June 28, 2007

A BETTER BILL, HARDER TO PASS:

Senate faces showdown on immigration: The bill's opponents succeed at deleting a provision for tamper-proof IDs. A crucial vote to end debate is expected today (Nicole Gaouette and Noam N. Levey, June 28, 2007, LA Times)

Supporters of the Senate immigration bill rebuffed all but one of the most serious challenges to the controversial legislation Wednesday, setting up a crucial vote today that could decide its fate.

In a series of votes steadily interrupted by Republicans intent on stalling the proceedings, lawmakers rejected amendments aimed at gutting two key features of the bill: one that would allow illegal immigrants to seek legal status and another that would shift the basis for future immigration away from the current emphasis on family ties.

But the most ambitious attempt to overhaul immigration laws in two decades suffered a major setback late Wednesday when lawmakers approved an amendment that the bill's backers and the administration said would undermine its effectiveness. The measure targeted the bill's work-site enforcement section, removing all provisions that required so-called "Real ID" driver's licenses — tamper-proof, secure identification that does not yet exist, but that the bill's backers consider essential to cracking down on illegal hiring.


It's not like it was going to be enforced in the first place. After all, the Right isn't goiung to pass the tax hikes that would be needed to pay for enforcement, nevermind the national service obligation required to staff it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 28, 2007 7:38 AM
Comments

It's not like it was going to be enforced in the first place.

Or that it would work, even if enforcement is attempted. The idea that thousands of civil servants nation-wide would be giving out these super-secure ID cards and that we'd actually verify they were only going to the right people was a non-starter from day one, even assuming that by some unprecedented miracle the uncrackable electronic security actually was.

Posted by: Mike Earl at June 28, 2007 9:26 AM

Bush flat doesn't care about borders. The Mexican border is the same kind of sieve that is the Syrian and Iranian borders. If he understood this basic security concept -- control who is coming across the borders -- Iraq would be in better shape and we wouldn't be as utterly vulnerable to future attacks from within.

Posted by: Palmcroft at June 28, 2007 9:31 AM

So Palmcroft, you want this sort of border security:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1813126,00.html

People have very long memories of that sort of behavior.

Posted by: Brad S at June 28, 2007 9:37 AM

Here's some pretty pictures of that sort of "border security":

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2376/858/1600/0%2C1587%2C1725616_6%2C00.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2376/858/1600/0%2C1587%2C1728791_10%2C00.jpg

Again, sense may be short in that part of the world, but memories are sure long.

Posted by: Brad S at June 28, 2007 9:43 AM

Cloture fils, 46-53. As OJ would say, we usually get what 65% of the people want.

Posted by: sam at June 28, 2007 10:58 AM

Brad S, dude, you are not up to this; good luck

Posted by: Palmcroft at June 28, 2007 11:03 AM

Palmcroft,

So cloture failed. Bully for you. The question still stands, though: Are you sure you want to emulate the policies of an occupier like Spain?

Posted by: Brad S at June 28, 2007 11:13 AM

What a double-sided question, decisions, decisions.....

Bad bill, there were good things in there, but it shouldn't have been crafted in a back room by a few, including La Raza and mECHA - or their lackeys like Chappaquiddick Ted.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 28, 2007 12:11 PM

We have walls to keep people out in most every large city. They are called international aiport terminals and they keep people out until we agree to let them in. Hardly a new concept.

Posted by: Perry at June 28, 2007 12:12 PM

Brad S, contrary to you and OJ and etc., having borders and controlling who enters a country is not "emulating the policies of an occupier," not is it equivalent to operating a jail, nor is it racism or hypocrisy or any of those other silly accusations. It's equivalent to having a lock on your front door and not allowing anyone from off the street to just wander in.

Since you and OJ want mass immigration, you should focus your efforts on fixing the legal immigration system, which is a mess, instead of living in the fantasy world where any and all illegal immigration is a wonderful thing with no negative effects.

If you want a bill to pass, here's what the majority of Americans would go for, in this order: 1) Secure the Southern border. 2) Increase deportation of illegal alien criminals. (I don't mean criminals due to immigration status, I mean drunk drivers, gangsters, etc.) And I don't mean deportation via a letter, I mean escorted to the border. 3) Fix the legal immigration system to make it easier for the sort of people we want to come here. 4) After that, we can talk about an amnesty, which would have to include fines and all back taxes. I'll bet that plan would poll at 60-80% support.

Posted by: PapayaSF at June 28, 2007 12:12 PM

The comparison of Mexicans seeking jobs to al Qaedists seeking to murder Shi'a really tells us all we need to know about the nativists.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2007 12:33 PM

Papaya: What you propose is too hard to do. Easiest thing to do is just make everyone legal with a stroke of a pen, the favored approach of law-breakers and their cohorts.

Posted by: sam at June 28, 2007 12:34 PM

PapayaSF,

Personally, I never thought this would pass because this is an issue that the Right owns. I always felt that the Right learned a lesson from Clinton about owning an issue, but never solving it. Unfortunately, Bush did not learn that lesson.

Frankly, Tom Tancredo could present that plan, and the Right would give him a similar reaction.

