Redstate

I respectfully disagree. I have two problems with this bill. The first is priority. Any bill which does not put control of the border before any form of amnesty is meaningless. This simply continues the present situation and invites another "reform" in five to ten years in which we will be informed that it is impossible to do without the then twenty to twenty-five millions illegals in the United States. Border first, "reform" after.

My second problem is that I've watched this game for forty years. We do little if anything to enforce the curreny laws. Any Democratic administration elected hereafter would cheerfully ignore this law. There aren't enough tombstones, felons, cartoon characters and other imadinary people to make the Democrats competative. They need all the noncitizens they can get. And they're willing to fight for them.

The government of Mexico is doing everything it can to push out anyone who poses a threat to it into the United States. It needs the creative and hard working people who are being exported. And we don't need the gang bangers and other criminals, even if they are a minute part of the flood.

I ask you to reconsider this bill. It leaves the situation essentially unchanged except for some legal language. We do need reform, but this cosmetic solution will simply put off the reckoning that must come. McCain-Kennedy is not reform, it is delay.

I just added a link from
Muy
Caliente, where I've been trying to lay out some of my thoughts on the
immigration situation. You think the McCain-Kennedy (can you think of two better
reason's to assume the worst?) Bill needs to be a little tougher in the
border enforcement area. I think it needs to be a lot tougher. One
paragraph from my post:

I don't see how anyone worth even trying to carry on a
conversation with could disagree with the need for much stricter control of our
borders and other points of entry into the country. Where I'm to the right of
Dafydd [ab Hugh], and no doubt some others, is that I think it's time to use whatever
means necessary to stem the flood. If we can do it with increased funding
and staffing for the Border Patrol, so be it. If it takes razor wire,
minefields, and airborne gunships, then I don't have a problem with that either.
Please bear in mind when reading this that poor hard-working Mexicans
aren't our only only border concern -- Drugs and WMDs are at least as big an
issue. Once the word gets out that we really do mean business we won't have to prove it
very often. Considering the number of people who've died recently lost in the
desert with no water or locked in the back of abandoned 18-wheelers a razor
wire/minefield/gunship approach might well even save lives.

I thought, from the little bit I had heard about it, it probably was not all that bad. However the big problem remains. Will we enforce it? What happens when the lawsuits begin? What happens when the "Sanctuary" Cities decide not to help the Feds enforce?

   Maybe the House compromise will put some teeth into it. I would like to see the Feds force cities and states to comply or lose revenues. (DAMM thats hard for a libertarian to say!)

extremely weak when it comes to actual border security.

The reality is this program is in the end just going to legalize the people who are here before 2005 and do very little else to discourage the continued flow across the border.

I am not sure if you call this the supply or demand end, but I think we need to do more to address this aspect.

I actually like the idea of green cards going electronic though (I think that one may Frist's bill, but can't remember).  Make Green cards like debit cards, attach them to a photo and a fingerprint, and if the person doesn't have one, they do not get a job.

Penalties for employers have to be painful-they have to be not worth the risk of hiring illegals, but the reality is we have to enforce this end of the bill-I am not convinced we are going to do that.

So I guess my issue is I am not convinced we are going to do much other than make this an immigration (almost amnesty) bill in name only.  1986 all over again.

I really appreciate you taking time to read the bill.  As with the Dubai ports deal, there's been a helluva lot of fearmongering, misinformation, and outright lies circulating -- which get told and retold until they become the right-wing version of KNOWN FACTS.  

(As I've been saying and resaying, it's not an amnesty if you're penalized, and there are plenty of reasons why it would be insane to make 12 million folk -- most of whom are here to work -- instant felons.)

Thanks.  

an optimist.  Must be the Reagan-esque disposition you have, Leon.  And you've convinced me that the bill contains certain worthwhile provisions.  But the emphasis is still flawed, perhaps fatally so.  I saw Sen. Kyl on C-Span last night, and he was stating that his problem with the bill is that it puts every illegal in this country on a path towards permanent residency and perhaps citizenship.  He feels that a guest worker program that does not allow for permanent residency is in order.

I don't know if I'd go as far as he would in this regard: if we want more legal immigrants, even on a temporary basis, I believe we already have an avenue for that via current immigration law. It's simply unenforced.  For instance, work vias are "overstayed" all the time.

Any solution that does not (1) seal our border and (2) clearly state that we will not reward line-cutters over the patiently law abiding is DOA in my book.  

I saw Sen. Kyl on C-Span last night, and he was stating that his problem with the bill is that it puts every illegal in this country on a path towards permanent residency and perhaps citizenship.  He feels that a guest worker program that does not allow for permanent residency is in order.

Contra Sen. Kyl, this is a feature, not a bug.  If you want assimilation, you want to provide a route for folks to assimilate if they wish.  A program that provides only for tempory work permits makes assimilation more difficult.  (Ask Germany how well it's guest worker program worked.)

