Redstate

Beautiful exposition. I found  myself nodding my head up and down as I read this piece.

All I can say is that were I a friend of the President I would do everything possible to make sure he read this diary. Maybe someone who is can get it in front of him somehow.

Thank you.

This was very hard to write and I appreciate the positive feedback.

Presidents give pardons all the time. If anybody deserves a pardon, its illegal immigrants who have come here to escape a corrupt, poor country to work hard and make a better life.

Sure they broke the law, but that is our fault for not taking our own laws seriously and making it so easy. Would you break a minor, unenforced law of a foreign country if it meant an immeasurably better life for you and your family? I would, and I think it would be a moral decision to do so. Send all the illegals back who have other felonies or misdemenors, or who have no job prospects. Let those who have been productive come forward and become citizens.  

...and still honors a man who has done much to heal the dignity and restore the stature to the Office, protected our Nation, and began the reversal of our courts. But just like you; I and many others are violently diverging with the President on this issue. I have disagreed with the President on numerous other things and remained solidly in his court, but this is much different. The damage from this issue will destroy our culture and our Nation.

jsteele, I too wish the President could read Marks article, but Mark is dead-on in that respect. President Bush could read a hundred papers like Mark's, and it would make no difference. He believes in this strongly, and we've known it from his first Presidential campaign. After the election but before 9-1-1, when George and Vincente were tooling around in a pickup on the Bush ranch, remember what they were agreeing on? They both roughly agreed on status quo borders, and were negotiating on the terms of a "Migrant Bill-of-Rights", remember? . 9-1-1 put the issue on hold till now, but we knew it was coming.

I believe Bush looks at this as a natural outcome of NAFTA, and a fluid border as one of it's essential elements. Remember that illegal alien remittances to Mexico are the second largest input to the Mexican national economy, just behind PEMEX, the Mexican oil machine. They don't want to destabilize their already shaky economy.

Because of this, I don't believe we'll get a fence, nor any new teeth for enforcement. It will be 1986 all over again, but much worse. After the amnesty, in a short time we will have more new illegals here than we do now.

Mark, I only differ with you on one major point. I am still furious and disgusted at the Senate for not opposing the President on this. These people are not elected to follow the President's lead when it does not serve the American people nor reflect their overwhelming will. Constitutionally, our Senators are supposed to be their own leaders and balance the power of the Executive branch when needed.

I too will be at the polls this year, and I will not forget.

at Captain's Quarters is sending people to read what you wrote, Mark. Between that and the front page coverage here mayby there's hope of people in high places reading it and paying heed. I hope so.

I guess it isn't on the front page yet, but it should be. Recommended.

this November, but what can I do? It's not Obama's turn in the barrel -- don't know about Durbin but if it is there's little hope of beating him. I'll be watching my House rep closely between now and then but so far he seems to be listening to the folks back home. We knew Bush wanted to open the border when we reelected him but what choice did we have?

Reuters is now saying the Senate deal has encountered rough water -- enough Senators who see things our way to block it till they get some satisfaction. I hate to trust Reuters on anything but I hope they're right this time.

Thanks for taking the time to write this.  I have no doubt you speak for a lot of conservative converts, me for one -- I'm a Reaganite:)

But I am gutted over this immigration issue, and it's not that I don't sincerely feel for the Mexican people.  It must be awful looking over that border from their world to ours, but I can't square those feelings with them coming to our country and demanding a political voice in America.  What right, really, do they have?  They have taken to our streets and, in a loud, shrill voice, demanded that we recind our rule of law; they're overturning our whole political process.

Bollicks!  And what's even worse, our politicians have mistaken that "rushing mighty wind" sound for the voice of moral authority.  Bollicks to that as well -- bollicks to that most of all!!!  I, too, hope your well-thoughtout piece makes it to the president's desk -- and to the desks of all Republican officials -- and I want them all to know that the bus stops here for me as well.  There's got to be a better way than this wholesale cultural sellout.  Better yet, call it appeasement, for that's what it is, and we all know how well that doesn't work.  And if Republicans don't do something to save us from this, my absentee ballot will not be running red this time.

P.S.  I had a lot more sympathy for these folk, until I started seeing all those Mexican flags at all those marches.

A very diheartened ex-pat,

The Constitution makes the U.S. responsible for protecting the individual
states from invasion. Why do so many people in government have such a hard time
remembering that?

I linked from

Senate to America: Assume a compromising position. Smile!

but politicians seem to be deaf to it.

Mark, right now as I am letting everything you wrote sink in, I am in my house giving you a standing ovation.  A loud 1980's slow clap.  I think your entry alone summed up the feelings of 90% of the base, and a large majority of the country.  I too am upset about the immigration debacle, and I previously voiced that by getting angry.  I think I'll keep it calm from now on.  Great Diary, it should make the front page.  Consider this recommended.

The Republicans have been terrible, but consider the alternative.

With the Democrats you get:

Foreign policy

• Pullout of Iraq
• Pull out of Afghanistan
• Repeal the Patriot act

Immigration

• No border security
• No penalties for illegal's
• Give illegals and felons the right to vote

Energy

• No nukes
• No drilling on or near the continental US
• No new refineries
• Impose government controls on energy prices

Economy

• Repeal tax cuts
• Impose protectionist measures on foreign trade

Beware of the Democratic strategy for regaining power.

• Launch a steady stream of scandals, preferably one a week. Resurrect the
  ghost of Nixon whenever possible.
• Paint the war in the worst light possible. Resurrect Vietnam whenever possible.
• Paint the economy in the worse light possible.
• Conjure up polls to reinforce the negative publicity. Over sample Democrats
  whenever possible.

The goal is to get Republicans to stay home in November. I feel your pain,
but consider an America where Hillary Clinton is President, Joe Bidon is Secretary
of State, Richard Clark is CIA Director and Cynthia McKinney is head of FEMA. The
Republicans are bad, but there is far worse.

I'm actually in agreement with the president that a guest worker program is needed. I just don't think it should be topped off with an amnesty for millions, so I'm more opposed to the bills suggested than the idea of a guest worker program.

There should be limited amnesty for some who are highly skilled, have entire families that are legal (because they were born here) and are paying taxes and are holding down decent jobs.

And the guest worker program, if implemented correctly actually gets people on record so we can track them which is good for security reasons.

I just don't like the idea of blanket immunity for everyone. Plus, guest worker program has to be based on our need for workers. If they follow the program and come in and register, they don't become citizens automatically. They work. and then because they are guests, they leave.

So I wont abandon Bush on this one. It's something that has to be done. It just has to be done right, with america's security interests at heart, and not as a blanket amesty program that allows 11 million to become citizens and drives down wages for everyone.

This is more in congresses boat. Bush isn't writing the bill, its congress that is turning all milquetoast and bending over backwards to give the store away.

Would I rather have Hillary & co. and laws I don't like but can get rid of in 4 or 8 years, or millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions...

The Jews have a word for it -- Oy.

What is Election Day? Nov 7th or something like that. My wife and I are thinking of just staying at home. The most dangerous part of this issue is the diseases that are being brought into this country from illegals. Legals have to go through a screening exam. My wife came from the Philippines and she had to undergo a rigid exam. I don't think this aspect of the illegal issue is being talked about nearly enough. However, I could have supported the present bill.  If it had just called for sealing the borders. Completely. I really believe we could have worked through the rest if the flow of illegals were slowed to an absolute trickle or stopped. Just that one aspect is all we asked. But we were dis'd to the max. The GOP has treated its base with utter contempt and disregard. There will be a huge price to pay for that. Hope they're satisfied.

People, we can disagree about these things in the party and it's fine. Tax-cuts, guest worker programs, NCLB, etc. These things are temporary and can be changed tomorrow. The BIG ddecisions are the ones that last lifetimes. Decisions like democratizing the Middle East and appointing judges. On these big diecisions, Dubya has not failed us. As I recall, Ronald Reagan saw huge deficits and allowed a massive amnesty package for illegal aliens. Did we "get off" then? Ofcourse we didn't because he was one of the greatest Presidents ever and we can fix those things. I feel the same way about Dubya, he is one of the greatest President's ever and I can overlook shortcomings on any individual issue.

Additionally, as Mark points out, the President, unlike the Democrats, is not pandering here. He believes in what he is supporting and you have to respect that. I respect people that push their values and don't fake it for the public. Case and point: John Kerry. I would have had a lot more respect for him if he would have just come out and said that he supported gay marriage instead of faining that tired old "I'm against it, but I don't want to stop it." line. I can think of no time at which Dubya has pandered that way.

The Senate Immigration reform is even worse than we think. Over at Captains Quarters Ed discusses a few of the stealth provisions of the Senate bill:

• Replacement of immigration judges with practicing immigration attorneys.
  
• Render moot actions against states that violate a 1996 federal prohibition on in-state tuition for illegals.

Read Ed's report. Once again the Senate has not only not done what the people want, they have booby-trapped the law to ensure that even the modest improvements are rendered meaningless.

A pox on their houses.

are the unmentioned gorilla in the closet.

In South Florida we are seeing numerous cases of tuberculosis, something that had not been a problem in the US for decades. The source: illegals, mostly from Haiti where the disease is endemic.

As I explain in this diary, I am on the other side on this issue.  I refuse to defend a system that has gone haywire, and I cannot support enforcement.

for a Senate bill that has not even passed?

Don't you get it?

We don't have the votes to get the toughest reforms done.

when the dems are enthroned as permanant majority, Iraq and Iran are alies against the West and nuclear armed, as we sit and watch reporst of the last American helicopter leaving the ME, just pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself on being so tough on W.

I am tired of people second guessing this President just when he needs us most.

he has been loyal to us, but not many are being loyal in return.

Just amke sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out.

first thank you for the link.  Second, yes, a pox on their houses.

As troubling as the last 24 hours or so have been, I am (believe it or not) even MORE troubled by yet another failure of our system of government; this one slicing an even deeper gash in our sense of America.

There is no reticence on the parts of any of these political heros about getting their 5 minutes on tv to decry how hard they are working on our behalf, and no shame that the product of their labors is purely motivated by their election aspirations.

