I agree 100% with your first comment. Your second comment is why we are about to get a horrible bill through the Senate. Let’s hope the House shreds it.
Unfortunately, senor, I think this is going to take a good deal of public protest to stop. As much as I dislike public protests, I would definitely head to Washington to rally against this legislation.
I agree, but don’t think protest is the answer. I think the answer lies in the House of Representatives. If strong leaders like Duncan Hunter (my rep) stir up Republicans and independents the House might balk on this bill
No, what I’m saying is that while one group “the enforcement only crowd” stands in the streets (figuratively of course) and shouts “nothing short of DEPORT”
Or just “enforce existing law” and the very concept of national sovereignty.
the rest of the nation, and the Democratic run senate are going to pass a Bill that none of us like.
Not the rest of the nation, but the Dem-run arms, yes. They are traitors and morons.
Bush will probably sign it because that’s the sort of guy he is
He will sign it for the same reason he went to the UN before Iraq - for no good reason and many bad ones.
(and I love him as a person and President,
I think he is a good man and has done some important things, but this is a mistake for which there is no forgiveness. This is the destruction of the US for
some pipe-dream of a unified world that will end up being nothing but the lowest common denominator. This illegal situation is all Bush’s fault, since he’s had years to deal with this, and we had Sensenbrenner’s holding up of the moronic homeland security legislation on the minor point of restricting driver’s licenses for illegals. Bush falls to the bottom of the barrel with this - just the fact that he supports it is enough for me to want him out of office as soon as possible.
and would never degrade him by calling him names like “Jorge Bush”
He earned it.
He has tried very hard to work with republicans on this issue, but they have SHUT HIM OUT)
Untrue. Bush has always been awful in dealing with Mexico and our borders. Awful.
a bit too much rhetoric and untruth to respond to with rational debate. Unfortunately there are too many like you who resort to this sort of garbage for any positive steps to be taken
IDP, I agree with every word you wrote. I would add only that there are plenty of plain, everyday Democrats who hate this “amnesty” as much as Republicans do. The politicians don’t seem to understand that they are playing with political fire.
“Senor ‘Charles Oakwood’ Lechero” you need to be willing to compromise your positiion. Don’t be so rigid.
I don’t understand your comment. Would you mind clarifying a bit.
Actually, yes - a working copy (it’s still in rough draft form and, I think, missing parts). Someone at NR got a hold of a copy. It’s 326 pages of PDF that only Ted Kennedy can understand (and it refers to amending parts of laws that aren’t posted with the bill.)
One thing to warn you about is that they put all the tough sounding rhetoric (the “enforcement") in front, while all the handouts are buried deep down.
I understand your POV, but where do we get the workers to replace those we round up and deport? If there were a “guest worker†provision that allowed one worker to enter (on a temporary worker basis) for every one that’s “caught†and deported, I would agree.
The open borders nuts want to have it both ways: they want to claim that the government is incapable of deporting 15 million illegals, but that it’s perfectly capable of properly administering an amnesty to at least that many people (don’t think a few million more won’t slip in to take advantage of the amnesty.)
Either the government CAN or it CAN’T. If it can properly administer the amnesty, then it can deport them (or encourage them to deport themselves.) If it can’t deport them all, then it can’t properly administer the amnesty. You can’t say it’s capable of doing one but not the other. Eisenhower deported over a million of them in the 1950s.
I understand that the economy has become dependent upon the illegals. What to do? There is actually a very simple solution to this, and I don’t think a new guestworker plan is it. Simply establish temporary visas, and fix the number at, say, 10 million. Sell them for $3,000 each. The immigrant pays, but he has to have an employer vouch for him. After two years, reduce the number to 8 million, then 6 million, and so on until after 10 years you get to zero. At the same time, use tax incentives to encourage capital investment. Deny birthright citizenship to any children the temporary workers have while they remain here.
Employers will then have a predictable system to work with, and they’ll slowly be weened off the teet of illegal labor.
Most of the cards will be held by illegals already here. You could say that’s a “reward” for breaking the law. I couldn’t care less. It’s not the “Illegal Problem” I’m trying to solve - it’s the “Too Much Immigration Problem” that concerns me.
You could argue that the current bill does that - but not quite. It creates the temporary visas, and the fine. But it doesn’t limit the number, nor does it EVER cut them off. It certainly doesn’t deny birthright citizenship. And it increases legal immigration in a myriad of ways, which is pretty much in line with what congress does: everytime the public demands LESS immigration, it gives us MORE, MORE, MORE.
Most importantly, it doesn’t take an 800 page bill to create so simple a program. That’s the problem with “comprehensive” reform: there’s just too much crap in there to get a hold of.
what is an “open border nut”? I don’t know anyone (except socialists) who want open borders....do you?
Well, since you dont, why dont you stop with the ignorant comments and actually attempt to understand what someone who disagrees with you means?
No, Senor, we are not resorting to ‘garbage’. What we are all saying here is there is no way to compromise on a principle. We’ve been there, done that, and got the shaft. This is an uncrossable line for a lot of people who know what is at stake. A look down the long road shows a US that will have been irrevocably changed for the worse.
There are too many places here in the US that are already like being in a foreign country and that is wrong. We have a right to our sovereignty, our culture, our language and our laws. Enough is enough.
Actually, that’s the point that really kills me: the jobs Americans ‘aren’t doing’ (this is what they say now, after people started hollering). Since when didn’t Americans ‘do’ roofing, framing, carpentry, masonry, concrete work?? How in the world did all our building get done before the illegals got here?