Now, every program also requires (1) enforcement, (2) penalties for past wrongdoing, and (3) a temporary worker option, for those who have no desire to become Americans.  But we should also allow those contributing members of society who are willing to take on the burdens of applying for citizenship and plan to make their permanent home here the option to become citizens.

which is one reason I think raising the number of legal immigrants permitted each year is also in order.

If our ecnconomy can't sustain it, we can roll back the numbers, but I would rather have people coming in legally than illegally.

But I also think we have to make illegal immigration painful to the people who come here that way and the people who hire them.  And I am not convinced we are ready to do this.

I think.  My apologies to you and the Senator for not paraphrasing him clearly.

"Now, every program also requires (1) enforcement, (2) penalties for past wrongdoing, and (3) a temporary worker option, for those who have no desire to become Americans."

Your number 3 is exactly what he was arguing for, and not to the exclusion of a pathway to permanent residency.  But that pathway already exists legally, if only nominally, since it's so easy to circumvent.

$2000 and a lot of work to skip to the head of the line or $1000 to be at the mercy of the DHS to deport you:  I think I know which option most illegal aliens would take.

So my big question is this: Is there any reason for us to believe that the DHS will actually start enforcing our immigration laws after this bill is passed, either against illegals who overstay the new 6-year limit, or against employers who hire people who haven't registered into the new system?

The verification concerns listed here are important, but I'm more concerned about whether this bill would even change the situation as it stands.  Unless we're going to get aggressive enforcement of this new system, illegal aliens will be able to ignore it just as they do now under the current system.

Right now the government doesn't really go after businesses that hire illegals, and it releases back into the US most illegals it catches itself.   Does this bill do anything to ensure that changes?

just an objection to the smoke-and-mirrors aspect of the logistics: we are repeatedly informed - or should I say, instructed by our self-anointed betters - that, say, a campaign of deportation or forced outmigration is an impossibility because we cannot identify the illegals and lack the mechanisms and will to actually compel their departure.  Fine.  Let's assume the correctness of this assertion as axiomatic.  If that is true, it follows as a matter of necessity that any illegal participation in the normalization procedures of this bill must be purely voluntary, for, as we have seen we cannot identify them all, and lack the manpower to force them to do anything.  Furthermore, if that is true, then we will also lack the capacity to identify and ensure the removal of those who spurn our magnanimity as embodied in the provisions of this program.  From which it follows that this legislation, if enacted, will accomplish nothing more than an extension to an indeterminate, but still fractional, number of illegals, of an opportunity of normalization, while a significant, and probably predominant number volutarily remain outside the system, for reasons of their own.

The cash value, for all of the pragmatists out there, is this: unless we develop and field the capacity to deport mass numbers of illegal immigrants, we cannot ensure the substantial success of a program such as that proposed in this legislation.  Unless we have the ability to identify and sanction those who refuse our offer of clemency, this will all come to naught.  Catch-22?  Smoke and mirrors?  And this is still to say nothing of the incredible prospect of an overworked and inefficient immigration service actually succeeding in processing what applications they receive in an expiditious fashion, or of the utterly predictable loopholes which will afford the relevant agencies discretion regarding enforcement.  This cannot succeed unless we are able and willing to do what everyone assures us cannot be done, and which everyone tells us would be cruel if done.

the appearance of progress and get the legislators past the elections in Nov.  I don't believe either party intends to enforce the proposed provisions as evidenced by their current behavior of ignoring immigration laws already on the books.  

The first step must be border security - build a wall - with specific milestones and metrics.  

Then add detail without wiggle room for violators of the proposed S.1033 (how soon violators will be deported etc).  I'm okay with the bill, it's not amnesty - if it is enforced as written.  

Sorry, I can't agree.  This bill is fatally flawed.  It basically does nothing toward eliminating the illegal immigration problem. It looks good.  It sounds good, but it is a terrible piece of legislation.

Here in NC, we have approximately 400,000 illegal immigrants.  Maybe you guys don't have a problem with that, but, I gotta tell you,  I have a serious probem with 400,000 people breaking and entering my home.

Any piece of legislation which does not round the illegals up and deport them or jail them, any piece of legislation which does not close, and seal, the US/Mexican Border, any Bill which does not warn the government of Mexico that future excursions by their armed forces onto US soil will be considered an act of war and will be dealt with accordingly, is unacceptable to Southern Americans and especially those Southern Americans living in the border states.

If this bill is passed, the GOP will pay a very stiff price at the polls in '06 and '08.

On this if nothing else: If we aren't going to round up and deport them now, why would we round up and deport them when they fail to comply with any provision of this bill? Where's the logistical cutoff for "we're not gonna be able to do it"? Two million? Ten? And at whatever number, how do we know at least that many won't break this law, now that they've broken others?

It's this kind of silliness that is slowly driving me in the opposite direction of you and Adam. As a rule of thumb: If the name "McCain" is on a bill, bad. If the name "Kennedy" is on a bill, bad. Two negatives don't make a positive, here.

There is a border fence and solid enforcement so as to include criminal penilties for illegals who do not comply. I don't see that in this bill. If they are both (enforcement and this type of legalization) in the bill together to make both sides happy this might work. Maybe!