And the rub of it is that they offer something none of us want, and expect we will capitulate because in the end there is, after all, nothing we lowly individual citizens can really do about it.

From where I sit, this is not the end of it.  The gauntlet has been laid down, and we need to draw a line in the sand with these clowns.

A pox indeed...

I find myself agreeing with you on so much. I too have voted for GW twice. I have always admired our president and viewed as a good conservative and a fighter for our cause.

I think for me the doubts about President's stalwartness started with the whole Harriet Miers debacle and it only was perpetuated by how he dealt with the immigration reform. I still greatly admire the president but I find his support for these provisions unacceptable.

I always give President Bush benefit of the doubt and make excuses for him because I know he sincerely believes in his positions and has real principles. I am not prepared to say that I part ways with him, but I do believe that he needs to step out of the way of Republican congress and let them chart the future course of our country.

I also fully agree with you on Newt as the best option (if not the only hope) for our party in 2008. I will not step away from the party and will keep voting republican because unlike many who've turned away, I know the full repercussions of letting the opposition win.

about deserting the republican party over this. President Bush does not need our votes anymore and he'll still get our support for good conservative initiatives.

We need to work hard to safeguard our republican majorities in congress. That is the priority, and the immigration issue should not dissuade people from staying away from the polls. Quite the opposite it should energize us because democratic victories would make everything a lot worse.

I don't blame poor hungry people who crash a Country Club banquet, and eat all the turkey, and half the roast beef. If you're going to blame somebody, blame all those stupid people that chose to leave the side door open and unguarded--unguarded for twenty years.

that he's not going to rush to defend any of Bush's initiatives because they have been so anti-conservative in their core.

If you read the end, he is very much saying he will support the GOP, just not going to fight for Bush's proposals.

Really beautifully written.  And nails the way I think most conservatives feel about the immigration issue, and the abomination of the Great Compromise.

This is especially true of us who are legal immigrants, who remember the years and years spent waiting, who remember the long dreadful line after line after line at the INS, dealing with rude, inefficient, and corrupt employees of the INS, and all of the hoops you had to jump through....

For those of us who came here legally, who elected to become American citizens, this amnesty to illegals is a slap in our collective face.

I too will be at the polls, I too will stay with the GOP, but I too will be seeking more conservatives even from the blue state of New Jersey.

-TS

until these Senate heroes return home for their Easter recess.  They (I'm talking mainly about the Republicans) will get such an earfull that when they return in two weeks, they will either craft a bill similar to that of the House, or they will pass no bill at all.  They will wish they never went home for that recess.

The Constitution?

That old scrap of paper?

Sadly, that has been deemed irrelevant long ago. We must look forward with a more progressive outlook in these modern times.

:-(

Can be read here (with a h/t to New England Republican).  Short, sweet, to the point - and I concur.

Thanks Mark for writing this as you did.  I would have have been able to so do without running afoul of several Posting Rules.

and for reading all the way to the end.  

Just to clarify, I will still support the president's proposals, when I judge them to worthy of support.  I just will not automatically judge them worthy of support because they are his proposals.

This is how I see it as well.  I knew I disagreed with Bush on immigration when I voted for him.  I believe he has his view from years of working in Texas where immigrants seem to have adapted and assimilated without the attendant protests and wholesale sellout to the democrats.  (I know the Rio Grande Valley votes democrat, but not enough to knock TX into the blue.)  

The senate compromise is more or less what can be expected from a policy that has attempted to be party neutral all these years.  (We cannot adopt a policy that puts all Hispanics in the democrat camp, even for one generation.  Elections are too close now to allow ourselves that luxury.)  I can still hope that enforcement will be attached to this amnesty bill so that we don't repeat this process every ten to twenty years.

This solution to the current problem recognizes the futility of sending every illegal immigrant back.  I realize this will never happen, and so should the rest of us.  But it is not too much to ask for better approaches on the border.  It is not too much to ask for a biometric ID card and employer sanctions if it is not verified.  I believe it is too much to ask Bush to be more conservative than he is.  But it is pure folly to desert the Republican Party and Bush at this moment in his presidency.  We should complain and ask for enforcement, but we elected this man to drive the car, (and he hasn't lied to us about this), and in a democrat things will only become worse.

The biggest mistake by the White House is that they turned a winning political issue into a loser for their party.

Americans overwhelmingly support tougher border enforcement and something like the House bill (minus the aggravated felonies and illegality of assisting aliens with food, etc.) would have been a great issue for the election.

By mistakenly combining it with amnesty for the illegals here the water is now very muddied.  The base is livid and despite the Senate's failure today there is still a chance amnesty will be passed.

If Bush had stuck with enforcement first (with a period of 1 year or 2 to prove good will) and then dealt with amnesty (yes I support it in some form if the borders are sealed) later it would have been a big winner for his party.

In response to jr565, I don't believe anyone here is getting off the Bush train because of an issue with a guest worker program, as there is some debate within our ranks concerning that. The crux of the matter is border control and enforcement, which bush, just like the Senate, is opposed to. Most of us believe the entire issue, with all of it's complicated aspects, hinges on this one thing first. First. No compromise. Fence. Enforcement.

And I hope and pray that some of you out there are NOT thinking about staying home on election day. This is not a time in our history to retreat or give up. This is a time when our nation needs us the most; a time to think large, regroup, and take the fight back to the enemy. We may have setbacks, lose battles, and suffer losses. But war is not a "sometimes" game, it is all or nothing. Do our Senators fail to do what is right? Kick them out and replace them. But let's be sure we all encourage each other to stay in the fight, this fight, this time. EagleWatcher is right in this; there are worse alternatives. And let's not just vote, let's work. Get out and mobilize the base, encourage each other and discuss options, plans, strategies. Ask what you can do for your candidates. Take someone to go vote, who wouldn't go otherwise.

We are those who carry on the work which the Founding Fathers started. This is no time to quit.

I agree with what you've said here. I am addressing the overall sense of despair many conservatives are feeling over the lackluster performance of the President and Republicans. My concern is that Republicans will fall into a sense of hopelessness and "get off" the path to victory in November.

-->
With the Senate Republicans announcing their Great Compromise on immigration reform, it will be in fashion in the coming days to excoriate them for pandering to the Hispanic community, abandoning conservative principles, and failing to stand up for the rule of law. Some may, once again, advocate apathy on Election Day. However, the Senate is not where the fault should lie for this bad carnival show of an immigration policy.

The fault, and my anger and profound disappointment, are directed at the White House.




The President has campaigned on this twice. I am immensely proud that he has stood up to pressure within the party, has not caved to Perot Populist Protectionists, has not withered, and has upheld his promises. I view this proposal completely in line with conservative principles. It will help the party, the country, and help us to achieve more important ends, like overturning Roe.

I could have sworn that the amensty canard was debunked not so long ago.

Just look how will Prop.187 worked in California.

That the House will put some teeth into this bill. Enforcement and border security would be at least a good first step. It seems likely that some of it might happen with the House angry as they are.

for those who agree with Leon's definition.  Here was my reply to that in this post that you are refering us to:

"My legal dictionary  By: The Rebel  

describes amnesty as "a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out.... Amnesty is not a pardon as some believe, since a pardon implies forgiveness, and amnesty indicates a reason to overlook or forget the offenses."

The offense is being in the country illegally, except that they haven't been charged....yet.  The legal result of paying the $1,000 fine (along with the other stipulations) wipes out the charge.  And we know the reason to overlook or forget the offense is due to decades of lax law enforcement that has made the situation no longer tenable.  Sure sounds like amnesty to me.

I agree that most of these illegals will not have the $1000 to pay.  But considering that they broke the law getting into this country, it's not too much of a stretch to think that many will break it again to obtain those funds.  Kennedy started this fiasco in 1965.  I see no reason to back any proposal he's authoring now.  

Learning to walk begins with your first step.  Maybe we can't "arrest them all" as many would like, but we can take that first step in enforcing the laws already on the books, even if it means added costs of law enforcement and expansion of the courts.  To me, it would be a small price to pay to start signaling to future illegals that we mean business about deporting."

The compromise has failed and there are too many RINO's to pass a security and enforcement only bill.  I frankly don't see how the Senate can get 60 votes for anything.

Cornyn/Kyl is by far the most sensible and fair approach but I doubt there are enough RINO's that will support it.

The question the 'toss them out crowd' never answers is:

"How do we toss them out?"

Unless we are prepared to do ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, it is time to make a legal path to move illegals from the shadows into the light of citizenship.

I have said before that we could do a lot worse than to have an influx of hard-working, culturally conservative Catholics into this country. We could have what France has, an influx of lazy Muslims that riot and burn and blow up things.

Most importantly though, look, we all knew Dubya was soft on Illegal immigration when we elected him. Why are we acting suprised or betrayed? You get what you pay for.

...use the power of your wallet.  The reconquistas, MeChA, MALDEF and other Latino pressure groups backed by Communist front organizations are badly misreading the American public.  Sympathy for the plight of some illegals is being replaced by a visceral anger at the confrontational, bullying tactics on display in their giant, third -world style street protests.

Here is a suggestion for Mexican aliens--legal and illegal:  The next time you are being exhorted by some windbag on the radio to come and join the protest and lay out of work for a day to show your solidarity and economic clout, you should consider the fact that you are being used by people whose self-interest lies in provoking confrontation and not solving problems.  While you are at the big demonstration waving your Mexican flags, disrespecting or destroying the American flag, making inflammatory and outrageous statements, making your precious labor unavailable or just coming for the festivities, you are being noticed.  Boycott is a two-way street, my friends, and if Americans feel that their interests are not being served by their elected officals, they may show you who has the real power to hire and fire.  I know you haven't heard much about this possibility, because Americans are slow to anger and prefer the rule of law to impose their will.  Don't send the wrong message to us.  Stay away from the instigators and their rallies and publicly distance yourselves from the extremists in your midst.  Do not allow those who would use to you speak for you.  Anecdotally speaking, you had much more sympathy from me until you chose this foolish path you are on.

Better nothing than this abomination of a compromise. For now at least. Senators need to hear from their constituents and their base. Then we can talk.