This has cut working-class Americans out of construction and many other jobs that we used to make a decent living at.
As far as housing goes, I haven’t seen the cost of houses dropping anywhere (disregard the ‘housing bubble’ for a minute) because the labor costs dropped. Have you?
What happened to the American folks who used to do those jobs, where are they? I’m not all that sure about how bad an economic hit we will take if the millions self-deport. Besides, how many of them work in industries that serve each other?
“before the illegals got here”? That’s a hooter. When was that...1492?
There have ALWAYS been mexican and central american workers here working. I’ve been in construction for nearly 30 years, and a good percentage have always been illegal. Every few years people get riled up about it then calm back down again and life goes on. But this time, post 9/11, is different, and most folks realize we need to seal up the borders for security reasons (that though none of the 9/11 terrorists came across the border illegally)
Your points about the cost of housing show a basic lack of understanding about the industry. Labor costs have not “gone down”. Wages have, but not costs.
No, Senor, we are not resorting to ‘garbage’. What we are all saying here is there is no way to compromise on a principle. We’ve been there, done that, and got the shaft. This is an uncrossable line for a lot of people who know what is at stake. A look down the long road shows a US that will have been irrevocably changed for the worse.
There are too many places here in the US that are already like being in a foreign country and that is wrong. We have a right to our sovereignty, our culture, our language and our laws. Enough is enough.
Where is a place in America that is “like being in a foreign country”?
what is an “open border nut� I don’t know anyone (except socialists) who want open borders - senor lechero
So, what would you do to actually enforce the laws? Apparently nothing. Effectively that means open borders. If you’re not willing to do anything (like deportation) to control the borders, then you want open borders. I didn’t define you that way - you’ve done so through your arguments.
As for your offense at being called a “nut,” I can assure you that those of us in favor of enforcement are routinely called far worse: “racists,” “nativists,” “xenophobes,” and “bigots.”
Well in construction, what are ‘labor costs’ if they aren’t wages? - Pandora
Ha! He didn’t say “labor costs,” he simply said “costs.” I suspect he means the profit the developer keeps from the home. That just keeps going up, up, up, thanks to demand induced by open borders.
“before the illegals got here� That’s a hooter. When was that...1492? There have ALWAYS been mexican and central american workers here working.
ALWAYS?
When Mexico owned the Southwest they couldn’t even get Mexicans to come here. That’s why they begged Americans to move to Texas. That’s why in the 1850 census, the first US census after we conquered California, there were only 90,000 people in the whole state.
There were almost no significant Mexican settlements anywhere in the land that we “stole.”
Mexicans today may partially be descended of Indians - but they are descendants of Indians who lived in Mexico. The descendants of the Indians who lived in US territory still live in the US. Guadalupe Hidalgo allowed Mexicans living in the ceded territories to stay. If they left, they left by choice.
It’s easy to see what cosnervatives gave up---400 miles of approved fence and at least the potential option of deportation of the illegal aliens already in the U.S.
Can someone explain what the Democrats gave up.....and please don;t start from the assumption that complete open family reunification was the status quo...how do you unify a family when the family member in the US is already illegal?
Maybe a deal between Hillary and Kennedy would be worse. But, I think we have compromised away what we already have for illusory concessions from the Democrats. If this was the best deal to be had, perhaps Kyl ought to have walked
Maybe a deal between Hillary and Kennedy would be worse. - ironman
A lot of the open borders zealots are claiming that we WILL have a Dem president and congress in 2009, so therefore we need a less lousy bill now. If the amnesty passes, we certainly will. But if the GOP actually develops a spine (along with some ethics), that won’t be the case. Secure borders is a good campaign platform. The whole party just needs to get behind it.
That, of course, is unlikely to happen. But I do think an amnesty - and the massive tsunami of illegals that will follow - will incite so much anger that a hundred or more congressmen from both parties could lose their jobs. Congress may be able to control the bills it passes, but it can’t control their consequences. The dynamic of mass immigration is bad for Americans and that can’t be changed anymore than they can repeal the law of gravity.
McCain-Bush-Kennedy think that by passing this bill now all will be forgotten come November ‘08. Actually, all that does is give Americans the chance to see they’ve been betrayed, and gives potential primary and general election challengers a chance to begin their campaigns. Politically speaking, there is no “good” time for them to pass this bill.
The electoral security of so many House members is based on their gerrymandered districts. If primary challengers have the chance to materialize, that’s no longer the case. People can still vote for a Republican (or Democrat) without voting for THAT Republican.
Amnesty has always been a thing in prospect, which doesn’t really do much to excite opponents. Once it’s a done deal, then comes the reaction.
Well in construction, what are ‘labor costs’ if they aren’t wages?
And don’t even try to tell me that we have always had 10% of Mexico’s population here working.
What places? How about Miami, Fla.? How about Los Angeles? How about Dearbornistan?
Don’t start with me, Mr. Milk. You know damn well what I’m talking about here and don’t even give me ‘Chinatown’.
I’m not sure if that’s a serious question or a smart remark, but I’ll assume the former.
Labor costs = wages, taxes on wages, social security (employers portion), medicare, workman’s comp, and any fringe benefits that come with a job. Usually the wages are 50% or less of the entire cost package.
“Dont start with” you? You mean don’t call you out on your illogical, fanatical, rant? Miami? LA? get real!
I suggest you go to Mexico, or Cuba, then tell us which part of Miami and LA look like they do.
Why is it so hard for the “enforcement only” crowd to have a rational discussion on this issue. You guys argue like liberals when it comes to immigration.
