June 26, 2007


Senate resumes debate on immigration overhaul (Donna Smith, June 26, 2007, Reuters)

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted to revive a stalled immigration overhaul backed by President George W. Bush that would offer a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.

The Senate voted 64-35 to resume debate on the bill, which ties tough border security and workplace enforcement measures to a plan to legalize an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and a create temporary worker program sought by business groups.

The legislation would be a significant victory for President George W. Bush in his second term in office. It faces strong opposition from many of his fellow Republicans, who call it an amnesty for people who broke U.S. laws and argue it would do little to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the United States.

...it gets. Hardly a coincidence that 64% is so close to the approval rating for the grand compromise.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 26, 2007 12:50 PM

This is an unmitigated disaster that is going to split conservatives from the GOP. It's also going to give the Democrats an insurmountable electoral majority for at least the next generation.

Posted by: Ray Clutts at June 26, 2007 1:43 PM

Also, the Senate is always the least representative body given that its membership is apportioned by two per state and you cannot rationally equate a two-thirds Senate vote with two-thirds of the population at large. Let's see what kind of vote the House of Representatives returns if you want to assess popular support.

Sorry about the duplicative entry above.

Posted by: Ray Clutts at June 26, 2007 1:57 PM

OJ has a personal stake in redefining sovereignty.

It'll be entertaining, that's for sure.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 26, 2007 1:58 PM

Ray, Sandy,

If you want this stopped badly enough, you'd give John Conyers and Maxine Waters (!) a call. After all, they're no more interested in seeing this pass than Tom Tancredo is.

Or are you just interested in a GOP purity purge?

Posted by: Brad S at June 26, 2007 2:15 PM

Nativist Conservatives and libertarians have nowhere else to go.

1) They can boycott elections and let the Dems fill up the SCOTUS with leftists while ramming their policies through the legislature.

2) They can vote for a third party candidate ending up with the same outcome as boycotting elections.

3) Or they can grow up and quit insisting on ideological perfection from their leaders.

When they do the latter they win elections. The recent performance of the Supreme Court should be enough to show how much of a difference having Republicans in the majority can make. Even when those Republicans are pork spending race traitors.

Posted by: Patrick H at June 26, 2007 2:17 PM

Ending Jim Crow split the Democrats for a generation, but was good for America.

The looney Right got over the last amnesty without doing itself much damage. Emotions are short-lived.

Posted by: oj at June 26, 2007 2:19 PM

Ray: The day after the Supreme Court demonstrates that we may now have a conservative court majority for the first time in nearly anyone's living memory, how does it make sense to try to shred the conservative party into little bits and pieces? Two years after George W. Bush won >40% of the Hispanic vote, how does it make sense to throw a hissy fit that proves that the opposition to illegal immigration is really just virulent anti-Mexicanism? How does it make sense to embrace Tom Tancredo, who is an obvious racist at heart? The last month has just made the "permanent Democratic majority" nonsense at least plausible, which is pretty amazing considering that only 2 years ago it was pretty clear that the exact opposite was true. This bill sucks as far as I can tell, but the opposition has been so over the top that it makes me ashamed to have ever switched from independent to GOP.

Posted by: b at June 26, 2007 2:23 PM


Do you think the opportunity to LOSE in 2008 is a big reason for the Wahoo's reaction to the Amnesty bill? Meaning, they saw how the Left behaved these last few years and are deciding that they want to follow the same path WRT Hillary.

Posted by: Brad S at June 26, 2007 2:27 PM

Over the last fourteen years, I've donated over $20,000.00 to Senate and Congressional primaries. I'm done. The GOP isn't getting anything from me for another generation.

Furthermore, whatever the conservatives do as retribution for the GOP leadership betryal will pale beside the demographic consequences of amnesty with a two-thirds to three-quarters Mexican immigrant plurality favoring the Democrats.

Posted by: Ray Clutts at June 26, 2007 2:35 PM

I thought the steel tariffs split the Republicans for a generation. And didn't Miers split them again? And the fraction left behind was split by the ports deal, right? So by my count they isn't anyone left in the Republican party to feed the red meat to. We can just do what is good for the country.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 26, 2007 2:42 PM

Again, Ray, if the "demographic consequences" of passing Amnesty are so dire, why aren't you calling the Congressional Black Caucus for assistance in killing it? Or for that matter, why aren't you or other like-minded folks producing videos of folks who surely have been harmed by the current status quo? Surely those folks are out there, Ray. Surely you know how telegenic the little guy getting it in the shorts is.