And Dubya was soft on nation-building in 2000 too but 9/11 changed that.

The leaky border 4 years after 9/11 is inexcusable.  These are two separate issues and first border security must have integrity before amnesty can even be considered.

But I'd much prefer to see immigrants from Cuba and Mexico than from Haiti.

Better nothing than this ridiculous, unworkable compromise.  Until Congress establishes seriousness about tougher border enforcement the rest is just fantasyland talk that would only result in a huge wave of additional illegal immigration.

They broke the law.

They don't belong here.

They have no interest, what so ever, assimilating into our society and culture.

They cut in line, in front of people who wait, in some cases, more than a decade.

And now they get the chance to say "Bye-gone's", pay a moderate-sized parking fine and stay, here, unassimilated, forever.

There is a simple word for that - and it's called amnesty.

That you and (apparently) Leon want to try to sell legalistics to us is up to you.  It's a duck - I care not call it a mallard.

But if you care to try to argue why this great compromise, now stalled by a bipartisan vote of the Senate, is going to be any more effective than the last time we tried this (in 1986), I'm all ears.

Though I won't be surprised when the response I get is:

< crickets chirping >

< / crickets chirping >

So no, Harold.  Far from being a canard, amnesty seems to be precisely what The Great Compromise represents.

The following, on the other hand, are canards:

1. Jobs Americans Won't Do (cut off the welfare spigot, stop the sham crazy-checks from SSI, and we'll see how many of these Jobs are those Americans Won't Do).
   
   
2. You simply cannot deport 12-million people (has this ever been tried?  No?  Then I say we give it a go).
   
   
3. They are the backbone of our economy (I'll happily pay $0.15 more for a head of lettuce and $2 more for a hotel room, thanks.  Spare me.)
   
   
4. The old standby - Nation of Immigrants (No, we're a nation of people who came here and became Americans.  See above about the willingness of this wave of "immigrants" toward assimilation.)

Since the famous (infamous) just-this once 1986 free-for-all:

• The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens
  
• 1994: The "Section 245(i)" temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
  
• 1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty
  
• 1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America
  
• 1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
  
• 2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act
  
• 2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

Source: michellemalkin.com

Just this one more time, honest, just this one more time. And it isn't an amnesty, this is a phased, stepped, controlled program of ... blah, blah, blah. AKA among rational people, as an amnesty

Make it impossible for them to work. Stiff fines and jail sentences for people who hire illegals. This is similar to the argument that we can't get Capone, he's just too smart get his hands dirty with crime. So they got him with tax evasion. Once upon a time in America people had creativity.

Many of these people have children who are American citizens. Many of them own property.

Many of these people are married to American citizens. Do show me in the law where it is provided for them to have their property confiscated.

Please be more specific...or creative, as it were.

Are you willing to volunteer, take off a few months at a time, joining a National Militia to find, identify, aprehend, detain and move these people? Or are you willing for your taxes to go up to pay others to do your dirty work for you?

Or are you just reacting to what bloviators have put in your head?

Is not who I consider a reliable source, and I have explained why elsewhere.  Her use of the "big lie" technique against the McCain-Kennedy legislation won the day. Enjoy the victory, for what little it will profit you and the country.

But after you celebrate, take a good look at a post at Big Lizards, particularly the comment made at 1:28 PM on March 28, and tell me that this system as it presently stands, doesn't deserve the defiance it has received over the years.  Tell me that it doesn't deserve to be ignored.

Was a classic technique of the "Big Lie" - and it worked this time.

Those who entered into the program faced punishment.  It just was not the punishment YOU wanted.

My only consolation in this mess is that the abominable House bill is just as dead.

Why is this so bloody hard to comprehend:

Here's punishment - fine the lawbreakers, send them back, let them reapply.

Here's amnesty - fine the lawbreakers, let them stay, give them citizenship ahead of those who went through legal means to get here in the first place.

Oh, and on the "fine": I, for one, would like to think US citizenship is worth a little more than what my insurance company surcharges me for getting pinched by local traffic police with a busted tail-light.  But hey, to each his own.

BTW, screaming "Big Lie" is also a pretty often-employed defensive technique used by those who cannot defend themselves otherwise.  Just saying.

I guess that's something not too many people want to consider...

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/200645.asp

In case you didn't notice, many of these people have children who are American citizens - as Austin Bay points out.

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/200645.asp

The problem was, if it was out that there was punishment, not enough people would oppose the legislation.  So you have to claim it was a general pardon - which is how the dictionary defines the word "amnesty", which was untrue.

But that was shouted often enough and loud enough that it stuck.  A textbook application of the technique.

make bad law.  Let's deal with the easy cases first - the single men, the criminals, the would-be mothers of anchor babies.  Regarding the alleged impossibility of it all, if the United States can process a hundred million tax returns, can run a census, and could draft, then feed, pay, and equip, fifteen million people to fight WWII, without benefit of computers, mind you, yes, we can find illegals.  It's a matter of will.

In case you didn't notice, many of these people have children who are American citizens

1. Ah, ignorance among those with whom you disagree.  Thanks, that's refreshing.
   
   
2. So, because we in the past failed to a) enforce  the laws and b) defend our borders we should instead throw them open and commit open, national collective suicide.  Thanks, I'll pass.

The problem was, if it was out that there was punishment, not enough people would oppose the legislation.

A two-fer!

1. Could it be that what you're calling "punishment" is indeed out there, but that people are saying "Bull-Carp" to the "punishment" provisions?
   
   
2. Could it be that the general idea of legalizing 12-million CrimAliens is why people are opposing this and not some namby-pamby "punishment" provision?

Any day now, please feel free to tell me why you think this latest foray into the illegal immigration quicksand will be any more effective than our past ones - which have been unmitigated disasters.  Continuing to infer that I'm a nativist, liar, and ignorant just ain't getting very far.

IN THE PROCESS

Part of the reason our economy kicks the little asses of countries like France and Germany is that we have relatively easy labor flows --hirings, firings, and yes-- a massive influx of willing, hard working laborers.

Does not make it so.

you can disagree with her as much as you like. You can denigrate her as a source all you want. She reported these items, she didn't create them. The public laws she cites are a matter of public record, look them up yourself if you think she's dissembling.

I have yet to see anyone argue that the present situation is good, worthy of continuation, praiseworthy, whatever. I think you will find that just about everyone here dislikes the present situation intensely. But replacing it with the proposed solution is not the answer; its worse than what we have now and that says a lot.

There is a magical quality to your side of the debate that is annoying.

Be specific. The illegals are not (at this time) hard to find. What will you do to cities the size of LA that at this point refuse to cooperate with even identifying illegals?

What about the judges who have made injunctions preventing local police from even asking about immigrant status?

what about the families of illegal parents and citizen children? Are you willing to work in an orphanage while the parents are tossed out?

what about their property - homes, cars, savings, stereos? Will you buy it or confiscate it?

What are you willing to see done?

We are in agreement on the felons: ship them out.

send out the troops and round them up? I said deny them the one thing they need to justify coming here, jobs. Absent jobs I contend they will go home.

With respect to owning property, one has to ask how is it they own property? They would have to have had some sort of documentation to purchase the property and they are by definition undocumented. And even if they do, lots of people who do not live in this country, and never intend to, own property here.

They have kids who were born here; another of the amnesty crowd's arguments, the anchor baby. Well, in the past we have expelled people with US citizen children. The child is entitled to residence, the parents are not. They can take the child with them and the child can return when he/she reaches majority. Cruel, cold hearted I know, but a fact and I believe it has been done on numerous occasions so there is nothing new here.

Letting all those Irish in was also "national collective suicide".  Or those folks from Eastern Europe...

Sounds like nativism to me...

And I'll stick by the assertion.  There was punishment.  It just wasn't the punishment you wanted.  Calling it "amnesty" was no more truthful than what Bill Clinton did when he called the reduction in the rate of growth in Medicare a "spending cut".

In other words, it was a lie.

What Mark was saying.  He wants the door closed and can't understand why the GOP and the WH would want to leave it open.

I would guesstimate that the Vast Majority of the nation wants that door closed.

The biggest mistake by the White House is that they turned a winning political issue into a loser for their party.

One point to remember is that Bush must also keep in mind Mexican politics.  The idea of another Hugo Chavez on our southern border because of the reaction on Mexicans' part to what may end up as over-reaction on our part bears consideration.  At least I hope that explains Bush's position in part.

some 50,000 Irish in this country illegally. As you can see from my sig I love the Irish. But if they are here illegally they need to go home. This is not about Mexicans (although I admit to a certain pique over 500,000 marching in the streets of LA demanding that the gringos get off their lawn), this is about illegal aliens. I frankly don't care where you are illegally here from, go home and follow the rules for legal immigration.

The only exception are genuine asylum seekers, people with a direct and immediate fear of their lives from their own governments. And not being able to feed your family in Mexico doesn't qualify; your complaint is with the government in Mexico City. (Driving directions: go south on El Camino Real and turn right at the Paseo de la Reforma.)

Is, what are you going to do?

Granted, this whole affair has shaken a lot of hardcore Republicans, but to vote for the Democrats instead...?  I don't know about the rest of the nation, but I am going to have to weigh Each candidate carefully.  This whole travesty means that I need to do more research than before.

I can't vote for a Republican who supports this, but I can't vote for a Dem.  After all they have done and tried to do to my brothers in uniform, I just Can't vote for the Dems.  So where does that leave me?

The bell has already been rung on millions of these people and pontificating about what's "right" has no effect on what's real.

but talk tough.

So deny them jobs......exactly how?

And they will just leave nice and quiet. Sure.

And their kdis are just going to give up lving in America meekly and mildly.

And I am sure no one will steal the property left behind.

Your stand is frankly as big a fantasy as the lefty stand about the war: that everything was fine before 911.

We as a nation toelrated and profited from illegal immigration for decades.

It still costs us no jobs- we have <5% unemployment.

Excepting the criminals which need to be gone, the net cost of illegals on society is very close to $0, no matter what the bloviators say.

of their being here for decades, and seek to integrate them into society, or we will have a permanant underclass that will inevitably be turned violent.

I do not choose to live like a Jew in Israel.