When people read the bill, the myths surrounding it ("It's an amnesty", etc.) tend to dissipate.

The question now will be whether the truth can come out.

Would you consider making a diary entry expanding on this post?  Everyone here needs to understand that once again, the W Republicans are looking to expand government and spend money on a new program which they are, at the same time, saying that such enforcement is an impossibility.

If we can locate the illegals, then mandatory deportation is an option.  If we can't locate the illegals, then all the new worker program/enforcement strategies in the world won't make a bit of difference.  They'll continue to "hide in the shadows" rather then register for their mandatory future deportation and pay up for the privelege of leaving.

Because that's what your suggesting here is that your state has around 400,000 illegals likely most working in low wage positions.  The figure nationally is in the millions.

Where is the manpower to round these people up and lock them away going to come from?  DHS and USCIS certainly don't have the manpower right now to do it.  Heck the jail space to hold them don't exist.

More importantly, where are the people to replace them and do their jobs going to come from?

It's nice to sound 'tough on immigration' but it's another then to actually pay for it.  To me this looks like a lose-lose scenario when you head down that path.  You drive the cost of alot of things up because of the smaller labor market and you expend a ton of money to accomplish the task.

That's why I said the most critical issue is the strict enforcement of the employee verification programs. If they can't get a job, there's no reason for them to be here. And, I recognize that a stiff measure of border security needs to go with this bill.

This bill does provide the necessary tools in this regard, the question is whether DHS will use them.

Who here didn't support President Bush in 2004?

I heard an old sergeant once say that in the heat of battle, a bad plan is better than no plan. Meaning a less effective plan. Thats what this is. Better than nothing. The root problem is that without a sizeable block of hispanic voters, "the right" won't likely progress. I'm sure that there would be much more gung ho support (even from "W") for strict immigration control if politicians thought they could count on that hispanic vote come 2006 & 08. So how can we get that block of hispanic voters? Not the way we're doing it now. We think that we're riding high with talk radio and blog's like this. Not so. We're falling short. We need a well oiled and well financed propoganda machine just like Soros and the Dem's have. Unfortunately we have no one like Soros and his crowd willing to step up to the plate.  Standing on a soap box and espoussing the truth is a good 1st step. And thats what "the right" has done but they (we) don't seem to be willing to take that 2nd step. The crowd in front of our soap box speaker is relatively small. Most folks would respond positively to the truth but they're sitting at home with a remote in their hand. Soros and the dems know that. Thats why they own the TV soapbox. For now. No, I agree. Lets go ahead and sign off on McCain/Kennedy for now. Its the best we can get. This is the results we get when we take a knife to a gun fight.

Aren't you one of the people who's been telling us over and over that it'd be impossible, both practically and logistically, to enforce the current  immigration law?

If this is the case, the please, do tell us why you support this law: either explaining how ITS provisions are enforceable, and specifically how deporting everyone who either doesn't sign up, or overstays the 6 years, is easier than deporting the same people now?

thank you,

Its a pathetic bill. More of the same retreat and surrender by "moderate" republicans.  Its passage would kill the republican party.

My point was just to shed light on the distinction being drawn right now between perceived "big-gov't" Republicans and fiscal conservatives, and how that's pertinent when we're contemplating a new program within ICE.  I voted for W, so I wasn't intending to disparage the Pres' supporters.

McCain/Kennedy might be better than no plan, but fortunately we do have other plans available.

In fact, the US House of Representatives already passed a different plan.

So the question isn't "This plan or none," it's "This plan or another?"

I don't see how "stricter enforcement" is realistic, given that we consistently assert that we either lack the manpower or the wherewithal to enforce our current laws, when the penalties are identical for noncompliance under any regime.

Look. Say all 12 million, for the sake of argument, tell us to take a running hike, and make a rational gamble that we can't or won't enforce. Do we deport them? Yell nasty names at them? If the former, why is that substantively different from what we're consistently told we can't do now?

1. The bill provides for double the Border Patrol agents and a virtual wall - fewer illegals can get in here in the first place.
   
2. At the very least, we know who they are, where they live, and who they work for.  Right now, we don't know any of this stuff.  Why do you think the gun-control lobby wants to register guns?  Same principle.  Easier to pick `em up that way.
   
3. Most of tose who apply for this program will manage to make it through without any difficulty whatsoever.  They're not here to agitate for Aztlan or nonsense like that (reconquista scare tactics have about as much validity as the claims of Medicare cuts in 1995).  The number to kick out will be fewer and far between.

The split here isn't between big-government and small-government.  In fact, deficit-hawks like McCain and small-government conservatives like Adam C are as likely to be with the President on this, as  a liberal like Specter is.

I would argue that the split is over facts, not principle.  The side you're on is more likely to be determined by the way you see the world on a few specific points:

• The enforcability of our immigration laws
  
• The necessity of third world labor in our economy
  
• The ability of our country to assimiliate this many Mexican immigrants

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this without an excess of heat.

1. How about interior enforcement?  Personally I think interior enforcement is MORE important than  a wall when it comes to solving illegal immigration.
   