Posted by: Brad S at June 26, 2007 2:44 PM

"Whatever the conservatives do as retribution for the GOP leadership betryal"? Mr. Clutts, If you're crazy enough to shoot yourself in the head because your feelings are hurt, why would follow your advice about anything? You disagree with the Democrats on baby killing, taxes, property rights, foreign policy, immigration, civil rights, and government power, but better them then the hated GOP? In a two party system, voting against one party is voting for the other one. "Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.".

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 26, 2007 3:11 PM

When it gets to the House, we'll see what Marxie Maxine does - will she follow Obama or not? MM will hang on for as long as she can, even she can read demo and I seem to recall that the black population isn't what it once was - but I could be wrong.

I really don't hear too much out of the black caucus.

this coupled w/the North American Union and the Akaka Bill will be providing entertainment for years to come.

Besides, the Black Caucas is moot.

I'm not interested in ideological perfection. However, it would have been nice if they wouldn't have given amnesty to gang bangers, drug lords, and their ilk -much less it being an afterthought amendment.

But hey, gotta take the good w/the bad, right?

This'll give "provide for the common defense" a whole new meaning in a few years.

It took over 2 years for my kid to become a citizen, and I had to prove I could support said child and leave 3 years of tax returns at the embassy.

Now the Z-visa's gone from 24 hours to 30 days - big whoop.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 26, 2007 3:26 PM

Hmmm, we don't have to fall in love, we just have to fall in line??

Then who cares, there's not a dime's diff between them.

This intergenerational warfare about SS will be very entertaining, too!

Posted by: Sandy P at June 26, 2007 3:26 PM

Sandy, I heard the same thing from a friend who was pushing Porkbusters hard. He's not happy about how badly he got played by the Democrats. Seems the Democrats had more then a dime between them when they got into power......

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 26, 2007 3:30 PM

I believe we need more immigration, not less.

However, Rasmussen shows that support for the Senate immigration bill has dropped (from 23% to 22%) in the past two weeks. Even support among self-proclaimed liberals has dropped.

OJ likes to make up numbers for his pet causes. Here, he's clearly out of bounds. If every registered voter hit the button tonight in a national referendum, the bill (as it stands) wouldn't get 33%. Sure, people don't want to pay for a secure border, but that doesn't mean they are willing to just accept a lot of other nonsense along the way (like the 24-hour background check).

The Dems have backed the GOP into a cannibalistic corner on this issue, aided by the President (who should have done something about this issue in 2005).

OJ keeps saying that Reagan won plaudits for the Simpson-Mazzoli deal in 1986. I don't remember them.

But the Dems will pay a high price for the bill, too. If it passes as it stands, the likelihood of a national ID card goes way, way up. I'd like to see Teddy stop that, especially if there is a major terror attack under a Democratic President.

Posted by: ratbert at June 26, 2007 4:03 PM

People oppose the bill, they support the policy. That's why we have representative government, not democracy. Legislating is ugly business.

To the contrary, Reagan was reviled by all the same wahoos. The Right hated him as president. They all turned out to vote for his successor anyway. There is no political price to be paid for an issue that stirs emotions but doesn't engage thought. It wears off too quickly.

Posted by: oj at June 26, 2007 4:09 PM


You're overanalyzing their motives. It's just racial terror.

Posted by: oj at June 26, 2007 4:13 PM

So sez the man who lives in a 95%+++ white state----------

Posted by: Sandy P at June 26, 2007 4:23 PM

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! It's just a matter of racial hygiene for the opponents.

Posted by: oj at June 26, 2007 4:27 PM


No, NCLB & the HSA bill were the unforgivable sins. And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously?

Posted by: oj at June 26, 2007 5:07 PM

"So sez the man who lives in a 95%+++ white state"

Sandy, every time you say that it makes you sound like a bigot. This is what I hear: "You don't have to live with *those* people! You don't know what it's like!"
Furthermore, it's just a basic reworking of the chickenhawk argument. "You don't have the proper experience so you are prohibited from expressing an opinion!"
You keep making that same basic argument and it keeps falling flat. Maybe you should just drop that one.

Posted by: Bryan at June 26, 2007 6:05 PM

OR -

he chooses not to live....

