June 28, 2006


Senate warms to 'border first' (Amy Fagan, June 28, 2006, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Key backers of the Senate immigration bill said yesterday they are willing to consider a compromise that would delay the guest-worker program and "amnesty" portions until the borders have been secured.

The proposal was floated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter in an interview Monday with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

"I think it's worth discussing," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. "Many of us have said we could work on border enforcement and, at the same time, work on other aspects that would take more time."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, said a delay will occur anyway because it will take a few years to set up the guest-worker program and the structure to process millions of illegal aliens onto a pathway to citizenship.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 28, 2006 10:33 AM

The beauty is that when the wahoos do win, you start prattling about how they just think they have. Works for me if it works for you.

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 28, 2006 10:57 AM

All for show as a bill won't get done before the November election.

Posted by: AWW at June 28, 2006 10:57 AM


How'd the port sale go?

Think they'll secure the border at all, nevermind first?

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 12:02 PM

I think they'll secure the border before there's amnesty, yes. And no, I don't think they'll secure the border at all.

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 28, 2006 12:05 PM

Wanna bet a body part?

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 12:34 PM

It is actually quite comic. The politicians all call to mind Jackie Gleason doing Ralph Kramdon, going, "Hamma, hamma, hamma," in panic and confusion.

Joe S. has it: they are not going to an effing thing, except flop around like a wahoo in the bottom of a fishing boat--a real wahoo:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahoo.

Posted by: Lou Gots at June 28, 2006 12:42 PM

What would I want with any of yours? By the way, had it not been for the port sale, and the 10-15 point slide in Bush's poll numbers that it helped sustain, the House bill might have looked more like the Senate bill. So two cheers for the port sale, every little bit helps.

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 28, 2006 12:59 PM

It all works beautifully, doesn't it?

Senators get to go home to their moderate statewide voters and say "They Tried" while the House members get to back to their Gerrymandered safe districts and say "They stopped Amnesty."

Bush isn't a factor, as he isn't really on any ballot, and the Congresscritters can stand as close or as far as they want from him.

As long as we get our cheap labor with pretense of beefed up borders, we'll be happy enough too, and the Republicans win seats based upon troop withdrawals and beating the idiot Dems with the "Security" stick.

Life is good. (as long as you never look under the rug)

Posted by: Bruno at June 28, 2006 1:27 PM

Works for me.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2006 1:33 PM

My guess is with everything else going on, the only way this becomes the major issue for November is if Andrés Manuel López Obrador wins the Mexican presidential election this weekend. A leftist president of Mexico would really start the northward flow of illegal immigrants fearful of having Hguo Chavez Jr., as their leader, and chances are his anti-U.S. rhetoric would push Congress into a response before Election Day (even though it would most hurt the people most opposed to Obrador's ideology).

Posted by: John at June 28, 2006 2:08 PM

Not for me -- illegal immigration strenghtens leftism, legal immigration strenghtens conservatism. I want them to substitute legal for illegal immigration.

Posted by: pj at June 28, 2006 2:24 PM


Sure, it would be better legal.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 2:57 PM


What port sale?

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 3:04 PM

sorry, should have said port-sale-that-might-have-been-except-for-the-wahoos.

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 28, 2006 3:14 PM


No, no, you miss the point entirely, thereby making it perfectly. Who runs the ports now that your panties are untwisted?

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 3:22 PM


Posted by: joe shropshire at June 28, 2006 3:28 PM

pj: It would absolutely be better if we went back to the Ellis Island system. Immigrants get themselves to the US, report to immigration officials, show that they have a means of support in the country (relatives or an employer who take responsibility), get a medical exam, a criminal history check and fingerprinted and then admitted.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2006 7:19 PM

Wow - sounds like legally.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 28, 2006 7:33 PM

Yep, legally beats illegally, but immigration beats no immigration, which is effectively what current law provides.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2006 8:32 PM


Yes, unlimited immigration via regular channels. Of course, that nativists oppose it because it's not legality they want but immigrants they don't.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 8:38 PM

The silence you hear from joe is the admission that once the hysteria died down he paid no attention to whether the ports would be run by a company in Dubai or wherever else. The wahoos have blessedly short attention spans.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 8:40 PM

[non-responsive], you moron.

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 28, 2006 9:49 PM

As I think about it, why not just have one entry test for everyone trying to come into the country, including immigrants, vacationers, refugees and returning citizens?

Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2006 11:03 PM

While everyone is riled up and talking at each other, real life will continue. Those who have what it takes will make across the border (as the song says, no fence high enough …) and either start their trek toward becoming Americans, or get enough money together to go back and invest in their native lands. Either way, we win.

Yesterday, we were forced out of our bunker to hob and nob with our fellow humans. Dreadful experience. Their level of ignorance is so breathtaking, I wouldn’t know where to begin to disabuse them of their cherished beliefs.

All we could do was ask that they please vote for the candidate on the right because if they don’t vote, the message they think they are sending Bush will be intercepted by leftie terrorists and sent back to us in form of continued violence.

Posted by: erp at June 29, 2006 8:26 AM

Sartre was right.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 29, 2006 1:41 PM