Redstate

Pardon my ignorance but how do we know how long they've been here if they are udocumented?

These are not the undocumented aliens you are looking for. Go about your business.

Obi Wan Kenobi

The penalties for one should be the penalties for all, including long-term residents and future illegal entrants.  Otherwise we are just deluding ourselves and kicking the controversy down the road.  I can see considering a person's long-term residence here as a factor in granting citizenship if they've behaved themselves and been gainfully employed, but not setting up a formal system of preferences based on time of residence.

Remember:  permanent solutions are always better than temporary fixes.

Of course these aren't the undocumented workers we're looking for.  Let's go about our business.  I'm moving along now.

PTI

...and paying taxes and other bills. And renting movies and sending their kids to school and going to the emergency room, etc etc. They will be expected to produce paperwork. I haven't seen the compromise legislation, but Frist's SABA bill had many paragraphs describing acceptable documentation. You can't live in the US for more than five years without leaving a paper trail.

There needs to be some reward for the clever ones who've evaded detection the longest.  

Where are the provisions for more border security? Where's the budget for the infrastructure needed to process all these people? Why do I feel we are just getting another band aide on the problem and we'll be having this debate in another 5 years?...anther 10 years?..another 15 years?

Of course they have a paper trail of some sort.  I just have a hard time believing the system as proposed in the Senate bill will work.  

We don't enforce the current laws checking on documentation and visas, what does this bill change to ensure the documentation presented by would-be citizens and guest workers is reviewed thoroughly and properly?

I guess I'm also presuming most people to be as disorganized as I am.  Presenting five-years of documentation proving my residence, employment, and the like would be challenging and I was born here and I speak the language.  I can only speculate how much more difficult it would be for someone who doesn't speak the language and has been paid in cash for five-years (again, I'm assuming this applies to the preponderence of those applying to stay here under this bill, if enacted, though there is probably a sizable portion for whom this doesn't apply).

I disagree about having to have a paper trail. Many are going to have a minimal paper trail (paid under the table in cash, no withholding, no banking activity). You don't necessarily have utility bills or rent either... many illegals do not have their own place. Sure, maybe you have bought stuff from the bodega, but you aren't going to receipts for that 5 years later and they can't be retrieved now.

It would not be particularly hard to fake enough documentation to qualify for this. I believe this was done quite a bit the last time around. I seriously doubt they will be looking very hard (if they look at it at all) at the paperwork. If I was thinking about coming across the border illegally I would leave right now to get in on this and worry about the paperwork later.

So this seems to be a completely pointless "compromise" to me.

That are clever enough to fake a few documents to "prove" they were here for 5 years.

I guess I would tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, my four fake IDs from high school notwithstanding.

Your post, zuiko, brings up another related issue: unintended consequences.  If our lax border security, spawned "these coyotes" (read in true GWB inflection) and human traffickers, then this document requirement would surely spawn a market in document forgery.

the elephantine efforts of the US Congress have brought forth ... a mouse.

It's 1986 all over again. Hopefully the conference report will have all the teeth in the house bill. Then I could live with this, even though it is ill advised to do another amnesty before the border wall is built.

Issued this statement:

The Senate compromise is so convoluted, so complicated, and so unworkable that is surely must have been the work of Senators Rube and Goldberg.

This is déjà vu all over again. The 1986 amnesty law had a similar approach, and that was a catastrophe. It said if you could prove you did agricultural work for just 90 days a year for the previous three years, you would qualify for a green card. The number of those applying for this benefit was three times higher than expected, largely because of fraud, which was rampant. The Senate bill would likewise be vulnerable to fraud on a grand scale and be a nightmare to administer. It is amnesty wrapped in bureaucracy surrounded by fraud.

They can buy these papers, they don't have to make them up themselves. I'm sure some of the more enterprising coyotes will offer package deals that include this. This documentation is a whole lot easier to fake than an ID. It also won't have to stand up to much scrutiny, if any. If you have something from the list with the right dates on it, it will be enough.