2. a. What about the ones who don't sign up at all?

   b. Won't the same objections regarding 'breaking up families' and 'jack-booted thugs' that we get now, apply even when we know where they live?

3. As I understand it, you can make it through for the 6 years just by paying $1000 dollars.  The assimilation training and back taxes only apply to those who apply for permanent legal residency, no?

It's those people, the ones who take the shortcut, that we're going to have to round up in 6 years, if this bill is passed and enforced.  So the ones who make it through the program don't really make our lives easier with respect to enforcement.

thank you,

As bad as this bill may be, it really is a step forward for one big table:  Amnesty is off the table, and we're now being sold on a 'plea bargain.'

I don't think we can underestimate the importance of the House bill, that contained all enforcement and no legalization.  A lot can be done in conference committee, but the Senate knows it'll face a tough partner in conference.

So let's chalk this up as progress, and try to have a happy heart as we keep pushing.

Look, all employers have Federal ID numbers, if they actually create this database, and you have to put all your employees into it, it won't be that hard at all to determine who's in noncompliance. I'm betting it won't take hauling too many employers off to jail for five years to get the problem straightened out. That's what I'm talking about w/r/t strict enforcement.

Know who they are and where they are if they signed up.  We also can presume anyone who didn't sign up is up to no good.  This bill also adds political cover to a GOP administration when the Democrats complain - "We gave people a chance to sign up" makes tougher enforcement easier for the average person to swallow.

The real key is how well the verification measures work.  Keeping this from becoming an unfunded mandate on business is going to be important - and there may also be questions re: identity theft with the electronic database.  The DOD had over 250,000 cyber attacks in 1998.  With this electronic "ID verification" database, we have created a gold mine that a lot of criminals will want.  What happens if the database goes down or crashes?  Do employers end up on the hook for the guys they hire?  How will small businesses deal with this?  Or someone hiring a maid/nanny?  Or someone looking for some one-time work (say, removing a couple of tree stumps from the yard)?

with you that the big gov't/deficit hawk dichotomy isn't driving this debate.  I was mentioning it as another angle to consider.  The three points you raise are, of course, more core to the discussion at hand, as is a 4th: are we inviting a group of self-selcted law abiders or self-selected law breakers to be the ones who we extend legal status to.  This has a lot to do with your point 3, ability to assimilate.

I don't like it's tone.  My apologies to the members and to the Pres.

Much as I adimre your optimism on this one, count me in with Neil, Maximos and Thomas - this looks, sounds and smells like deja-vu all over again.

I know, I know - the bill is a surprisingly good one - but I believe your analysis igonres the basic political realities of our ruling class:

They will never enforce the time-limit.

They will never enforce the "you came here after May 2005" requirement.

There will be 1,000,001 exemptions from the "hardship" of having to actually pay any of the fines.

It will do precisely nothing to "Secure America".

It will be business as usuall within 12-months.

And. They. Will. Never. Ever. Leave. Period.

Sorry for the "Sory"...

If this passes, I hope you're right, and that the path will be paved to strict, tough enforcement without cries of 'pogrom.'

It seems this is a competing bill that talks a bit more about border security (giving specific numbers) and is a little different in the respect that it doesnt offer an amnesty (or plea-bargain for HH) program. Instead it seems to create a program where illegals would leave, be able to return for a two year stint and then have to leave and stay away for a year, families could come visit for 30 days. It also gives no promise of access to permanent status and states that people would have to go through that process seperately.

I admit I have only glossed through it. I wonder if it is a viable option or dead in the water because it may seem "too harsh"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01438:

If illegal immigrants have the opportunity to pay a $1,000 fine to avoid deportation, they will pay for the inspectors required to enforce the law. Of course, the government will probably have to jump-start the process by inspecting businesses that hire illegals, in order to show that the government means business (therein lies the rub). But, the $1,000 fine to avoid deportation is probably one of the smarter parts of this bill.

It remains to be seen who has the guts to enforce it--the government or the Minutemen.

...or do they go with your hairshirt, or what? :)

I heard on the radio that Vincente Fox today said that ALL Mexican citizens should be allowed to get legal jobs in the US.

Mexico must apply for US territorial status before it can become a state. We can fast-track that for him, using German reunification as a model, without all the Socialist malarkey...or maybe he's just looking for a post-presidential career as CEO of the Mexicorp temp agency.

First we secure the border. Once we find the government can be trusted to get that job done, then we can talk about other things. Otherwise, it's just more of the same... what if the illegals don't play along and keep on coming in?

I am a supporter of the McCain-Kennedy Bill.  I think it strikes the right balance for how to treat illegal immigrants who are already here.  My worry is that it does not adequeately address the mismatch between the amount of willing hard-working immigrants and the number of immigrants allowed in the country.  Higher levels of enforcement may assuage part of this problem, but without putting a line of soldiers on the border I don't think it will lower the number of new illegal immigrants significantly.  Currently about 1.5-2 million come over the border each year outside of the law.  If I were a bettin' man (and I am), I'd wager that more than 1 million will continue to come.  They have no reasonable hope of finding a legal way across the border.