WhiteOwl has a good point. Dick Morris was on the Bill O'Reilly show last week saying that the opponent to Vicente Fox's candidate is a hard leftist, who could demagogue a hard-line American policy on immigration into an election victory, and there would be another leftist leader (in addition to Chavez) controlling oil supplies in Latin America. Morris favors both building a wall and a guest-worker program, without considering illegal aliens to be guilty of a felony.

When President Bush went to Mexico, he did make a point of telling Mexican President Vicente Fox publicly that immigration reform depends a lot on what Congress decides, and that he cannot guarantee exactly what Congress will eventually enact. Possibly by expressing support to Fox, Bush hopes to help influence Mexican voters to choose a president who can get along well with Bush, rather than force a confrontation. Bush's suggestion of a guest-worker program helps him show the Mexicans that he is not a hard-liner, but possibly imply to Mexican voters that if THEY choose a hard-line socialist, Bush might be forced to adopt a harder stance.

In light of the upcoming Mexican elections in July, a deadlock in Congress resulting in no action by then might be a good thing. If Fox's candidate wins in July, Congress could always vote for the wall or fence AFTER the Mexican election.

"sounds like" amnesty to me.

Let me know when you see vast demonstrations of Irish and Eastern Europeans taking the streets in NYC demanding that large sections of the US be "taken back" by greater Europe.  Then, you'd have a point - until then, you have an insult.

But please, by all means, continue to defend this proposal solely by insulting those who oppose it.

Very effective, that.

Charles Krauthammer's column today in the Washington Post, titled "First a Wall--Then Amnesty".  If the Senate is really serious about controlling our borders, his recommendation belongs in any bill that they ultimately agree upon.  But they are not serious about controlling borders.  They are only serious about pandering to new voting blocks.

I am baffled by Bush's pursuit of this guest worker bill that is so obviously slanted to our southern neighbor.  I am beginning to think that the Democrats' criticism of Bush being allied to the needs of corporate America and its desire to drive down costs has validity.  

Why else would he do this, against not only the wishes of his party but against the will of most Americans?  It's not like this is a polarizing issue, from what I have seen.  It's an American concern, not a Republican concern.

I want to see a wall, two walls, three walls if necessary.  We must be willing to take a stand for sovereignty, and take the ugly rhetoric that will inevitably come with protecting that sovereignty more forcefully.  Building a fence means establishing a measure of control, not sending a message to anyone.  

Whatever do you mean?  It's odd, verging on a non sequitur, that you follow my assertion that the United States lacks will to enforce immigration law with a refutation listing examples of the very lack of will I just condemned.  Are you arguing with me, or what?  

As for working in orphanages, I suggest we can send the children back with their parents.  They can return, or not, when they reach the age of majority.  We sent a SWAT team to get Elian Gonzalez, and policemen take screaming children from their parents every day.  But really, you sound like the people who call anyone who backs a war without carrying a rifle a "chickenhawk."  

They can dispose of their property, or rent it out, or drive it back, though, if they used fraudulent documents to say, buy a house, they ought to pay whatever penalties the law requires.  

President Bush is the most principled AND realistic person to occupy the White House since Reagan.  There is, unfortunately, no point in pursuing principle to defeat in this matter.  This post is exceedingly well thought out and very well written, but it ignores too many realities.  President Bush is not in a position to ignore every reality that Mark I ignored.  The situation is similar to the Social Security reform effort, with much less emotional baggage.  Both the SS reform and the Immigration reform are essential, timely, vital, and undoable at this time.  They are both going to cost us later, thanks to the Dimocrats.

At any rate, immigration appears to be dead, for the nonce.

There is a highly relevant editorial in today's WSJ (April 7) entitled Jobs Americans Won't Do.  Like it or not the, the ~11 million illegal immigrants now here, and the continuing stream of these illegals, are a vital component of our economic well-being and prosperity.  Many of our low-tech industries are utterly dependent on these immigrants: farming, construction, meat packing, etc.  Disrupting the status of the illegals is disruptive to a big chunk of our economy.  From the WSJ, you can't change the supply of lettuce-pickers, for example, without changing the costs of food prices, food wholesalers and retailers, and restaurants.  You can replace the lettuce-pickers with higher paid, probably less efficient Americans, but at the cost of creating the same disruptions.

Regardless, there are some doable steps that must be taken:

1.  Secure the borders.  This is the first such step; there are official and unofficial measures that are now being taken to this effect.  
   
2.  Raise taxes.  That may sound radical, but I am talking about meeting the costs created by the illegals.  Schooling and health must be paid for by the illegals and their employers, not the communities and states. (Yes, I know who really pays.)
   
3.  No subversion.  Workers in the USA will abide by USA law.  You want to fly a Mexican flag, fine, do it in Mexico.
   
4.  No citizenship for illegals.  If an illegal is here for the money, that is an economic argument.  But granting citizenship to a person earning money in the USA while flying the Mexican flag and demonstrating for Aztlan is out.

These incremental steps are doable (being done).  The long-term process will raise the cost of hiring illegals, but will allow costs to be more properly assigned, and will contribute to long-term stability and growth.

won't make it go away, either.

Aren't going to make immigration policy and enforcement any worse. There is no difference between Bush and Clinton (either Bill or HRC) on immigration.

When have the chance to get something of value (temporary work visa) in exchange for money ($1000) it is not a punishment. When you can go about your business and not spend the $1000 it is not punishment.

That visa is worth well over $1000. If we offered them for sale at that price at our embassies around the world, there would be lines stretching around the block.

They are being rewarded for breaking the law. You can be sure there would be plenty of people who would fake documentation to get in on this so-called "punishment." That should be your first clue that it isn't a punishment.

according to current law, will be granted green cards for a fee, jumping ahead of all the poor suckers who bothered to follow the law in the first place.  Insofar as they don't have to leave, and suffer no other disabilities, and aren't subject to criminal charges for the back taxes they didn't pay, yes, it is pretty much an amnesty.  Those who choose not to come forward will, in practice, suffer no disabilities because we're too cowardly to enforce our own laws.  

..Time to get the ball rolling, before the corporatist power brokers slot in someone 'safe' on immigration like McCain or Jebby.

The first law that needs to be passed is to eliminate all public documents in anything other than English and to forbid commercial communication in a language other than English. License no foreign language radio or TV stations. Give everyone 3 years to learn English and pass a fundamental citizenship test or they lose their work card. Five more years of good citizenship and they can take the real test.

You're going to have to stop them from learning hip-hop.

Is much overblown IMO. They will go with the communist or they won't. The wall isn't going to be the deciding factor. And even if it was, we can't let other nations dictate how we defend our country. It's true in the case of France, and it's even more true in the case of Mexico, where they are the aggressor.

That pesky first Amendmant standing in the way of.....good......ideas.

Please.

America is not suffering from non-english radio and TV. We are not woosy French ahving to protect ourselves.

Fence the border, register the illegals, give the good ones the chance to become legal, toss out those who won't or shouldn't.

2 have 2 stp. them from learning IM LOL! OMG! WTF!

Rios, who still retains his duties as an English-as-a-second-language teacher, was copying and distributing a flier that read: "We gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that wants 2 be passed against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they aint (expletive) with out us (sic)," according to district officials.

Cuz p3pl need to Xpres N rePreSnt!!!!!!!!!  T-chrs lk Ri0z r 2 cool.  

Where did I say that. If you do a little research I think you will find that I have mad a number of suggestions on how I think we ought to deal with the problem.

Personally I think a large part of the problem can be dealt with by enforcing employment laws and toughening the penalties for violating them. I believe that at one point I suggested these penalties for hiring undocumented aliens:

• First offense, $10,000 fine for each illegal hired;
  
• Second offense, $25,000 fine and 1 year in jail for each illegal hired;
  
• Third and subsequent offenses, $50,000 fine and 5 years in jail for each illegal hired.
  

If the individual or business owner knows that getting caught means a year in the slammer they will hire a whole lot fewer illegals.

Personally I think this more or less obviates the need for gigantic wall across the southern border; no jobs mean very few people will brave the existing barriers and/or the desert to get here so they can not have the same opportunity they don't have in Mexico. And without to possibility of work many if not most the ones that are here will pack up and go home, taking their US born kids with them; the kids can stay or come back when they reach majority as is the current practice [*1].

It will not keep out everyone, nor will everyone go home, but it will reduce the problem to a dull enough roar that existing Border Patrol and ICE enforcement resources can probably handle it. The remaining border crossing problem can probably be dealt with by installing a deep and wide network of sensors and drones and providing rapid response teams with helicopters to get to the location of an incursion --- much like we do at a number of remote military installations [*2]. I don't have a serious problem with building a wall if that's what it takes, I just think there are more 'high-tech' ways to skin that cat. If you like the wall better then lets build one.

I can make a case in my mind for a guest worker program, I don't really have a problem with that. A legal guest worker program serves the needs of the US for quantities of labor and serves the needs of the worker for significantly better income possibilities than in their homeland. Unlike some I don't consider it some form of indentured servitude or something; a valid exchange of labor for payment is involved, just like any other job. But the employer has to do the same things they have to do for a citizen/legal resident with respect to employment laws, unemployment compensation, Social Security, taxes, etc. I would not allow the guest work to go on forever; a limit of six or eight years, no time toward citizenship, no right of citizenship for children, etc. Basically some reasonable restrictions that do not create a claim to residency. If your goal is residency or citizenship there are existing immigrant programs for that, use them.

---------------

*1 Then we need a change to grant citizenship to the children of legal resident aliens. I fail to see how a person illegally in the country has a legitimate claim to citizenship for their children; the parents aren't supposed to be here in the first place.

*2 Approaching Nellis AFB uninvited across the surrounding desert will get you a greeting by a rapid response team in minutes.

----------------------------

an open borders program.

Innovative immigration policies were installed in Britain by the Labor Government in the 60's. Absolutely lax enforcement of existing immigration laws occurred on the continent and in the Low Countries for the past three decades.  Germany has been operating a vibrant 'Guest Worker' program for as long.

