April 6, 2006


Deal Would Put Millions on Path to Citizenship (RACHEL L. SWARNS, 4/06/06, NY Times)

[T]he compromise was promptly assailed as just that — an amnesty — by conservatives in the Senate and in the House. Meanwhile, critics on the left, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O and some immigrant advocacy groups, said the compromise would create a vast group of second-class citizens who might never become citizens and depress wages and take jobs from Americans.

Republican and Democratic leaders, who had fought so bitterly that an agreement seemed in jeopardy, stood side by side today, hailing the deal as a historic decision that would enhance national security by bringing millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows while filling the nation's needs for labor.

Flanked by nearly a dozen Republican and Democratic lawmakers, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, stood before a crush of television cameras and called the compromise "a huge breakthrough."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, addressed his comments to the tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters who have poured into the streets in recent weeks to press for such legislation, saying he believed the compromise would mean most to the illegal workers who wash dishes, park cars and clean hotel rooms.

"So even though we all feel good about today, it pales in comparison to the millions and millions of people out there who today feel that they have a chance to participant in the American dream," Mr. Reid said.

"Now, we're not there yet," he said. "But we've moved a long ways down the road."

President Bush praised the Senate's efforts and encouraged the lawmakers "to work hard and get the bill done" before senators depart on Friday for the spring recess.

The deal was also cheered by business leaders and many prominent immigrant advocacy groups.

Even Ronald Reagan's historic amnesty only created about 2.5 million new citizens.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 6, 2006 6:18 PM

Oh, joy, Harry Reid likes it. Check that: Harry Reid AND the New York Times. Great company to keep, eh?

Posted by: Just John at April 6, 2006 6:39 PM

The fact remains that Southern illegals broke immigration laws to come here. They will all end up staying.

Meanwhile, according to Wash. Times 39,000 Chinese illegals are being forcefully deported.

I guess theres a lot I don't understand about this illegal immigration biznai.

Posted by: Tom Wall at April 6, 2006 6:57 PM


It is only -low wage- immigrant labor that is of concern here. Being catholic and illegal helps.

Posted by: Perry at April 6, 2006 7:07 PM


The Unions hate it, but Democratstricked themselves into backing it even though W & McCain will get all the credit. The far Right and Unions form a natural protectionist, nativist, isolationist block that Democrats inherit..

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2006 7:18 PM

We'll see in November. I predict conservatives angered by the immigration sell-out will stay home in numbers large enough for there to be significant Democrat gains. Democrats will mistakenly interpret this to mean people actually like them. The majority of Hispanics will vote for Democrats as they always do.

Posted by: Carter at April 6, 2006 7:31 PM


And isn't that a large part of the reason why you hold the beliefs you do on illegal immigration? Immigrants are a natural Dem constituency, they've voted Dem historically, ergo, it is in the GOP's best interest to limit the Dem constituency.

Frankly, the 1920's restrictions on immigration, championed by CA reform Senator Hiram Johnson, were a black stain on the GOP and greatly contributed to a situation in which the party did not hold the House of Representatives for 40 years straight (and 60 of the 64 years before 1994). Given the current hold on power the GOP has now, let's use this to help erase that stain.

Posted by: Brad S at April 6, 2006 7:36 PM

Perry, I see your Anti-Papism is showing again. Just can't lay off that special sauce, can you?

Posted by: Brad S at April 6, 2006 7:37 PM

Powerline boys have an immigration poll up on their news site.

Sadly only six other votes for my position:

"Making the American Dream available to as many people from foreign countries as possible, regardless of how they come here."

50% for "Strengthening control of our borders" and 25% for the "Erecting a wall and stricter border controls to stop non-English speaking immigrants who are not interested in assimilating."

Oddly no category for Catholic haters or soccer haters.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 6, 2006 7:42 PM

I'm one of the six, Jim. We should have a secret handshake.

Posted by: Timothy at April 6, 2006 8:03 PM

Hi guys, if you don't think the Catholic church purse strings have alot to do with the inexplicable Repub/Dem love in displayed today, then you have alot to learn about money and power.

It hardly makes me an "anti-papist" to point this out but really, I find your name calling lame.

So Brad, hire any low wage labor lately?