I have not had time to read the whole bill, just summaries.  If it contains a viable and large guest worker program or a lifting of the ceiling for legal immigration, then this bill would address all of the major problems I see with the current system.  Pragmatism may not always be popular, but this approach to immigration is good policy.  I hope a slightly modified version of SAOI passes.

But all of that is not the fault of the Bill. That's what I'm trying to stress.

Doubling the Border Patrol and the virtual wall will cut down the success rate.  Right now, we get 500,000 a year, and apprehend about a million.  This will cut down the success rate some more.  Plus, with the expansion of green cards in McCain-Kennedy, fewer people will feel the need to come across the border.

Get's passed, then your issue is moot.  Don't discount this bill for that deficiency when another that will cover it is already going through the same process...

a temporary worker option, for those who have no desire to become Americans.

That is anathema to me, and I wonder that anyone can speak these words without choking on them.  It is one root of the divide on this issue: we want people to come to America, the bastion of liberty; we dislike being used.  

Every provision of every law we make should have as its goal encouraging people to fulfill the role of citizen.  Allowing "guest workers" fails that test, and is just more outsourcing, in this case trading directly our national unity for the economic convenience of a few.

I'm looking at the various comments on the issue of illegal immigration, and there are still too many problems that are not even being discussed here yet: What about this countries laws that presently allow legal immigrants-that's legal immigrants who follow all of the laws while here-to get onto the welfare rolls and then not work at all forever and therefore, they are also "leeching" off of all of the taxpayers? What do all legal immigrants that are presently here think about amnesty for illegal immigrants? Are you for free college tuition for illegals-one of the provisions in the McCain/Kennedy bill? What about all of the diseases that end up coming here along with illegals?

As I stated in the post before this one, Sen. Kyl goes farther than the McCain-Kennedy fiasco but not far enough.  I don't like the idea of a guest worker program at all.  If we decide that we need immigrant labor, let it be from people who want to assimilate, lay down roots, and let them come through a legal that process we can control.  That, as far as I can tell, is the type of immigration that made this "nation of immigrants" great.  

You're nuts.  The mccain/specter bill is defeat for America. Defeat for our law.  Defeat for our culture.  The act of cowards.  

Joseph Farah put it best today.  "Notice how these illegals, in their demonstrations, are not asking for a favor, they are demanding their "right" to stay in a country they violated with their first act.  People who break into my house have no right to stay.  And people who break into my country don't either.

These lawbreakers must leave!  There is no way, no way they should ever have the chance to be citizens.  The first political party to deal with this by securing our borders and sending the trespassers home may well dominate the political scene for the next quarter century or more.  Will it be the Republicans?  Not if ush/McCain/Specter have their way!

What's to be done about the continuous problem of hospitals all over the country closing because of illegals not paying their hospital bills, and therefore, the hospitals are way too much in the red financially to continue functioning? If this country already doesn't properly and fully enforce all of the present laws that exist when dealing with illegals, then what good does it do to create even more laws that also won't be fully enforced? What part of "illegal" do too many people not understand? What happens when illegals refuse to do any to all of what the McCain/Kennedy bill or any other amnesty bill tells them to do? How many illegals both in the past and also those here in the present are really terrorists? Why is it wrong to create a federal law that makes English the official language of the U.S.? How many lawsuits will be filed by legal immigrants claiming that they are being discriminated against because illegals are being given much more favorable treatment over legal immigrants all over the entire country? Does anyone even see what's presently happening in Old Europe with all of the present immigration problems that they are having, and what's to prevent all of the same things from happening over here? What's wrong with changing the entire welfare system in this country so that all "able bodied", legal welfare recipients, who are presently not working, would have to take over doing all of the jobs that illegals are presently doing in order to keep getting their welfare payments from now on? How would allowing amnesty to illegals not make this country lose its present identity and not end up turning this country into a third world country "hellhole"? Amnesty for illegals will never, ever make any sense for anyone who really wants to have a well functioning country.

for implying that it was your position.

There are numerous loopholes - 10 knowingly hired illegals per year, for instance - and one has the difficulty of getting a jury to convict.  Besides, it's already illegal to hire illegals, and it's frankly not that hard to figure out who's hiring them, either, but when INS has raided employers, a few phone calls to Congress have led to them stopping.

Won't pay for much of anything. Even if every illegal came up with the $1000 tommorow that is still only enough to run the Border Patrol for 4 months... and it isn't an ongoing source of revenue you can fund more agents with. It's a one time deal.

Is that so many provisions in here are not going to be enforced. The May 2005 cutoff seems like it would be very easy to cheat your way around. Even if it was somehow impossible to do this, you will still encourage more people to come in the hope there will be another amnesty... oops I mean "punishment." I also think the "virtual" wall is a bad idea. It's better than nothing, but not much better than nothing. It doesn't slow anybody down or exclude vehicles. This seems to be turning into almost a carbon copy of the 86 deal.

A 'plea bargain' where you exchange money for something of value. It's about time for me to go to BK and 'plea bargain' me up a burger.