Gee.  Don't we all wish America's forthcoming immigrant legislation - (notice I refrained from using the term 'law': something which requires enforcement) - will work out as well as theirs? I wonder at the likelihood . . .

to everyone. It was used by Ronald Reagan in 1986, and people on all sides of the immigration issue have been using it as a buzzword ever since.

To some people on this blog, Ronald Reagan made a mistake, even though no one denies Reagan's status as a conservative. Ronald Reagan was also elected governor of California twice, then Pete Wilson passed Proposition 187, and we've never had a conservative Governor of California since then (Ahnold isn't really conservative).

Probably, the "compromise" that almost passed the Senate was less permissive than the "amnesty" that Reagan agreed to, which would make it more conservative than Reagan. Is paying a $2,000 fine and being forced to wait 11 years to become a citizen (without voting rights) really an "amnesty"? It sounds a lot more like "probation" to me!

We probably do need a wall on the border, with controlled entry points for legal immigrants, probably with some maximum limit on the number, so that we don't have double the number of illegal aliens 10 or 20 years from now. But something has to be done with those that are here now, that separates the workers from the criminals. They need to be punished in some way for sneaking over the border, but a $2,000 fine and being disenfranchised for 11 years seems strict enough. Those who commit crimes here should be deported, even if Harry Reid opposes that.

But paying a fine is not really "amnesty". If you or I are caught by a policeman driving over the speed limit without causing an accident, we pay a fine and continue driving. Maybe we should call that "amnesty" for speeders.

the removed him from coaching but left him in place as an English teacher! The only people dumber that this guy are the ones running the school system.

If the cop turned around and gave you tickets to the sold out Aerosmith concert at the same time you paid your $150 fine, it would not be punishment. That is the comparable situation.

Was a joke. That has a lot more to do with the sad state of the CA GOP than 187.

187 is an excuse for not being able to field a decent candidate that can win it's way out of a wet paper bag. Or one that can be in office more than 5 minutes without selling out the base. I know a lot of CA Republicans that are beyond fed up with the party. They even held their noses and voted for Arnold the first time around... just to be completely betrayed. How many will be out there next time around?

It was the Tancredo approach (aggravated felonies and such) that killed the House bill's chances in the Senate.

If the bill would have just focused on border security the Democrats would have faced a real security problem if they didn't go along with it.

that's what a lot of people will do.  people who hate this idea, for the most part, won't vote democrat.  so, they'll stay home.

here's the thing though.  the labor leaders and union members who hate this amnesty idea won't vote republican.  but they sure WON'T stay home.

so for many of us it may actually come down to holding your nose and voting GOP anyway hoping that this afternoon's AP report is correct that this thing is dead in the water.

i don't recommend staying home.  in a two-party system we often take the good with the bad.  go vote.  vote GOP.  it's better than having this debate as the minority party.

is that you think these people are not going to dowhat is so popular elsewhere: start a terror war.

I am not afraid of war; I would just rather avoid it when possible.

Far from calling you a chckenhawk, i would suggest that the effort to toss out 11,000,000 people, and the civil/guerilla/terror war it sill trigger will require you, me, and many many other people to join in the fray.

If it comes to that, i will do my part.

But I will work very hard to prevent what I believe is an entirely prevantable fight.

I do not beleive you have reasonably conisdered at all the real cost of destroying literally milions of families.

Using the crime perpetrated by clinton in giving Elian back to castro to jsutify what you are supporting against hundreds of thousands of kids is rather revealing on your part, no?

The illegals are here.

We let them in, by default, by plan, by laziness.

now you are proposing as a reasonable response after 20+ years to say, "Oh, yeah! We have a law and we are finally going to enforce it. Too bad for you!"?

The injustice of that, if we carry it out, will forever darken us in history and change the nature of our country.

The chances of doing it without violence is nil.

The chances of huge abuse by those inspired by say, Michael Savage or Doyle are nearly 100%.

Why should we do the things that will wreck our culture when we don't have to?

People, we can disagree about these things in the party and it's fine. Tax-cuts, guest worker programs, NCLB, etc. These things are temporary and can be changed tomorrow.

if this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  policy matters.  it matters because it lasts.

in this context, it matters because we're watering down a policy that wasn't enforced in the first place, following a promise that the system was fixed when the last group of illegal immigrants got amnesty.  that was two decades ago.  the problem isn't fixed.  it's worse.  and if the policy gets worse, so does the problem and all of the budget issues that this particular problem creates.

i will go to vote.  and will vote GOP.  But the these are not short-term problems.  NCLB is not a short term issue and it won't be overturned.

These are government licenses and speech is already restricted. Ask Howard Stern.

Also has all kinds of requirements for stations to maintain their license. Listen to a music station at 5am Sunday morning sometime and listen to the awful public affairs content they are playing instead of music, to satisfy their FCC requirement.

Immigration policy the exception to the "everything" I mentioned. :) Actually a democrat congress would possibly make immigration policy worse by granting blanket amnesty to all.

It's an interesting comment - "disrupting the status of illegals."  Huh?

The WSJ's position is internally inconsistent.  I will concede the piece is very good.  Of course it is - it's the WSJ editorial board after all.  We can all agree that our economy - any economy - depends on a reliable stream of low-cost, low-skilled labor much as it does on high-cost, highly skilled labor.  No one disputes that.

However, the editorial assumes that illegal immigrants are the only source of foreign labor.  Therefore it holds that attempts to prevent people from entering the country illegally are anti-capitalist.  But take this one step further.  If illegals represent an important source of low-cost labor, won't legalizing require employers to pay them minimum wage, thereby eliminating them as the low-cost pill our economy needs?  And again: if these employees must work for minimum wage, won't companies look for more illegals elsewhere? The fact is that illegal immigrants are NOT the only source of foreign labor, just the cheapest.

The minimum wage is what prevents American workers from working for whatever they want.  Illegal immigration hide the fact that Americans are willing to do the jobs, but are legally prevented from doing so.  To ignore this, ignores a central part of this debate.  The "free market" solution is to abolish the minimum wage, let in more workers legally and let the market sort out the wages.

Would Americans do the jobs they "won't do" for below minimum wage?  You can't know the answer to that question because there is no way to test it.  So, to suggest that Americans won't do the jobs is a false statement because illegal immigrants and the minimum wage distort the data to begin with.

First: seal the border, expand the number of immigrants allowed in LEGALLY, and make expansion of guest worker programs contingent upon changes to Mexican law.  

Then try one of two things:

1.  Give temporary guest worker permits to illegal immigrants and require employers to pay them minimum wage.  Yes, yes.  It's amnesty.  But if you grant that a significant portion of these workers have families, own land, etc. kicking them all out isn't realistic.  
   
   
2.  Abolish minimum wage to truly find out what jobs Americans won't do.

You got quoted in Ellen Goodman's article today in my local paper.  Sorry I can't link you.  She's ripping on bloggers for questioning Jill Carroll's praise of her kidnappers before Jill disavowed her statement.

I just thought you would like a heads up.

I am usually not so pleased about being wrong as I was in my Carroll comments. But I'm not very good at it having so little practice. However, Ellen Goodman is a virtuoso in being wrong and practices it relentlessly.

At least she didn't accuse me of being a racist like most of the commenters here.

Demographic changes are no joke.  While I'll doubtless be called prejudiced for this, prejudice is not required to observe that rapidly changing ethnic compositions lead to frequently violent instability.  Lebanon is a good example.  So is the area formerly known as the Palestinian Mandate, or the United States, for that matter.  One need not be a Nazi to observe that in multi-ethnic or multi-racial polities, political allegiances tend to follow ethnic and/or racial lines.  Nor does one need to wear a white hood to note that market-dominant minorities, which whites in the United States are rapidly becoming by dint of their own, short-sighted acceptance of mass immigration, are the targets of demagogues, and that states in which they feature tend to oscillate violently between plutocratic oligarchy and populist dictatorship (Venezuela, anyone?).  Finally, bigotry is not required to observe, along with the founders of the United States, that diversity is probably a bane to republics.    

I wrote a much longer post, but I've seen this expressed best by Steve Burton here:  

http://www.enchiridion-militis.com/?p=65#more-65

Rather than plagiarize, I would ask that all read carefully what he wrote there.  

So your argument is that we must tolerate these people among us, otherwise they will kill us?

And you think this is an argument in your favor? Wow.

The illegals are here.

We let them in, by default, by plan, by laziness.

now you are proposing as a reasonable response after 20+ years to say, "Oh, yeah! We have a law and we are finally going to enforce it. Too bad for you!"?

The injustice of that, if we carry it out, will forever darken us in history and change the nature of our country.

Stop with the "we" stuff already. You people have done what you wanted. You now claim that we must keep doing it, otherwise the people you brought here (against our will) will rise up against us.

You are not even a RINO, imo. You don't cut it as a Republican of any stripe. And a sorry excuse for an American.

Does it apply to the GWOT as well? It is time to implement Sharia law... we let the Islamofascists organize and metastasize and now we have no choice but surrender. It is just too unfair of us to all the sudden get serious about the GWOT after 30 years of ignoring attacks our countrymen and property.

is that you think these people are not going to dowhat is so popular elsewhere: start a terror war. So you are saying that we can't enforce our laws because they may not like and will resort to terrorism?

If you are right and they are willing to resort to terrorism then I REALLY want them out of here --- RIGHT NOW if not sooner!!!!

That's probably the lamest argument for illegals that I've ever heard.

Amen on Ellen Goodman getting it wrong.  I have written to her about her articles before.  I think she sent me a virus as a response.

I was happy to read that Jill Carroll rescinded her comments and said they were made under protest.  I'm glad it was the terrorists who kidnapped her that expected us to believe that they never threatened to hurt her.  That's just a little hard to believe since they threatened to kill her.

I'm glad she said what she had to to stay alive.  I would have done the same.  I'm also glad she is bitter towards her kidnappers and grateful for her country's efforts to free her.

Sorry for the threadjack.

This

it's on the Front Page. Knew it belonged there.

huh?  Why is everybody beating up on my wild west these days...geeez!