Green cards and Soc Sec cards are currently being faked. If they are doing this, surely a Wal-Mart receipt will be a piece of cake.

I still think it would be high comedy for a solid Senator like Sessions or Coburn to introduce the Harry Reid 1993 bill.

Better still, let's have one of them drop a series of constiutional amendments on how to treat illegals modeled precisely on what is in Mexico's consitution. The liberals' collective heads would explode.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/fgaffney.htm

A sample:

"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands..."

"Any person may arrest the offender (an illegal alien) and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."

This last one sounds a lot like the Minutemen!

The drooling hypocrisy of Vicente Fox knows no bounds.

this will be the next growth industry; the "Five Year Residence Pack" containing 61 months worth of:

• random utility bills;
  
• receipts for various goods and services;
  
• parking and minor traffic tickets;
  
• etc.

That's all fine and good.  in fact, would pay money to watch the political theater unfold, particularly if Coburn did it.

But what if the strategy was a two part bill.  The first part is the House enforcement.  The second part includes something like the Frist compromise, but it will only go into effect only if Mexico changes these specific policies and/or pledges to enforce its side of the border.

That puts a law on the books and throws the ball to Mexico.  

General Dodonna: [Dodonna stands before a large electronic wall display talking to the illegal immigrants] The border is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small group of illegals should be able to penetrate the outer defense.

Gold Leader: [stands up to ask question] Pardon me for asking, sir, but what good are coyotes going to be against that?

General Dodonna: Well, the Empire doesn't consider a small group of illegals to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense. An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Hillary has demonstrated a weakness in the battle station and its utter disregard for Jesus.  Before the end of the decade, we will have 12 million new Democrats...

No, this is not about the Sensenbrenner bill that would make being in America without papers a felony. This is about an amendment proposed by Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Cornyn (R-TX) which would prevent illegal aliens convicted of a felony crime (burglary, assault and battery, kidnapping, alien smuggling) from ever becoming citizens.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060404-105601-5010r.htm

According to the Washington Times article, this common-sense amendment was blocked by Senator Harry Reid, who explained his actions thusly:

"I do not have to explain in any more detail than what I have as why I don't want to move forward. I don't agree with the amendment. I don't think it's going to benefit this legislation that is pending before the Senate and I'm going to do what I can to prevent a vote on it."

King Harry the First of Las Vegas hath decreed that he disagrees, and he doesn't have to explain.

If other Dems follow Reid's advice, maybe ads for Republican Senate candidates this fall can ask Senate Dems to explain before the American people why foreign convicted kidnappers, burglars, and smugglers shouldn't be deported.

Or maybe they should be deported to Las Vegas, and let King Harry explain the high crime rate to the voters.  

Why do I feel we are just getting another band aide on the problem

that because we are? They promised us in 1986 amnesty was a one time deal and it would solve the problem once and for all. Here we are 20 years and 12 million illegals later saying the same d*mn thing. The only difference is that the next 12 million won't take 20 years.

This is insanity, national Alzheimers going on right before your very eyes.

...are handled. They can also easily require affidavits taken on pain of perjury from employers, landlorts, etc. If they wanted to be strict about this, it could be done. But you know as well as anyone that what Congress "intends" is often the very furthest thing from what the executive branch actually implements. If I had to guess, I would say that the five-year-rule will be honored in the breach rather than strictly. Remember why this restriction is there in the first place: it's not to cut down on the illegal population, that's just what the verbiage says. The real point is to keep people who are outraged at the illegal demonstrations from boiling over. There won't be any real political pressure to make sure this is all working.

Didn't they call this sort of crap "boob bait for the bubbas" during the Clinton adminstration?

But you know as well as anyone that what Congress "intends" is often the very furthest thing from what the executive branch actually implements.