I'm not as optimistic about the bill that will come out of conference or the House having much spine to stand up to it. I think you could get a very bad conference report through the house as well... with the support of people who didn't vote for the original bill.

Why would any illegal immigrant start following ANY immigration law?  

The police are not allowed to take action against them.

The border patrol will not deport them from the interior in any meaninful numbers.  It hardly gets done when they are convicted criminals.

Just walk or ride in and you're home free.

This government does not have the STOMACH to deport tens of thousands, much less, hundreds of thousands of illegals.  Mass deportation will never happen.  Mass numbers returning home and following a legal process will never happen because the don't HAVE TO.

Unless the flood is STOPPED at the border, NOTHING else will work.

If the House doesn't stick to its guns, then we'll know that Jay Boehner is bringing more of the same, and we can decide then whether to go 'golfing' instead of fighting to keep these ineffective Congressional majorites.

I'm willing to give him a chance and be hopeful about it, though.

I want a fence! Even Dick Morris wants a fence:

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/032906.htm
l

(That said, I too support a reasonable guest worker program).

I think another good idea would be for the border patrol to look into officalizing the Minuteman project.  I have been impressed with its effectiveness.  Why shouldn't the Border Patrol set up a program for volunteers to come act as "spotters" along the border.  Their only job is to call Border Patrol when they see some one crossing the border.  The Border Patrol can even insist on background checks and training.

Make that John Boehner.

which this bill is, you still have a PIG.  And, even the lipstick is ugly.

How will border enforcement alone work, when we have countless illegals already here, and businesses eagerly conspiring with them to keep them employed?

Interior enforcement is the key, not the border patrol.

The bill fails to take into account reality and does not do enough on the enforcement side to have a real impact. There are good sized loopholes in here. I don't care for passing the buck to the administration on all the details either. That is what they are doing here. I don't think that makes a good bill.

If we got ended up with everything in the house bill and everything in this bill we'd have something.

The country does not have the WILL to round up hundreds of thousands of illegals and deport them or jail them.  It will NEVER happen.

Can you imagine the protests and media coverage over the first trainload, one of hundreds that would be needed, of deportees?

Why is this so damn hard to understand?

Did you know that we didn't import illegal aliens into this country?  They came of their own free will, believing it was in their best interests to do so.

This suggests that if they change their minds, they are capable of leaving on their own, too.

So we don't have to deport anybody but the criminals who get arrested and convicted in our courts.  All we have to do to be rid of the majority, is simply to make it no longer in their best interests to be here.

Cut off the jobs and the welfare, and they'll even have no choice but to leave.

There are reasons to build a fence, but covering up for a lack of interior enforcement is not one of them.

The protestors, while certainly an interesting and alarming phenomenon, are as relevant to the debate over the merits of this bill as my shoe size.

You're nuts.

Been called worse by better.

The mccain/specter bill is defeat for America. Defeat for our law.  Defeat for our culture.  The act of cowards.

That's a nice set of assertions. I like how it's backed by nothing except reference to the protestors. It also leads me to believe that you've read neither the bill nor the post to which you are responding, because the bill requires (rather shockingly) assimilation into our culture.

These lawbreakers must leave!  There is no way, no way they should ever have the chance to be citizens.

Yes, I know, they have committed the unforgivable sin: a misdemeanor, in point of fact, for which they are being asked to pay a felonious fine. I understand that perhaps you'd rather string them up by the gallows, but that's just not going to fly.

I also presume that every DUI offender gets deported out of the country, by your standards? Or just the ones that commmitted this misdemeanor?

The first political party to deal with this by securing our borders and sending the trespassers home may well dominate the political scene for the next quarter century or more.

First, the bill provides ample authority and direction for the executive to secure the border. However, I agree that the language should be more explicit. But the reality is, no administration would have trouble doing everything that would be needed to secure the border under this legislation. If there is a problem with lack of will to enforce, take it up with the executive - stop hyperventilating about the bill.

like the crazy county sherrif does down in Arizona.

They would have tents to sleep in and would be shipped back as quickly as possible.

But your point raises yet another flaw in the bill -- that it doesn't put any resources into ridding the country of illegal immigrants.

#1.  The illegals that are already here.

#2.  The ones not here but planning to come.

In case #1, there will NEVER be mass deportation.  It just will not happen.  Most will not VOLUNTARILY leave unless the are GUARANTEED citizenship and will return; or never leave.  Why should they?  Nothing will happen to them.

The believe they have a RIGHT to be here.  They cite their heritage.  They are not concerned about US laws.

For case #2, they have to be prvented from coming in illegally.  Once they are here, it is over.

I have lived in Arizona for 38 years.  I have seen the progress and the inability for LAW ENFORCEMENT to do anything about it.  Legally, their hands are tied.  Last year there was a HUGE UPROAR over local police that were perceived to be 'hunting illegals' by asking for documentation.

<All we have to do to be rid of the majority, is simply to make it no longer in their best interests to be here.>

The only way to do this is to DESTROY our economy; make it look like Mexico's.  It will not happen.  Have you ever been to Mexico; the interior, the small towns?  I would be coming here too.