Text of email to her from haystack:

Ms. Goodman,

I find your piece in defense of Jill Carroll, and at the expense of those with whom you'd disagree, vile, reprehensible, and indicative in its tone of why your profession is quickly becoming irrelevant.  While you attempt to uplift your position as a member of some ill-defined "true media" or "mainstream media" at the denigration of any other form of same, you only strengthen the position of many in the Internet Media who would define yours as an elitist mentality that has grown out of touch with the "real world"; us lowly "brokeback" consumers of mass information.  Especially entertaining is your feeble attempt at trying to nuance those of us in the blogosphere as "the bustling, energetic Wild West of the new Internet media".

At issue in your piece is the notion that it is not acceptable to challenge the legitimacy of Ms. Carroll's experience; that somehow we are not jumping to her defense blindly just because we are asked to do so and assume that the story must be true.  I cite examples such as john Walker Lindh who first pretended to be relieved at being removed of his weapon and taken into custody screaming praise and gratitude for us having saved him from the throes of the evil Jihadists who had captured him and forced him through brainwashing to turn his weapon on his fellow Americans, only to find out later he was in fact playing you people for the fools you have become.

I cite, also, others in our society who have deflected criminal blame from themselves onto the laps of others, in the name of victim hood, such as Andrea Yates and Susan Smith, both of whom killed their children and defended their actions as having been inspired by victim hood.  While you busy yourself in your piece of making it sound as if your story is in defense of Jill Carroll, those of us who do not wear pajamas, and must therefore write naked in our living rooms clearly receive the "real" intent of your piece; the slapping back through vilification and denigration of the growing blogosphere who nip at your heels and are intent on bringing down your industry with the intentions of cleaning the house and getting new tenants.

To suggest that only you and yours can have the learned capability to discern truth from fiction is highly self-absorbed, and purely comical at this juncture in the de-evolution of the mainstream media.  You have spent much of the last 5 years on the political playing field assuming your correctness only to be subsequently proven wrong.  There is, of course, RatherGate as the poster child of this assertion.

You called out one of our own, Tbone, and suggested that he "posted a potshot, calling Carroll ''a liar" and the kidnapping ''a total scam", and went on to suggest that he along with the rest of the blogosphere (in a broad-brush 'guilt-by-association') were a source of pollution; an oil spill.  You, ma'am, owe Tbone and the rest of us an apology.  Assuming it is not forthcoming, we have at our disposal the vast resources to repay your company in general, and yourself in particular by making sure you get significant coverage and recognition in the manner and form you have worked so hard to earn; from the swill of the internet media crowd sitting around in its collective underwear eating Twinkies and smoking Pall Malls, and drinking Big Red soda pop.

A passage of yours I want to remind you of before our work begins says this:

"In the wake of the Carroll story, a few -- far too few -- bloggers stopped stocking the buffet long enough to eat their words. But this case provides a juncture for bloggers who want a respected role in the public debate."

You clearly suggest that, in Jill Carroll SAYING these things happened to her, they must be true...because the "media" believes it to be true.  When our President says something, why is this philosophy applied.  When the Military says something, why is this philosophy applied.  You seemed more than willing to believe Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick.  You believed John Kerry after the Swift boat vets.  You pick and choose what to believe; and since it's your pixels and your advertisers, you have that right.  So do we, and you are no longer above us, better than us, nor more 'right" than us.  As you pointed out in the close to your shrill piece:

          For many bloggers, credibility -- and decency -- should begin with an apology to a survivor named Jill Carroll.

I offer you a small rewording to improve its structure and meaning:

          For many bloggers, credibility -- and decency -- should begin with an apology from an out-of-touch-elitist, Ellen Goodman.

haystack

Brokeback, Texas

There's some conservative values for you...

What I'm going to do is focus on 08.  And if the dems get the house and senate during the mid-terms, then so be it.  Trust me, take the long view, like arabs do, the dems make an even bigger mess of things than repubs did.  The first thing they'll do is chop off the far left of their base in order to appear respectable to the middle grounders, and then the bloodletting following that will bring out all the repub strategist wolves lurking around the territories, and I just simply can't believe we don't have some worthy ones out there with a great scent for fresh kill.  Frankly, we've got to forget about Carl Rove as the gold standard in such matters.

Focus on what really counts, putting a true conservative in the white house for 8 years, and these midterm elections and all that follows will shake out all the light weights, and then we'll have our last man standing, the one we can get behind turn into a winner, the one who won't shame our service men and women.

Here is a question that the pro-immigration crowd never address; if "Americans" won't do these jobs, then what happens when the current crop of illegal imigrants become Americans?

Won't they demand minimum wage or better? Won't they join unions? Won't they sue their employers if injured on the job? These are the reasons illegals are so popular with employers, whatever nonsense is spouted about what wonderful people they are.

And if the answers to the above questions are yes (which they are), then won't the current employers of illegal aliens (Americans to be) just get rid of them and hire another 12 million illegals?

And if not, why not?

It's possible that employers love these people because they are God-fearing Catholics I suppose.

But I'm inclined to think that the attraction of illegals has a lot to do with the facts that they are hard working (because thay have to be), that they work for low wages, that they require no paperwork, that if injured on the job they will not sue the employer, and a host of similar factors. In other words, they can be treated in ways which it is illegal to treat Americans.

In any case there is no question that they are natural Democrats waiting to happen, and that making several million of them Americans would tilt the country to the left.

Not that this is anything that employers would care about. Provided they can turn a profit this year the future of the country can go hang.

would lead you to a different conclusion.

We are tolerating the illegals right now. We have been for 30+ years.

In fact since the likely outcome from the side that misclaims that anything less than tossing the illegals out is 'amnesty' is actually nothing, I would suggest that your point of view is more likely to lead to acceptance of the status quo.

And as an unintended consequence of the misleading use of the wrod amnesty is a rise, that we ahve already seen, of radicalization in the illegal community and their supporters.

So if you want dhimmitude in your own country, do nothing or radicalize the other side so we have a civil war.

I look forward to reading your longer piece.

Your references are spot on. We are, by our mulit-generation inaction and bad law enforcement, in a deep hole.

Most ways out of this hole involve civil war.

if you wanted to be a dhimmi in your own country or turn world culture over to fascists.

I do not.

Nothing Ihave said says turn America over to illegals.

I say assimilate those we can.

Pretending that after 20+ years we are going to enforce harshly a law we have ignored, and retroactively make it a tougher law is jsut plain reaction, to be frank.

This is truly a problem that has a deceptively simple solution. Calling all reform not liked 'amnesty' is one of those simple solutions.

Answering my valid points and plain questions with silly questions only shows me that you don't have any real answers to my points except to attempt to change the topic.

HOW do you propose moving 11,000,000 (and it is more likely 15,000,000) out?

Are you prepared to do more than make demands?

Are you prepared to join up and help make it happen?

Reluctantly, I am. There is a nightmare outcome from this that has happened many times in history, and will change our country forever, nod not for the better. I am just honest enough to see it for what it is and to call it what it is.

We are at the edge of a precipice we have not ever gone over, and we are letting people on both sides who are lying about the problem and the proposed solutions highjack the debate. That makes a good outcome less, not more, likely.

I don't appreciate their doing this.

an emancipation proclamation here.

"...you are no longer above us, better than us, nor more 'right" than us."

Personally, I think the blogs on the internet are the last bastion of truth-telling, of truth-seeking, of lie-detecting...and of free speaking.

Good work, Haystack

comparing Spanish to stern's radio porn?

Please.

...They could never play "La Bamba" or the Beatle's "Michele"

I didn't think I had much to add to what I linked, or that what I wrote was sufficiently original.  

I don't think we're headed to civil war, just a slide toward an English-speaking, Latin American style pigmentocracy, such as is already establishing itself in California and Texas.

Bush has done pretty well so far as us soldiers are concerned.  it's the rest that has us worried.

I was pointing out that the FCC can set whatever licensing standards they choose.

HOW do you propose moving 11,000,000 (and it is more likely 15,000,000) out?

This question keeps getting answered, and you keep pretending you don't see the answer in front of your eyeballs.

Make it costly for employers to employ illegals, via heavy fines or jail. They will then make a rational economic calculation that it is better to hire citizens. The unemployed illegals, who are not eligible for welfare or unemployment benifits, will then go where they can find work - in their native country.

In other words, the same forces which brought them here will send them back; economic self-interest.

What is there about this that you don't understand?

but this is not one of them.  I support the guest worker program, whether one wants to call it amnesty or not makes no difference to me.  

A lot of people say the amnesty of the 80's was a "failure."  Why?  Because illegal immigration didn't end, and in fact increased.  It did not immediately increase after amnesty however, but rather the major increase occured in the mid 90's.  I think it succeeded in the sense that a lot of people who were living on the margins of society were now able to live freely in the open and opportunities were opened for them and their children.

I agree that there should be increased border security so that we can track people who are here and block criminals and terrorists from entering.  But the average immigrant who illegaly crosses the border to improve his own and his families condition is doing nothing wrong.

Bush knows that Hispanics, and other immigrants, are only going to become a more powerful voting block in the future.  The actions of many Republican senators and congressmen in the past couple weeks will almost undoubtedly hurt the GOP's image with these people, who in many ways could be natural Republicans, and amnesty for large segments of them will happen anyway.  If the Republican congress continues on the course it's on it's likely we'll see Hispanics become like Blacks, almost universally voting Democrat for the next couple generations.

refuses to see that there are options besides surrendering.

It's the same as the argument that you can't find and deport them all; of course you don't have to, you just have to do it often enough and visibly enough that the rest get the idea that they need to leave or they will be found and deported anyway.

America is rapdily becoming the "Can't Do" nation. Political Correctness makes it impossible to talk about the cultural threat of 25+ million unassimilated aliens demanding that the Gringos get off of their lawn; "Can't Do" makes it impossible to discuss ways of actually making things happen; Yammering about the positive economic impact of all of these low wage folks doing jobs Americans won't do at the wages paid; And on and on.

that at one point in time FCC regulations made it illegal to operate a radio transmitter in the United States in any language other than English. I have no idea whan that changed, but I am fairly certain that used to be the case.

a guest worker program and never use the word "amnesty."