Posted by: Perry at April 6, 2006 8:49 PM

Yes, Perry, and their cleaning my home as we speak:)

OJ, I know I shouldn't feed trolls, but this is too brazen to avoid answering.

Posted by: Brad S at April 6, 2006 9:23 PM

Powerline News must be swamped, the website won't open. I'll try again in the morning.

Posted by: erp at April 6, 2006 11:33 PM

Here is an interesting story. 100% unvarnished truth.

I have two bids on painting my house. One is from a College painting outfit, reasonable and well-marketed (But I have to admonish the kid on his fishlike handshake.)

The other is from my Hispanic guy who's done work on my other property. (He's legal, but it's pretty obvious his workers aren't.)

College kids (Americans willing to do jobs we think they don't want) are at $4500. Hispanics at $3500. Quite a spread.

I'm flummoxed. Normally, I'd take the lowest price. But a steady stream of callers (fellow citizens) talking about the impact of immigration on their community and families has me thinking.

In 1977 (Junior year), me and a couple of friends started a sealcoating business. We were so successful that the local hardware store owner started his own competing service the next summer.

(Funny how cleaning him out of 5 gallon cans of Sakrete Emulsion once a week perked his interest)

Could a few suburban entreprenuers do the same today? (I know, now they're all getting rich selling porn or ringtones on the web.)


Posted by: Bruno at April 7, 2006 12:26 AM


Check out the Fox News poll--the issue is a winner for the GOP.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 12:43 AM


When I was in college I worked with illegals and they worked harder than us.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 12:49 AM

Well, the Fox poll is heartening. After reading the comments sections of several right-of-center blogs I had to take a shower. Glad to know that sort of thing isn't widespread. I just hope that the yahoos don't wield just enough influence to cost the gop seats come November.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 7, 2006 12:59 AM

Sweetie, everybody works harder than you. Please tell me you have a better reason than that.

Posted by: joe shropshire at April 7, 2006 1:00 AM

us--meaning all the natives--at all three jobs where I've worked with illegals.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 1:05 AM


Never judge a party by the Internet nuts.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 1:06 AM

So you managed to find jobs with Anglos who were your slacker equals. Color me unsurprised.

Posted by: joe shropshire at April 7, 2006 1:23 AM


It's true in all jobs--that's why employers want the amnesty.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 7:25 AM

Of course it's true, that why Oj has found the moral low ground on this one.

We should be cutting transfer payments to our underclass, they will then do the work.

Also, border security will cut the drug flow, again forcing them to do the work.

Posted by: Perry at April 7, 2006 8:26 AM

Border patrols will require hiring aliens to staff them.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 8:50 AM

I suppose Perry will next give us a quick disseration on how the Immigration Act of 1924 helped create a cohesive culture and a rich workforce. All while those dirty Catholic immigrants were brought to heel:(

Posted by: Brad S at April 7, 2006 9:20 AM


ASt the end of the day it's just a matter of who the nativists hate this time.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 9:26 AM

Given the shortage of oilfield workers in the West Texas-Southeastern New Mexico region right now, I'd be interested to know if the drillers have followed some of the other industries into use of illegals to increase their operations, especially with how close the Permian Basin oilpatch is to the Mexican border (and thanks to some work in court this week, I got to see that the going rate for a roustabout who is a U.S. citizen appears to be in the annual range of about $34,000 right now). A dangerous job, but certainly one with its financial benefits.

Posted by: John at April 7, 2006 10:25 AM


When we worked there the crew was a third to a half illegal. On days off crews would smuggle them back from Nuevo Laredo.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2006 10:28 AM

Question for You Brad S.

Do you hate homosexuals and want to see their persecution like OJ does and advocates?

Posted by: Perry at April 7, 2006 11:31 AM


I am not a "nativist" nor am I anti-immigration.

I am against illegal Mexican laborer immigration so old fat white men can protect their retirement.

And I don't hate anybody, you have that market well cornered.

Posted by: Perry at April 7, 2006 11:39 AM

Question for you, Perry. Have you ever heard of sarcasm,satire or irony?

Posted by: erp at April 7, 2006 11:40 AM

No, and I did not write Redefining Sovereignty, either. But thanks for asking!