Mexico and too much of Central America are dysfunctional and have been for centuries.  I have no hope for them to become an econominc powerhouse that would get their people to stay.  They are coming for the same reasons you and I would come.  Probably for the same REASONS MY forefathers came from Europe.  However, they RESPECTED the immigration laws and looked to become AMERICANS and assimilate.

Americans do NOT HAVE THE WILL to throw huge numbers of illegals out of the country.  Just will NOT happen.

First, let me say that Leon's balance and analysis is exactly right.  Now it's up to Frist and the House to push to make this good bill better, by emphasizing the border security and enforcement components.

Here are the three reasons I am hopeful:

1. It will be significantly easier (logistically) to enforce the law if we are trying to deal with 2 million illegals here than with 12 million (which is why the guest-worker component is crucial).
   
2. It will be significantly easier (politically) to enforce the law against people who were given a chance to come into compliance with the law but who refused.
   
3. It will be significantly easier (prosecutorially) to enforce the law if you can prove that the employers actually have notice that the people they are hiring are illegal (which is why the social security data base which is part of this bill is so crucial).

Concerning #3, let me say I am a prosecutor.  It is hard, very hard, to prove that employers are knowingly hiring illegals, because it is so easy for the illegals to present forged documents.  Unless and until we solve that problem, all of this is moot.  So whether you agree with Leon (who favors a beefed up version of the McCain-Kennedy bill) or Maximos (who favors a plan to enforce existing laws against employers), nothing will happen at all unless and until this problem is addressed, both with better technology for guest worker visas and a database system.

That being said, I am with Leon on supporting this bill, but also supporting any additional border security proposals to make the bill better.

They come here for cash-paying jobs.  However they can't demand a job; they'll only get a job here if there are employers willing to risk the consequences of giving them work.

So the way to drive the illegals home, is to make the risks of violationg our immigration laws too great to bear.

I'm at work here in San Francisco. One of our resident idiot city council members has just propsed a law that would require San Francisco to not cooperate in any form with federal laws on immigration, as we are a "sanctuary city". Perhaps someone can get Congress to insert a little piece in the final bill that voids these local laws, or better yet, strips them of all federal funding. I'm so tired of this idiocy.

It is too simplistic.  

PLEASE investigate further.  I am an employer with over 100 employees.  I have files of I-9 forms that are filled out completely.  I have NEVER, in 18 years of business, had a federal employee look into the file or ask.  How could I know if someeone presented false papers?

Why do thousands of illegals line up across from Home Depots?  I have neighbors that pick them up to do day labor.

More LAWS are NOT the solution.  There are ALREADY laws with big penalties.  They are not enforeced and the won't be.

It's not the way I want it to be; it's just the way it is.

SOLUTION:

1. Make illegal immigration harder, a fence with security.  We MUST get rid of the coyotes and lawless border towns like Nuevo Laredo.
   
2. Make legal immigration easier and expanded.  Check backgrounds so we know who is entering.
   
3. DEPORT the illegal CRIMINALS.  (THAT, ALONE, WILL BE TOUGH.  There will be cries of discrimination.)
   
4. Allow some to become citizens.  They will NOT be deported and MOST will not return to the poverty and desperation they left.

The McCain-Kennedy bill just needs some tougher enforcement provisions (and possibly a conventional or virtual fence) and that would make it almost perfect.

I agree with Leon.

They would not have placed Bush in a position where he would have felt he had to win on immigration.  Many of those who opposed him on immigration (Dobbs, Malkin, Tancredo, Hunter, etc.) also opposed the DPW deal - and in the process slapped our best ally in the Persian Gulf in the face.

For President Bush, the war on terror is more important than the 2006 mid-term elections.  When the House Republicans practically joined the anti-UAE stampede, they left him with no choice but to make that decision of one or the other.

I have a very good idea of which way he is going to go.  And I'm willing to bet that Frist and the others do, too.  He's not going to budge on guest workers, and he's going to ram it down the throats of Malkin, Dobbs, and the others and make them lose face.  

You're also going to have the "business" wing of the GOP to think about, too.  How many House Republicans will want the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups on the sidelines in the mid-terms?  They can sit on the sidelines and play golf, too.

Who called for new laws?  I just want the EXISTING laws enforced.

In 2000, President Bush had the Chamber of Commerce, lost the conservatives, and so lost the popular vote.

In 2004, President Bush got the conservatives back beacuse the War on Terror was at stake.

In 2006, the War on Terror is not at risk.  It's a dangerous game, these Republicans play.

What do you think is more important to the President, the 2006 mid-terms, or the war on terror?  After watching him for four and a half years of this war, I am extremely confident that the latter is more important to the President than the former.

He thinks he can keep burning half his party, but still keep the War on Terror going.

It's really risky.

Are critical to the GWOT. He needs the cooperation of Congress.