I just point out those examples because I know how the Right likes to bash anything and everything Europeans do (deservedly so, I might add). What those Spanish WHO ARE OCCUPYING that part of Morocco are doing is the mirror image of what some on the Right want to do with the Southern border (BTW, why not the Canadian border? The Muslims who were planning the LAX terror attack were apprehended trying to cross into the US at Blaine, WA).

Posted by: Brad S at June 28, 2007 12:38 PM

Give it time, Brad, a bigger attack will do the same----

Tancredo should try it and see what happens.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 28, 2007 12:59 PM

A few random thoughts:

If there is ever a Hugo Chavez or Castro 'revolution' in Mexico, there will be 10-12 million illegals coming over in a month. Nothing will stop them, not even the Minutemen.

Admitting 1/2 to 1 million plus Europeans a year could be a distinct possibility by 2015, no? Not to mention more Iraqis and other Middle Eastern refugees.

How will Florida change after Castro dies? How many Cubans will return? A few thousand or 100,000? Will Haitians and Jamaicans fill the void? Or Venezuelans?

If Muslim terrorism in Thailand keeps increasing, will the wealthy Thai move here?

If South Africa goes the way of Zimbabwe, how many will come here? A few thousand, or tens of thousands of the richest and poorest?

We need more people, more energetic and earnest people - but we need a completely new immigration template. What exists now is evil and broken. What was proposed by Reid, Kennedy, McCain, Graham, Martinez, et al. was just as bad (fractured, broken, evil).

Time for a fresh start.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 28, 2007 1:58 PM

No, the easiest thing to do is what we're doing: welcome them but keep them illegal. Treating them decently is the hard thing.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2007 2:29 PM

We have mass immigration. That's not at issue. The only question is how we treat the immigrants. Even that isn't ultimately at issue. Eventually we always do the Christian thing--it's just a matter of how long we can stand to be vile. It's about us, not them.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2007 2:31 PM

I'm confused. It's a given everyone in the whole world hates us, but gazillions of these same people want to come here. What am I missing?

Immigration: It's quite simple. Everyone, except criminals, who wants to be an American, is welcome. As they arrive, they are fingerprinted, their DNA taken and in exchange they get an ID card that allows them x number of years to become a citizen. After the time is up, they are citizens or they are forced leave the country. No second chances. If they don't like these terms, they can turn around and go back home.

Criminals are stopped at the borders and turned back never to be admitted. No spending our money on prisons for them.

Posted by: erp at June 28, 2007 2:43 PM

When erp said, with a couple of additions:
* No welfare for non-citizens. Not even free emergency room healthcare.
* Learn to speak English. If you want to press 1 to get a message in your native language, go back there. If you want to stay here, assimilate. Learn and use English. Acclimatize to us, don't ask us to acclimatize to you.

Posted by: ray at June 28, 2007 3:08 PM

No dual citizenship, we lived w/o it for a couple of centuries, we can again.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 28, 2007 3:31 PM

You can't make doctors inhuman just because you are. People get treated in emergencies. The idea of making this the sort of country where we wouldn't treat them in order to defend the culture is just bizarre. Although, it's a perfectly logical evolution for the Minutemen--they can patrol out in front of hospitals and turn back coloreds.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2007 4:44 PM

In exchange for not getting social services they should, of course, get their taxes rebated. That will be an even more powerful magnet for immigration.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2007 4:46 PM

jim:

Not enough.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2007 4:47 PM

Ray, no welfare for anybody other than those who are disabled and are truly needy no matter their citizenship status, but I wouldn't turn away a fellow human being who needed medical attention. To let someone suffer and perhaps die, especially a child, when we could provide help, is shameful and unworthy of us Americans.

Your other suggestions, as well as Sandy's go without saying, but for clarity, we can add them as amendments one and two.

Sandy, double citizenship has been a pebble in my shoe for a long time even though my stupid son is now also a citizen of la belle. It literally makes me gag whenever I think of it.

Posted by: erp at June 28, 2007 4:48 PM

OJ:

Here in NC the annexation process is quite liberal. Unless an area is already joined to an incorporated body, it is up for grabs by any contiguous municipality with the nerve to take it. The city of Charlotte is (as I remember) the 4th largest in the US in terms of area. There have been 2 major annexations in the 8 years since I moved here.

Perhaps the US should annex the world. All we need is more nerve. Would that we had it. With more nerve, we would have more sovereignty, which would only be a good thing around the world, right?

Your comment about decency, though, made me think of the people who have spent years and thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars to become citizens. Surely it is the height of indecency to keep them in a pipeline that squeezes more and more while getting tighter and tighter, and at the same time encourages and enables the stream of illegal immigration. As I said before, the Haitians, Jamaicans, Zimbabweans, Iraqis, Thai, and (Eastern) Europeans need not apply. And does the 'sanctuary' movement help these groups? Probably not. Only immigration lawyers do.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 29, 2007 12:32 AM

Yes, the entire official immigration structure is exactly the type of ongoing indecency dictated by its racist origins. It's the one place where the Right is defending quota systems.

Posted by: oj at June 29, 2007 6:43 AM
« GUARDIANSHIP CARRIES OBLIGATIONS: | Main | AS THE FAX MACHINE WAS TO THE RUSSIAN COUNTER-REVOLUTION: »