Someone can come here and work temporarily, but there is no path to citizenship. And no it isn't racist, or indentured servitude or any other such scare word, its a simple employment contact; your labor for my money. The same as any other employer-employee relationship.

But if you are here now illegally you have to go home. Goodbye. I see no reason why someone who has been successfully violating the law for 10 years gets a pass; try not pay the IRS for 10 years and see if they give you an "amnesty"; try beating your kids for 10 years and see if the law gives you a pass when they finally catch you.

If you want to apply for the guest worker program after you get home that's fine.

I am not a big fan of Hunters points, but your view that the illegals, when faced with official action on this issue, will return to their natve land, is pretty utopian.

if you believe that, you are not on the isde of reality.  when faced with any action on this problem, illegals won't leave, they will continue to seek work, money , survival, in this country, by ANY means. IMHO.

The difference between your scenarios is that beating your wife, or cheating the government, is morally wrong.  Crossing a border out of desperation to feed your family is not.  Lumping people who do this in with rapists and wife-beaters, as many conservatives seem to insist on doing, because they're all "lawbreakers" is very unfair and just doesn't reflect reality.

Obviously illegals don't pay taxes and so might fit into your first example, but they would be required to if they were made legal.

I really can't argue with you much on substance and I too see Bush as a bit blind on this issue. The Varney account below really seems to confirm the worst about Bush's blindness on border security. What a disconnect,

unless

their are things we don't know about border security, given the many arrests of terror cells, even those coming across the border and the perfect post 911 record. I am at a loss on this, and, like you am a big admirer of W on the war and many other matters.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191011,00.html

breaking the law do you not understand. The law against entering the country without proper permission is not immoral.

What is immoral is the that the government of Mexico creates and maintains a situation where the only practical relief for its citizens is to violate the laws of the United States. The people of Mexico have a beef alright, a strong moral beef, and it is with the government of Mexico.

What is morally wrong is creating a situation where your people cannot share in the wealth and future of the nation. This is what the government of Mexico, not the government and people of the United States, has done to the Mexican people.

Lawyers say that when the facts are against you argue law, when the law is against you argue the acts. The open borders, everybody welcome, types have adapted this so that when the facts and the law are against them simply toss in the immorality of the American people in excluding the poor starving people of the world. At some point people have a responsibility to correct the situation themselves.

The problem lies in Mexico and at some point it is their country, it is their responsibility to fix it. It is morally irresponsible to run from the problem.

And he's never immoral when doing it :)

is off the charts on this one!  I believe this so strongly that I'm willing and ready to throw out the baby with the bath water on immigration.

These people have no inherent right to be here!  And people who say it's a moral issue are the self same people who find non-existent pro-abortion rights vaguely encoded in our constitution.  Nonsense, all of it.

Eight, or even four, years of Hillary and/or a Dem-controlled Congress could go a long way towards undoing whatever good W has done, and even accelerate the dismantling of Reaganism.  I suspect most of the damage would occur within the first couple of years.

EagleWatcher's reply (#12) lists 12 items which could be accomplished by the Dems within that time frame, all of which would be not just bad but disastrous for the United States and its people.

Do I understand that you think the Dems would do something about border security that would work better than anything the Republicans can do?  Get real.  As bad as Republicans might seem, they have nothing on the Dems when it comes to pandering to special interest groups, and there's no doubt that the Dems look at each illegal immigrant as a member of a very powerful pressure group.

the crime and property destruction border dwellers are having to deal with, the exploitation of women and others being smuggled in , those that are killed being smuggled in unsafe vehicle hidden compartments or drowning in rivers, the fact that Mexicans are being deprived of the opportunity to revolt against their own elitist leaders due to this "safety" valve, the hospitals being put out of business due to floods of illegals, the victims of the up to 25% of inmates in border state prisons that are illegals, the children deprived of quality education due to schools full of children that cant speak english, the patient law abiding applicants for legal status, and the depressed wages due to the distortion of the labor market with an illegal black market, etc ad infintum

The moral high ground is is sovereign borders and the rule of law!!!

"I agree that most of these illegals will not have the $1000 to pay."

Don't fall for that.  Remember, 'everybody' knows that these poor Mexican illegals are sending money back home to allow their families to prosper on the Mexican economy.  They'll just need to save for a few months to stockpile the funds to pay the fines.*  Only the 'senior' illegals will be the ones paying the fines, and they are the ones most likely to be able to pay.  But, of course, it's obvious that there will be some pressure to get the money by hook or by crook.

But that all supposes that people will turn themselves in.  After all, if we can't find them and do something about them now, how will we do it then?

*They also don't have what we would consider normal living expenses here.  Early this week, ICE arrested 92 illegals who were living in a 1200-square-foot house in the Phoenix area.  I doubt they were paying much for their twelve+plus square feet.

that air america chick, randi rhodes (name undeserving of capitals) says "Ah, come on! They're just people!"  No they're not; they're subversives.

illegals won't leave, they will continue to seek work, money , survival, in this country, by ANY means. IMHO.

Are you endorsing hunters threat that we cannot take action or they will kill us? Is that your "ANY" means?

Because if so, I have to take a leaf from the President and say "Bring it on!"

If there are no jobs to be found here, why will they not go back where there are jobs? Don't try to feed me the line about how they are faced with starvation back home. Mexico is not Africa. They can live a good life there.

Why cannot the same ecomomic forces which brought them here be used to encourage them to leave? It's not a hard question; why does nobody ever even attempt to answer it?

or Charles Krauthammer's viewpoints, my own view is that until the border is secure (that doesn't mean impenetrable), nothing must be changed regarding immigration law.  There may be changes that can help reduce the incentive to cross illegally, but physical security is necessary first.

Two years into the program the left will propose an interest free loan for them to pay the fines/fees; an interest free loan that they will later argue must be forgiven because it poses an undo burden on the innocent immigrants.

forget the grand "comprehensive" solutions, pick something and fix it!

that's your HO.  As such, it carries no more weight than Jon's.  Calling his opinion 'utopian' doesn't make it wrong.

IMHO, it doesn't matter which of you is right, as long as more illegals don't keep flooding in.  The ones who are already here can be dealt with on a piecemeal basis--deport the ones who break the law, let the ones who keep their nose clean remain in illegal status until something is done to change that status.  

In the meantime, they are really a very small part of the economy, except for the inordinate cost of providing welfare for some of them, and the unfair effect their concentration in certain locations have.  The federal government needs to get some aid to border states and other places where public services are strapped because of illegal immigrant support costs.

I've been thinking about the great walkout that's being trumpeted for May 1.  Don't go to work, don't go to school.  

I think it's a great idea, but only illegal workers and their children should take part.  Then we could find out just how important all these hard-working laborers really are, and we'd have some basis for knowing whether to help them out, or to help them out.

I'm not intending to inflame here.  But if they really are so important to the rest of us, it should be proved when they don't go to work or school, and everything grinds to a halt.

I'm going to sound like a liberal here:  We don't need to import millions of unskilled laborers, we need to pay our own unskilled laborers what the jobs are worth to them.  If that's 'too expensive,' we need to find a different alternative than illegal workers.

And pre-empt this ridiculous "walkout." What did you think of the compromise? Harry Reid was an obstructionist --they should vote on the amendments, and try to pass the thing. Did you like the Senate compromise?

Since the economy is at full employment I think we should expand the number of H-2B visas for unskilled workers from 75K to 400K. That will alleviate the demand for labor and would make less come here illegally. I stole that idea from Kudlow.

of the situation, I refer you to English First and US English.  Both of them are lobbying groups dedicated to having English made the official, not the exclusive, language of the United States, and the exclusive language of government communication (except in special cases of information directed at people who could not be expected to speak English).

If they set a standard based on political affiliation, it would be illegal. if they set a standard based on excluding religious content that would be illegal. There is nothing in the law providing for a restriction of what languages are spoken on the open airwaves.

This is getting silly.

There has always been foreign languages broadcast in this country.

Now this is getting silly.

than Haystack's was.  It follows:

I read the note on RedState.com you referred to when you said 'Tbone  posted a potshot, calling Carroll "a liar" and the kidnapping "a total scam."'

You used quotes, as did I just now, implying a verbatim reporting of the quoted words.  Problem is, those words don't appear in his comment.  In fact, he didn't even say anything that could be construed as calling her "a liar," other than his more general comment that "the kidnapping was a put up deal from the get go."  That implies deception, but that's already covered by your other misquote, "total scam."  Did you want to say the same thing twice, but not want to use the same words?

Finally, you also failed to mention that Tbone's comment was immediately challenged by Steven Foley, and that there were many others who rose to her defense on the same thread, both before and after Tbone wrote his opinion.

In these days of nit-picking journalism, you should be more careful with what you place quotes around.  I don't know if Tbone deserves an apology, but I think the blogosphere deserves a lot more credit than you gave it in your column.  To compare one unpaid commenter's opinion with the shoddy journalism of CBS News and Dan Rather (who claimed to be reporting facts, not opinion) just doesn't stand up to the light of day, especially when you conveniently ignore facts that contradict your own opinion.

I was just "fairly certain" but you are apparently absolutely correct, who am I to argue with your obviously superior knowledge. I yield the fortunately unimportant point.

Give it up my friend, we are arguing with someone who is absolutely right by thier own definition, we cannot hope to break even on this.

we're in agreement that the Mexican govt. has failed its people.  i would also say that the people who are still there thinking about immigrating are still mexico's problem, but the people who are now here are now our problem.

i see you're offended that i would make this a moral issue, but when you're talking about the well being of millions of people that's what it is.

of the President's meaning, I have some hope.

"He pushed hard for a guest-worker program, where illegals earned the right to stay. Mr. Bush wants a controlled flow of future migrants and no mass repatriation now."

I could easily support that, if done right.

(Thank goodness I read the link.  At first I thought you meant Jim Varney.)

"The moral high ground is is sovereign borders and the rule of law!!!"

I can see that in your signature block.  Just drop one 'is' and the exclamation points.

I don't know the details of the compromise Senate bill.  I do know that compromising with Dimocrats is like bargaining with the devil.  Don't expect that in the end they'll really do what you've been led to believe.