Oh, the restrictions will be implemented exactly as Congress intends. Which is not at all. They are just as in on it (including First and company) as the White House (which might as well be the Clinton WH on this issue). It's just in there as a smokescreen to appease the base so Republicans have enough cover to vote for it. The same goes for the "fine." What exactly is the point of the "fine" again? I mean besides the "Really, it isn't amnesty this time!" line?

Take your double-quoted passage, substitute "Bubba" for "bubbas" and it all makes more sense. (Sorry for the unwarranted levity, but I have a deep personal commitment to horrible puns.)

I agree--more business for the falsification industry! I can see the coyotes making their pitch--$1000 s gets you into America, and I'll even throw in your green card papers.

This is frustrating

1. Increase the number of legal, low skill immigrants allowed.
   
2. Fine any US business owner $10,000 per illegal worker hired.
   
3. Build a fence and double the border patrol.
   
4. No social services except emergency medical services.

..."intends" in double quotes. I haven't read the compromise legislation yet, but I'm candidly afraid that the evil effects on the economy (mostly through senseless mandates on employers, not through attenuation of work by illegals, which will not happen) will far outweigh the temporary political benefits.

Simple. If they didn't you'd realize that these bozos are just that, bozos. This way the thing is so convoluted and confusing that you: a) think they are geniuses to be able to figure this stuff out; or b) you become so bored reading it you give up and go bowling. Either way they win.

Any temporary political benefits. This measure is not going to be popular at all, especially with the base, unless it ends up radically altered. The last thing they need to be doing is alienating the base again right before 2006. My outlook on 2006 is getting progressively worse as this stuff continues to play out. Now all we need is another big bill full of earmarks and we'll be set to lose both the House and the Senate.

Certainly comes in really handy when you are working on legislation that is opposed by most of your constituents and the vast majority of your party.

...are you thinking of?

heck, we need the levity after this sort of thing!

of this whole thing. These bozos live and die by polls; the polls are ovewhelmingly in support of stopping illegals, no amnesty, tough penalties, etc., etc.

Now, I understand the principle of representative democracy and that these folks are supposed to exercise their good judgement on our behalf, not necessarily what we want them to do. But in almost every other undertaking they seem to do anything to pander to their constitutents. They seem to fall over themselves to go with the polls. Except this one, they are going the opposite direction.

The Border Patrol thinks that a significantly improved fence/wall/barrier is a key element of controlling the problem. So what does Congress do? The House version includes 700 miles of fence and even Senator Kyl, a border control hawk, dropped his insistence on improved barriers and that was only in urban areas of Arizona.

This whole thing is nuts.

If the conference report ended up with every stick from the House bill and every carrot from the Senate bill, it would not be ideal, but I could live with it. I'm sure even that will lose the chunk of the base that is more opposed to amnesty than I am (I think it is inevitable anyway)... but the Senate bill as it is now would be disastrous. People all over the country are really agitated about this issue, now even more so with the brazen anti-American pro-Mexican displays of the last few weeks.

The only thing I can think of, on the Republican side, is that there are a lot of contributors that make their living off illegal labor. Why else would they be contemplating such a bad political move? Only one thing comes before the polls, and that is the keeping their contributors happy. The ones that write the $2000 checks to the campaign and $5000 checks to the PAC every year, anyway.

about this whole illegals from the south of the border debate.  Im embarrassed by this whole thing, and it starts at the top.  Bush has a sweet spot for illegal amigos and the blame must begin with him.  Going by the merits, Bush's turning out to be worse than expected.  Bill clinton wasnt this bad.

No one who entered this country illegally could possibly have any reasonable expectation of obtaining citizenship.  There's no need for this provision.  No illegal immigrants should be granted any path to citizenship.  They might be allowed to stay (maybe a 'red card' instead of 'green card') and their children would be citizens, but no citizenship for illegals!

I'm sure plenty of Republicans really do think that our economy would be hammered by inflation if we actually did just enforce today's laws.