Are we nasty, foreign-influenced Catholics forcing you to change the subject, Perry?

Posted by: Brad S at April 7, 2006 11:40 AM

Oh well, the bill's dead (for the moment):


Happy (for now), Perry?

Posted by: Brad S at April 7, 2006 1:23 PM

Did one of the jobs involve herding sheep? It would explain a lot.

Posted by: Carter at April 7, 2006 3:01 PM


Yes, I know I can be dense...but it wasn't Brad's (offbase) sarcasm which prompted me to ask him what I did ask him, it was his constant name calling in defense of his position and his insistance that I am a hater.

It usaually takes one to know one. I rarely call people a hater and I was surpised at his (but not at Oj's) constanst refrain of such.

I wanted to know what I was dealing with as I take offense to being called a troll and a hater. I hope you understand.

Posted by: Perry at April 7, 2006 6:50 PM

Perry, Trolls are commenters who are victims of BDS and who just mouth DNC memos and other leftwing propaganda endlessly. They have no original thoughts and a tenuous, if that, command of the facts. People with genuine opposing points of view and some historical perspective are welcome.

If you're interested in reasoned discourse, you might need to check in here for a week or so before deciding if someone is calling you names. Be aware that the people reading and commenting on this blog have an amazing level of knowledge and wisdom. The bros et al. can't be snowed and no question is too obscure but a reader with the appropriate expertise sets out the facts for us.

There is a caveat however, it's very easy to get hooked. I really don't know how people who work have the time to read, blog and comment as much as they do. I'm glad of it and I freely admit to being addicted to reading the BrothersJudd Blog first thing in the morning with my coffee and the last thing at night before I sign off.

Hope to see you in the morning.

Posted by: erp at April 7, 2006 8:22 PM


Sigh. If only you weren't already married.


You want to know why the nativist label is being thrown your way? Everybody can understand the visceral disgust at those who come to leech and criticize--like the stranger who plunks himself down on your couch and helps himself to your fridge while he watches you work. Yes, there are lots of immigrants like that because there are lots of human beings like that and a lot of them are your fellow countrymen. You are setting a collective standard of loyalty and self-reliance that study after study after study shows all immigrant groups attain by the second generation (and always have) and you are condeming them en masse because some of them don't in the first.

The second thing you are doing is putting the full blame for many things you don't like about the modern domestic zeitgeist squarely on their shoulders. Mexicans didn't invent welfare, multiculturalism and ethnic politics, Americans did. To get your knickers in a knot because some immigrants fall into the entitlement culture they see all around them (and are encouraged by academics, the media and Democratic activists to join)is simply shifting the blame for all manner of domestic madness on to them. As a matter of fact, the one group that works harder with universal success than anyone else to leave all that behind is immigrants.

To some people here, the ideal immigrant seems to be a foul-mouthed Aussie who wraps himself in flags on day one and snarls at all about how much purer an American he is than other immigrants and half the native-born. OK, there is room for him too, but methinks he protests way too much and that is not the way most immigrants assimilate or ever have. It's a two-generation process with lots of social and cultural ambivalence in the first, which also suffers most from prejudice. Some leave, but most stay and overcome it with a determination seen only rarely in the native-born. So you can look at all those social services as a very promising investment in the future (again, unlike with the native-born)or resent the fact that they don't live exactly like immigrants in the 1880's did. Or pretend native-born Americans today generally ressemble 19th century hardy, self-reliant New England yoeman whose culture will be diluted by foreigners.

But the correlation between high levels of immigration and prosperity has been proven too many times (name me one time when it wasn't)for the zero-sum boys to have any credibility. You want to be pure and poor? Your choice, but you've a long road ahead of you if you expect us to listen to alarm bells about brown and yellow perils.

Posted by: Peter B at April 8, 2006 6:39 AM

Just as a quick addendum to what Peter said. It should be noted that the only time in US History that more people left the USA than came was during the 1930's. Right after the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed.

Perry, you could debate (and lose) the immigration issue all day long. But when you throw in dark assertions that a major world religion is behind the illegal "invasion," then you're bringing up old wounds from previous immigration waves. And frankly, you should expect to have equally dark thoughts made of you after doing so.

Posted by: Brad S at April 8, 2006 12:05 PM