If Kudlow proposed something, it is very likely a sound economic idea.  I don't know about other aspects.  Increasing the number of work visas seems sensible, but that still leaves the 'birthright' question open for solution.  

Numbers allowed for immigration leading to citizenship are a different matter, but one that probably also needs scrutiny.  It was decreed by Congress at some time in the past.  I guess they don't much care that the illegal immigrants think they know better than the Congress how many should be allowed.

because you have attempted to put the moral onus on the United States and her people. The moral onus lies on the Mexican government for:

• not fulfilling the basic responsibilities of a government to aid their people to live and prosper;
  
• using my  country as an escape valve so that they do not have to address their problems.

The people who have crossed our border may well have come here out of better opportunity but I'm not certain that we are talking about "feeding ones family" or "escaping starvation". Mexico is not Sudan, this is not the difference between life and death, it is the difference between a difficult, perhaps even subsistence, life and one not so difficult.

The illegals are not escaping a government that is hunting them down because of the color of their skin or their religion. They are crossing the border illegally because no matter how difficult their lives may be here they will be much, much better than in Mexico.

I for one do not accept the argument that the illegals are doing jobs Americans won't do. They are doing jobs that Americans can't do because the illegals have them. It might be true that Americans won't do some of these jobs* at the wages that are being offered, but those wages are as low as they are precisely because the illegals are here; there is no need for employers to pay more, there is an endless supply of illegals who will take the work at that wage.

Will it cost me money if Americans are doing this work at twice the pay? Probably, but it raises the overall standard of living of my country which, in the end, is good for me. My costs go up, but the American workers will pay taxes, they will shop in stores, they will do all the things that the liberals claim the illegals do, but they will be doing it with more money in their pockets. Ultimately this is good for the country, not bad. No, I'm confident that the "jobs Americans won't do" is a cop out.

But if we're going to look at morality here, how about the moral question of not hiring Americans who need to feed their families too? It's a moral issue when it involves illegal Mexicans but not when those illegals are taking jobs that Americans could use to feed their families.

Putting aside the moral issue, you are right the practical issue is ours. And many of us do not want to surrender the borders of this country to Mexico. So many of us have tried to formulate rational ways to deal with this problem without simply throwing up our hands and saying 'well they are here so get used to it.' Last week in Los Angeles 500,000 people marched in the streets, many of them carrying signs and Mexican flags telling us Gringos to get off their lawn. The apologists tell us that most illegals don't actually feel that way; they are just upset that the United States might have the nerve to think they don't have the right to be here. The apologists tell us that, despite the photos and videos, most flags were American not Mexican; yet La Raza and the rest of the activist groups are organizing more demonstrations to show us that the Mexicans have real power and we had better pay attention to what they want.  

Sorry, but my sympathy level has gone way down on this issue.

-----------

* Not every illegal is doing stoop work at $5.00/hour in the lettuce fields. Many are in construction and other far better paying jobs that Americans could well be willing to do if the illegals didn't have the "advantage" of being "off the books"; the employer doesn't have to pay Social Security taxes for off the book workers.

And, for those who are doing stoop work if the cost of that labor rises sufficiently someone will find a way to automate it. A great deal of manual, stoop, farm labor has been automated over the years. More of it can, and will, be if the cost of labor rises sufficiently.

----------------------------------

What was?

"The densest substance known to man"

self-appointed clever people on the internet.

Feel froo to let us know if you ever get a point in this.

no action.  In fact, I think should take drastic ation.  What that is, good question.  My only point is that your comment presumed that ecomonmic forces play very much in the problem.  While I think that is true at the outset, I think it naturally evolves into a lifestyle issue.  It would be cosy to think  if curb the number of jobs available, illegals would simply go back  home.  This is my point...why wuld they?..If any of us think that a job and providing for their families is the only draw here, we' nuts.

It's the overall lifestyle that is here.  It;s the availability of everything your could possibly imagine..legall and illegal.  A prior poster commented on the illegal imm population in our prisons, at roughly 25%...kind of speaks volumes to this issue.

or how about this...?  if you were an illegal, and because of legislation, jobs dried up drastically.

Is your thought process to head back home, and leave what you've grown to cherrish?

my calling his opinion utopian wasn't saying it was wrong.  and, I never intended my point to be taken as the right position.

my point was to say if anyone thinks illegals will simply go home because of legislation, they are mot looking at things realistically

is suggesting that they would all up and go home, any more than drying up the jobs would completely stop the flow, or building a wall would be an absolute barrier.

I think what those of us who support eliminating the jobs are suggesting is that it is one part of a process that would return a significant number home, a process that would deter a siginifcant number from coming next year. As the numbers are reduced, and I believe that there would be a major reduction, it allows enforcement resources to catch up and then get ahead.

Drying up the jobs, combined with a stepped up enforcement process, would go a long way to reducing the current problem to a dull roar. Build a decent barrier on the border and step up border enforcement and you reduce it some more. Create a rational, non-citizenship-path, guest worker program and we get our arms around another part of the problem. Radically improve the legal immigration process and a bit more comes under control.

It is an incremental process not a single "Slam Bam Its All Fixed Immigration Act of 2006."

-----------------------------------

semed like it was geared to simply saying that they would return home.  I reponded to that.

I live in an area with a large illegal pop....my view is you turn on the big lights, they'll scurry like roachs.  the only tool to use when that happens is an iron fist.

so to your point, which i agree on, which facet of a plan gets more weight, or, more money?

Wall, hitting the employers, rounding up illegals, ..physically searching for and incarcerating them?...  And , do we think that our elected leasders have the brains,and desire to create a comp plan?

I am reaching the point where I no longer care what they fix. Just pick something and fix it. Pass an Employer Liability Act of 2006, a Border Security Act of 2007, a Guest Worker Program of 2008, whatever. I don't recall ever seeing one of the Congress' "comprehensive" bills that actually worked over any length of time.

Stop trying to fix everything in one omnibus all-things-to-all-people immigration act and fix something, anything at this point.

I have my preferences for priority but I'm sure others are equally valid:

• border security
  
• employment control
  
• improved enforcement
  
• non-citizenship guest worker
  
• legal immigration reform
  

and the more i read, the more it seems that the first step has to be a border solution.

I've often wondered this..we have had a lot of Wars..War on Drugs, War on Terror, ....

Is this actually a War on Illegal Immigration?

And if so, what are we willing to do to win?

If people are willing to risk their lives, break our laws, to get in our country, are we willing to take their lives, or even ruin their lives, to protect our laws and our country?  Just something that has been running in my mind.

I don't think I could sign up for shooting illegal border crossers (except drug runners and maybe the Mexican Army :-). Which I think is all the more reason for a truly effective barrier, physical and electronic sensors, drones, etc., all backed up with rapid response teams able to get to an incursion in minutes.

When this debate started on RedState I was a proponent of fixing the employment situation first in belief that doing that would reduce the need for an extensive physical barrier. Since participating in the discussion here I have come to the view that the barrier needs to come first, followed shortly thereafter by rigid employment control.

As I said, I am tired of the "comprehensive" solutions and I'd be happy at this point with a series of bills each fixing one aspect of the problem. I think it was yesterday on FNC Tony Snow was talking to Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) about the Senate mess. Tony asked Saxby if he had read the entire bill and Saxby laughed with some comment about its too complex to read the whole thing or words to that effect. I think that says a lot about these kind of "fix everything bills", they are just too complex for people to understand what they do. I've commented here about one of the little know provisions that were tacked on changing the way immigration judges are selected; a change that essentially guarantees that there will never be an immigrant refused again.

If any of us think that a job and providing for their families is the only draw here, we' nuts.

It's the overall lifestyle that is here.

We keep being told that they come here because of the dire economic circumstances back in Mexico. And that because of this it would somehow be "cruel" of us to expect them to return home.

But you seem to be saying that they come here because of ... what? They like our culture?

I don't see that this point is any more persuasive than the one that they come here from economic need.

leave what you've grown to cherrish

What do you think they have grown to cherish, if not the higher standard of living available here?

While I do agree that something has to be done,I just wonder if/what, with elections looming.

A bigger point is our resolve...I believe illegals, and governments where illegals originate, seriously question our resolve to address a problem.  mostly, because there never has been a stick involved.

Show me a pol that is fed up, and that pol has my support.

aside from a paycheck, medical care,gov. handouts, the overall willingnes of Americans to care, indoor soccer leagues, outdoor soccer leagues, basically anything and everything under the sun, because they decided to break the law.  

I get tired of all the cr$p about finding jobs.  As if every illegal, on any border, has that as their sole motivator....come on.

If people are willing to risk their lives, break our laws, to get in our country, are we willing to take their lives, or even ruin their lives, to protect our laws and our country?

If we are not, then we will not have, and don't deserve to have, either laws or a country.

When did conservatives stop being hard-headed and pragmatic and become touchy-feely and sentimental? I expect to read any day now an appeal for tolerance and understanding of Americas urban gangs.

The first requirement for any entity to survive is for it to desire it's own survival. It's an open question whether America in 2006 meets that criteria.

Yes!  Jons that finally think alike!  This too me is the real question.  Not what are we to do, but are we willing to do.  We have the tech to do anything, but often display no will at all.

Not that I think we should shoot illegals trying to get in, but how do we know motive at the point of entry?

It's my country too, and I don't mind Latin American immigrants w/ clean records coming into it.  I think immigration has shaped my country, and will continue to benefit my country.  

As I've said before, steps should be taken to enforce the border more closely so that we can see who is coming over (or block them if they're undesirable) and track them when they're here.

And neither do I (I married "one") I do object to large numbers of people crossing the border in violation of the law. I do object to those people being incited by activists demanding their land "back". I do object to creating a situation where there is no expectation that immigrants will assimilate into the society and culture of the nation, and that means speaking the common tongue, understanding the politics, participating in the democracy.

i have no problem w/ your statements.

response from Ms. Goodman's assistant, pointing out the actual Tbone who was referred to in the column.

That Tbone's blog is here:

http://iraqwarjournal.blogspot.com/2006/04/tbone-in-news.html#links

So, it appears that she may owe another Tbone an apology, but not you.

There.  And I didn't even say, "Drat!"