After all, the Chambers of Commerce said so!

Its no secret that the chamber has entered into a deal with SEIU on Immigration...Some would say a Faustian deal why? When the illegals become legal they are in the same economic pool they were in before-that pool of newly legal immigrants are quickly being absorbed by forced unionism at an astonishing rate through card check campaigns in Miami and Houston. So far Congress has not even reacted to these threats...

When Business lobbyists tell you illegals help the economy by taking jobs we wont take they will never mention that this only helps the unions when they become legalized. What the Senate has done is open the door to stronger unions-as a matter of principle Conservatives should not stand for this...

None of this is going to happen this year. No one standing for election in 2006 wants anything to do with a real immigration vote.

So, we will see lots of posturing and playing to the base and/or likely voters. Conservatives get to say they fought for a fence/wall and pentalties. Moderates get say they were both compasionate and tough. And liberals get to just throw rocks at Republican. And those running for President in 2008 get to try out positions and guage reactions

And each and everone of them is planning that all of this gets stalled in the House/Senate conference committee until some time after 2006.

The government does nothing to enforce the current laws against illegal immigration so why should I expect them to do anything to enforce new laws.

I read that with 12M illegals in the country there were only 4 instances of companies being penalized for hiring illegals in 2005.  I'm pretty sure I could spend a weekend and find 4 companies that hire illegals.  So enforcement is a joke.

The obvious plan is for gov to prove it can enforce the current rules and then try something new.  But that would only make sense if someone was trying to solve the problem as opposed to just make it go away for a while.

None of us who have any sense are fooled by this, they have no intention of enforcing the rather mild proposals in it anyway. Thats both parties.

Ah, and an entire new industry springs to life ...

The more I hear about this "compromise" bill, the less I like.

It's convuluted and it does nothing to remove illegals from the country (unless you consider renaming them "legals" as doing something).

More to the point is that both of my Senators, Isackson and Chambliss, who I like and respect (especially Chambliss) are against it and I'll readily conceed that they know more about the bill than I do (at least I hope so).

How many employers will admit to having employed the illegal alien for the last 5 years?  There is the $10,000.00 fines looming over their heads.

Will they admit to not collecting/ paying taxes?  Unemployment, Workers Comp, Social Security, minimum wage?

A lot of these guys are the same ones who rake in the ag subsidies. What's a few thou in political contributions to help ensure you get your $500k checks for the government every year? And that tariffs stay in place so you don't have to compete with imports? And you have a pool of below market labor that you can pay under the table (no taxes or workers comp either)? You take enough of this away and they no longer have a viable business. There are quite a few of these guys, and I would venture to say that many (perhaps most) of them are Republicans. Most are active in politics.

Just being Republican doesn't make someone conservative, as we're all painfully aware.

for having two real Senators.  Precious few of us are so blessed.

Time to have criminal charges for those who hire illegals--make it law...We would not have this tide if we did not have an incentive for them to come illegally.

And that's where some Republican politicans get confused: They mistake "What's good for businessman X's business" with "What's good for American business."

This Republican compromise is abhorent!  Both parties need to quit pandering to the Mexican vote and start doing something to protect America's future.  Build the darn fence guys...then we can talk about what to do with those already here in about two years.  Disgusted with politicians!

This compromise is for the sake of politicians looking for re-election, not our nation.

beautiful comment

Make it illeagal to produce sudafed and ephedrin, and, boom no more meth. Make it illeagal to hire illeagals and enforce the laws we have. simple, no?

according to Sen. Lindsey Graham.  During a news-making interview with Tony Snow on FoxNews, Sen. Graham said he will block further action on the compromise immigration bill unless the democrats allow the full senate to vote on the amendments to the bill proposed by Sen. Jon Kyl.  

Although Sen. Graham said he does not support all of the proposed amendments, Sen. Kyl deserves respect, and the full senate should have the opportunity to debate the issues Sen. Kyl has raised and be allowed to vote on his amendments.