I just find it amusing -

You guys are getting what you wanted - amnesty.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 27, 2007 1:00 AM

Still a disaster. Everyone who has looked at it knows, and oj has freely admitted this, that the enforcement parts of this so-called "compromise" are a fraud. It will be open borders--forever, and all those "compromise" parts are going to be waived or simply ignored.

Re: how organized African-Americans come down on this. From a discussion of NPR's "Black Talk" progrm which comes on about 9 P.M., I heard an interesting argument. The people running the racial spoils system see themselves as the permanent doyens of the quota establishment. They would like to see their preferences continue in perpetuity without dilution. Other "minorities" are welcome insofar as they dutifully fall in line but they are not to be allowed to hop on to the reparations train.

The Black game plan, according to the panelists, is to insist on undiluted preferences as a condition of support for open borders. Do they still have the clout to hang on to their hereditary estates? We cannot predict, but let us watch this aspect of the game.

A further note regarding legal immigration. The big losers from capitulation to the wetbacks are legal immigrants and would-be legal immigrants. There are plenty of South Asians, West Indians, Eastern Europeans, and Afican-Africans who would like to come here and whose places are to be filled by Western Hemishere illegals. Both justice and our own interest should have us consider how the open borders scam impacts immigration from the rest of the world.

Posted by: Lou Gots at June 27, 2007 1:59 AM

According to the William C. Velasquez Institute, a nonpartisan think tank which closely monitors the latino vote, they conducted their own exit polls, which found Bush winning 34% of the Latino vote nationally in 2004. This is in line with historic voting patterns and when you factor out a net majority within the Cuban minority in Florida the Mexican contingent would split approximately 70-30 Democrat. The 2004 Texas vote turned out to be 51-49 for Kerry despite initial reports of 59-41 Bush. The good news is that Mexican turnout in elections in atrocious.

It's not obvious to me that Tancredo is a racist nor that he is even a significant factor in opposition to the current Bill. Surely you have cites that you can share with us that prove his racism.

The Chickenhawk argument is valid. After George Bush's rejection for training as a pilot by the Air Force, he had ample opportunity to apply for infantry training in the Army or Marines. He chose not to.

Likewise Sandy's statement that OJ has chosen to not live in proximity to African-Americans nor Mexicans is both material and relevant to the issue of racism. Certainly it is not conclusive, nor has Sandy initiated any arguments to that effect. (not the slightest hint of bigotry)

Posted by: h-man at June 27, 2007 2:38 AM

Michelle Malkin on how the "Scamnesty" screws legal immigrants.

In sum, the legal immigration system is backed up and needs to be brought on line before the illegals are given their fast track.

Posted by: Lou Gots at June 27, 2007 3:03 AM

Even children know that two wrongs donb't make a right. Of course, nativists are sub-childish.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 7:29 AM

It's obvious to everyone else that Tancredo is a racist, which tends to limit the appeal of his party.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 7:30 AM

Likewise, it's obvious that those who argue that only those who don't live in racial purity would favor diluting the race are racists.

The important point is that choosing to live in a homogenous area is a private matter, and appropriate. Personal racism is universal and not particularly objectionable. It's when you think that public policy ought to be racist that you cross the line.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 7:32 AM

A disaster? The only truly bleak period in American history followed immediately upon the hate-in during which the borders were closed to both people and trade.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 7:34 AM

Getting what the overwhelming majority of Americans want, which is why we're getting it.

There's nothing more amusing than the argument that amnesty is so unpopular that Hillary or Obama is certain to win in '08.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 7:36 AM

What matters is the media drumbeat about the bill -- who's for or against it. What it actually says is irrelevant.

Posted by: erp at June 27, 2007 9:22 AM

As everyone understands, it's just another in a periodic series of amnesty bills.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 9:54 AM

I live in a suburb with 30% blacks. The major city next door is 55% black and 10% Latino/Asian. The county next door has a immigrant worked landscaping/nursury area so has a sizable Mexican population.

Can I comment now? I don't live in Texas or California but really, is my area brown enough so I can comment, Sandy or h-man? Let me know please.

Posted by: Bob at June 27, 2007 1:50 PM

No Bob you can't.................................................(joking) OJ can comment also, nothing ever stopped him anyway.

Posted by: h-man at June 27, 2007 2:36 PM

The wogs start at 1630.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 4:17 PM