunity is that we keep voting for them and contributing to the GOP coffers that feed them.
Suggestion: Stop voting defensively. In other words, stop voting GOP just to keep the other guy out. If no candidate in a race represents your top three issues, don't vote. You can assuage your civic guilt by contributing what you can to a politician in someone else's state or district who does reflect your views.
And never ever give to the state, national, or other GOP party organizations. They'll only give two thirds of your money to RINOs like the ones responsible for this awful immigration bill. Instead, give directly to the politicians fighting the good fight. You'll be glad you did.
...That I've never thought of that before. Withholding a vote, but making up for it by donating the ability to buy a vote (AKA campaiging). Interesting... and I'm not being sarcastic at all.
This immigration bill is a win win for both political parties.The Democrats gain millions of disenchanted minor-i-tay voters and the Republicans get cheap labor.
PS,
Any advice on how to remove a "W" bumper sticker from my car?
Get the bumper sticker wet and sponge on lots of detergent.
If that doesn't work, drive down to the Republican HQ in your town and set the car on fire. No car bombs please, make sure the tank is empty, just nice fire for a marshmallow roast.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I second the Directors.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.