This bill manages to establish a direct correlation between how long a person has broken the law and the reward they receive for doing so.  Those who have flagrantly broken our immigration laws for less than two years get nothing -- they have to wait another ten years for the next amnesty bill.

However if you have broken the law more than two years, then you get legalization or for the longest group full citizenship.  

I haven't heard yet where the burden of proof for how long someone has been breaking our laws will lie, but it seems like it would be a relatively easy thing for half of Mexico to claim US residency for over two years.  After all, if they can forge drivers licenses and social security cards, electric bills and paystubs ought to be a snap.

It is hard to imagine a bill worse than this, in part because it is being pawned off as a compromise instead of a complete sellout by liberal Republicans.  When a measure is annointed with the label "compromise", those opposing it are automatically considered unreasonable, assuming an additional burden of proof.

Oh, and after all that, there is a "wall".  A "virtual wall".  In other words it is imaginary but they can still use the tough sounding "wall" word.

I only hope that somehow we can convince the House to hang tough on this one and not give in to the abomination that seems to be shaping up in the Senate.  I keep remembering all those lil click through ads from Frist on conservative blogs that said "Help me stop amnesty".  This has turned out to be like Colonel Sanders saying "Help me save the lives of poultry".

Yes, it seems that Sen. Graham took on the job of point man to insure that no action is taken before the Nov. elections (do not want to confuse the voters ya know).  Of course that will also insure that Sen. Kyl's admendments also be buried.  Yep, thanks for nothing Sen Graham!

Yes. I'm up to my eyeballs with "comprehensive" solutions. Every time the add another "comprehensive" to the bill it gets worse.

Just take one aspect of the problem, and I'm not sure I care any longer which one it is, and FIX IT. If it's border security, fund a real wall Pacific to Gulf and build the d*mn thing. If it's employment enforcement, decide on that and do something about it.

But instead they create these omnibus all-things-to-all-people, that are in fact nothing-to-anyone, bills that they know will not survive conference and then toss it over the transom knowing full well that nothing will be done this year because there's an election coming.

The House went part way down one road, the Senate went part way down four highways, a side road and a cattle trail, and the end result is nothing. A pox on all their houses.

is exactly right...and so is it right to prefer no bill over one that serves none of our demands, and only provides cutesy little "I worked so hard for you on the Immigration Bill...you need to vote for me so I can KEEP working hard for you" (expletive removed in deference to the posting rules) that they will be slinging our way for the next 6 tedious months.

I am so sick, and tired, and sickandtired that I may go all "anti incumbent" in November, even if I don't know what the opposing candidates' name is...excuse me now, I need to go take several showers.

go to jail.

What's so hard about that? Is it tough? Absolutely, perhaps even draconian, but its the only thing that wil stop the flood.

with respect for Senator Kyl. This has everything to do with kicking the can down the road until after the election. Since there will be a new House they can then delay again until the new House has a chance to reconsider their bill. And of course the Senate, out of respect for the House, will have to revisit their bill after the revised House bill is passed. By that time of course we're staring at the upcoming 2008 election and another new House and one third of the Senate and a new President. And of couse they'll have to start over from scratch by that time because everything will be stale.

Scrap the d*mn thing. The current situation is bad but at least it isn't as bad as the new bill will make it.

this is an effort to reframe the immigration debate, and to place the onus on the democrats should the senate fail to pass a bill that can be sent to conference within Sen. Frist's stated time constraints.

As currently constructed, the Senate's immigration bill (amnesty for illegals) is much worse than doing nothing.  Should the current bill actually pass the Senate, it will certainly fail to be reconciled with the House version, IMHO.

...should be per diem...

in a galaxy far, far away ... sorry, I got sidetracked.