Resident aliens who have applied for and received visas to come to this country have had to renounce their intent to seek citizenship as a condition of granting their visas.  They have had to fill out voluminous paperwork in applying for these visas, such that many must hire and pay for consultants.  Then to get their visas renewed, they must go through a re-application process that requires filling out hundreds of pages, including attaching documentation of their activities during their initial stay.  And we are just going to let these illegals jump through a few hoops and let them get to the back of the line for citizenship?  These resident aliens are not even allowed to get to the back of the line.  Wait until you get the backlash from the hundreds of thousands of resident aliens, who may as well become illegals since they can then at least get in the line for citizenship.  This legislation is a joke.

Particularly when they insulted the UAE, and in the process, endangered a valuable alliance in the war on terror earlier this month.

That's fine.  Let's can go back and forth, attempting the total annihilation of each other as revenge for these epic grievances we have.

Who needs a majority party, anyway?

After DPW, it's not so certain.  The House GOP made it an either/or proposition when they forced a stop to the DPW deal.

And there is very little chance the Dems will pull out of their self-destructive spiral - they're asking "How high?" on their way up when Kos says jump.

500,000 people in LA last weekend, all screaming "I didn't cross the border, the border crossed me" might disagree that "reconquista" is merely a "scare  tactic"(e.g. a bluff intended to achieve other goals) -- because in many cases they really do mean it.  MEChA and La Raza are big, powerful, and scare the spit out of a lot of CA politicians, who presumably don't fold to bluffs easily.

Don't lump all your immgiration opponents together.

I was with the president on Dubai Ports World.  I was with the House on the immigration enforcement bill.  I'm against the Senate on McCain/Kennedy.

positively to admire the President's peevishness.  He can hardly claim to be the aggrieved party here, not after he nominated Meiers, (that is after failing to be able to nominate Gonzalez!), and not after he first floated this guest worker program in the face of immediate and sustained opposition, and then, failing to learn the lesson, brought it back while telling those of who voted for him that we're a bunch of racists.  At least Clinton knew when to let a trial balloon sink.  He is reaping the whirlwind, and what I'm feeling now is...schadenfreude.

Morris proposes the perfect compromise:

fence: yes

g.w.p.: yes

increased criminalization: no

I also proposed this yesterday in my diary: "What Frist Should Do: Propose, Wheel, and Deal"

Cut off the jobs





Terrible idea.  

If I knew how to rate posts, I would give this a high rating.  Do you know how to rate posts?

I keep hearing this bandied about, but how many agricultural jobs are out there for these 11 million immigrants? In terms of the restaraunt business and hotel business illegals make up a small percentage of workers, in said industries so these are jobs that americans will do except that employers are paying a wage so low that most americans would touch the job. However, if the wage were higher, say the minimum wage, barring the agricultural work, are these jobs in fact ones that americans just wont do?

Now, with the guest worker program, how does this impact jobs for americans going forward? Specifically for non skilled american workers who need a minimum wage type job?

Are we going to limit the guest worker plan to only jobs that americans wont do? or in fact are we going to allow guest workers to get whatever job they can get? If we sign up 7 million of the 11 million workers as guest workers are they allowed to compete for other workers for minimum wage jobs.

Or will companies decide to lower the wage below minimum for these types of jobs and give them to the guest workers thus characterizing these jobs as "Jobs that American's Wont Do"

I'm just not sure that this glut of low skilled dirt cheap labor that is now legal wont in fact drive down wages on american workers.

The criminalization for any border enforcement plan to work. You have to have a way to deal with the repeat offenders. If you just keep sending them back across the border they will keep attempting entry. What's the worst that can happen? They'll be sent back across to try again. With enough persistence (and right now it doesn't require very much) anybody can get across, fence or no fence.

Because socialists recognize national borders, and free-marketers are internationalists.

I have a good buddy who used to work in the HR division of a lovely little resort around here. Come mid-late spring, they always got into gear to hire Jamaicans as hotel staff for the summer season. Part of the paperwork involved proving to the government (don't know if it was State or Federal but it was definitely one of those) that they tried to hire local people to do this work but they couldn't find any.

The work was the basic kinda resort work. Washing dishes in the kitchen, changing sheets on the beds, typical "unskilled labor". Work weeks were 40 hours (not Mon-Fri, but 5 days) and there wasn't overtime.

I asked my bud how many non-Jamaicans got turned away by HR and he said that they couldn't get locals to apply for the jobs, let alone show up for the interview. If any showed up for the interview and managed to be somewhat presentable, managed to not pass out, and managed to not leap over the desk and start throwing punches, they got hired. He said that he normally had about 3 locals show up for interviews every year, the ones who weren't obvious screwups were always hired, and they usually quit within two weeks (unless they were fired for smoking weed on the grounds or something monumentally stupid like that).

So they went to Jamaica and got temporary workers to do stuff like wash the dishes and make the beds.

Now, for me, the question then becomes "what would they do if they didn't have the option of going to foreign countries to get cheap labor? Raise wages until people willing to show up started applying?" But, if what my bud told me is true (and I believe him, he's my bud), the locals weren't willing to work for the wages the resort was offering.

So take that with as many grains of salt as you'd like.