Once upon a time I might have thought this was part of some clever plan to lay it back on the Dems. But now I'm not so sure; I have serious doubts that the Senate Republicans are smart enough and coordinated enough to do something that smart.

w/out enforcement and closing the borders, this is nothing. here's what i sent to my reps. tonite.(i wont be holding my breath for them to invite me up to help protest the current senate plan).

DO NOT GIVE IN TO THE CURRENT SENATE'S IMMIGRATION BILL !

i know that you have done well and been very deliberate in proposing immigration reform that will actually solve some immigration problems, but as the country's attention is now focused on illegal immigration at a greater level than has been in some time; it is up to those in texas who have seen first hand the social, economic and long term costs of immigration.

while i do not expect that the 10 million illegals can be effectively removed or deported, if the US does not close and control the borders; you can bet your children, grandchildren and country's social and economic well being that number will increase exponentially and we may just say goodbye to the country we know and hello to the socialist states that cripple europe and south america and you can definitely believe many republicans will sit at home next november if the totals of all this is a big nada.

if i were you, i would hold a 3 day protest for america outside the capital steps or if you'll send me airfare and clearence to take 3 days off work; i'll do it.

Everyone can see this is a bunch of garbage, If any one of my polticians vote for any kind of amnesty, they will not recieve my vote. I will vote for anyone else period. We protect every other nation but these people are so stupid that they do not want to take care of our country. I think that they all should be thrown out of office if they do not support building the fence and send all the law breakers back home where they belong. Once this country is secure then start to worry about bringing more legal people into this country, but not intil then. Illegal immigrants have no rights here Period!!!!!!!!!!! Bush and Mccain and all the others should be ashamed to try and white wash us all with this. Maybe the dems need to look to impeach for lack of security for this country and not Iraq.

If you took the entire weekend you are a lazy sloth.

anything.

I confess I am more a dem than a Republican but this is one place where all that is being done is papering over an issue and pretending it is being resolved. I have nothing against immigration or Latinos and certainly nothing against their contributions. But it is passed the point where there is no accountability for who is over at any time. How do they come up with 11 million illegals? If they can't keep track of who is here or stop tem from coming in, how do they know this? And the INS is grossly understaffed. I believe deliberately, in fact. The correct answer, in my opinion, is go after the companies who are systematically hiring these people. They are ultimately only doing so for one reason and that is to avoid overhead, paying them a few dollars and then kicking them down the road. Hit a few CEO's and HR managers and pretty soon any interest in illegal labor is outweighed by the idea of jail time. This new law does nothing. There is no money for enforcement anywhere and the current laws are not being enforced. Putting a new law on the books that will only be ignored only buys time to the new election. After which they will argue about enforcement and then pass another law...etc. etc. etc.

The Senate just failed to shut off debate with 60 votes.

If Frist is smart he will now force the Democrats to filibuster a tough border enforcement and security bill.

There is still a chance to turn this around.  I believe there may be 60 votes for such a measure despite a few RINO's.  Baucus, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of NE, the ND Senators, etc. all would have a tough time voting against the initial Frist bill.

There are lots of people who suffer from chronic allergies, who don't use meth, who would suffer terribly if Sudafed were banned.

Unfortunately, the pseudo-ephedrine molecule (the generic name for Sudafed) is extremely similar to the methamphetamine molecule. Pseudo-ephedrine has an extra oxygen atom, which methamphetamine lacks, and it is the only oxygen atom in the molecule, so it's relatively easy to design a process to "de-oxygenate" Sudafed and make speed.

Some states, including PA, in an effort to prevent dealers from making methamphetamine from Sudafed, are forcing pharmacists to place Sudafed behind the counter, and limit sales to any one person to the dosages normally needed to cure allergies. Maybe this needs to be generalized to all states, but banning Sudafed completely would make the lives of allergy sufferers miserable.

There are plenty of other allergy relieving drugs out there. Have you ever taken sudafed? It is by far the worst allergy drug there is. Other drugs may be more expensive, but their respactive costs would go down without sudafed on the market because demand would go up for the others.