Posted on 05/28/2006 9:32:58 PM PDT by Lorianne
" Your problem is that you believe that passing a law will actually fix things. It's "illegal" to speed on the highway, but show me someone who claims they never have and I'll show you a liar. I remember well supporting the sainted Ronald Reagan when he said that the additional employer sanctions in the 80's would fix the problem. And I watched for 20 years as more illegals came in and America ignored the problem. "
Your problem is ignoring basic facts at hand and inventing them as you go along. You are clearly uninformed about the House bill and simply want to ignore the fact that it addresses all your supposed objections.
Stuff like this nonsense are false - simply false:
"Most plans have an achillies heal, and the lack of verifiable ID and hard core employer sanctions that will be enforcable are what's missing in these plans."
HR 4437 has BOTH verifiable ID and serious employer sanctions.
The employer sanctions never happened in the 1980s. There are specific reasons why that happened and specific cures to those flaws. The well-known reasons have to do with the fac that special interests gutted the enforcability of it, and that there is no database to check whether a SocSec number if real, valid and matches the person who claims to be
the name listed on the document.
"The fact that employers can claim that they were shown a document "proving" legality is the legal loophole that prevents any laws against them from being enforced."
Duh. That is the status quo. Fix those flaws and those reasons and we will be better off.
Database+verifiable ID will be a 99% solution .... not perfect but much better than status quo.
"All this mess will do is ensure the liberals will control the country for the next 30 years. Again"
You are convinced we cant do anything anyway
Well, that is surely the case if we pass the Senate CIRA bill, which will mainstream about 10 million uneducated and poor Democrat voters.
"The Republicans and the "No Amnesty" crowd have ensured that we will have 60 million mexicans living here in 20 years,"
More idiotic nonsense. You have presented absolutely no plan to do anything BUT that, and you have been defeatist and negative against every real solution that WOULD prevent that. You mischaracterize the bills that will solve the problem.
"Because passing such harsh laws will ensure Democrats are elected,"
Okay, you must be a troll. Securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws is not 'harsh', its sensible.
You say it cant be done or it wont be done ... yadda yadda yadda ... heard the same nonsense about tax cuts, welfare reform, tort reform; cant do it, wont work. Hogwash. We dont know until we really try, and we have not really tried to truly fix immigration and enforce the law in 20 years.
We have 20 years of amensties and alx enforcement and reaped our current massive illegal immigration population. It wont be fixed overnight, but the House approach is the ONLY APPROACH THAT TAKES US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
Like Welfare Reform in 1996, Liberals will hate it ... BUT IT WILL WORK.
I can assure you - people always respond to incentives.
Amnesty means more illegal immigration, enforcement means less illegal immigration. And if part of the problem is the enforcement agencies are not doing what they should do - be careful who you pick as President.
"America today has 1+ million immigrants each year, legally, and maybe 500,000 illegal immigrants coming each year. Legal immigration has happened, is happening, will happen. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BEING AGAINST LEGAL IMMIGRATION!"
"Precisely correct. The "open borders" detachment has been muddying the waters with this Red Herring debate tactic from the very beginning. It's never been about ending all immigration yet they portray it that way at every opportunity when what they are really demanding is an end to borders and an end to national self determination."
It's clear WHY this Red Herring is thrown in - like the
'nativist' claim (kind of funny, since, as for me, I work with legal immigrants daily and I'm married to one).
We have a problem with illegal immigration, caused by 20 years of lax/zero enforcement (insecure borders, no employer sanctions, few deportations relative to illegal immigrant population) and many amnesties. ...
It's thrown in every time we bring up the issue of enforcing the law. Just like this bogus claim that the *only* answer is a 'comprehensive' solution, as if we need a quid pro quo to secure the border. WHY? We waited a decade since the last immigration bill, and have let things fester. Why do we have to do it all at once?
All these deflections are about people who are afraid, not that immigration law enforcement *wont* work, but that it *will*.
Yet "Enforcement First" is the only good policy option we have right now. Any other policy just will make problems worse.
Yes. And willfully so, because I don't think that any law we pass will be enforced unless our current crop of illegals are positively motivated to abide by it. I know that the house bill doesn't do that in any way.
Mere force of law will not work.
HR 4437 has BOTH verifiable ID and serious employer sanctions.
So why am I not hearing wailing and knashing of teeth over a national ID card? Anything short of that will not work. If I am excluded from ID requirements, then what court will allow such IDs required only of brown skinned people, or for certian jobs? That would be thrown out by the court immediatly.
you have been defeatist and negative against every real solution that WOULD prevent that.
False. I have strongly supported an untamperable ID card (and associated data base) for anyone with a job. That is the only workable solution, and one that is being all but ignored while they negotiate how many miles of silly fence to build.
You say it cant be done or it wont be done ... yadda yadda yadda ... heard the same nonsense about tax cuts, welfare reform, tort reform; cant do it, wont work. Hogwash.
Just experience of the 80's when I heard this same stuff and got suckered in like many are now. As soon as the law was signed it was business as usual, and it will be again.
We have 20 years of amensties
Just one year of amnesty, and the majority of illegals came after the passage of "strong" laws that promised to prevent it.
the House approach is the ONLY APPROACH THAT TAKES US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
You don't have to yell, I can read you just fine.
The right direction is one that combines both carrot and stick. The stick alone will never be enforced.
Look at how Bush is enforcing the border now. Just sending 6000 guardsmen to do paperwork and operate spy planes (which were already on the border, one crashed just a couple of weeks ago). You really believe that they'll get serious after they pass new laws, when they won't do it now with all this heat on them?
The Republicans know full well that they'll likely lose the elections this fall, but Bush still won't seriously guard the border, and there's no way the Dems will.
If you threaten a politician, actually a whole political party, to lose their jobs, and they *still* won't enforce the existing laws, then what planet are you living on that you think they will after they pass a new law?
That's a fine position, in my opinion. I'm on board.
"You are clearly uninformed about the House bill"
"Yes. And willfully so, because I don't think that any law we pass will be enforced unless our current crop of illegals are positively motivated to abide by it."
Okay, with that mind-blowing absurdity, I think we've reached the end of the debate. laws require the consent of lawbreakers to work - fancy that!
"Mere force of law will not work."
Yeah, cant stop bank robberies either. Might as well give em all amnesty.
"HR 4437 has BOTH verifiable ID and serious employer sanctions." "So why am I not hearing wailing and knashing of teeth over a national ID card? "
Uhhh, because those of us with credit cards and drivers licenses *anyway* dont have a problem with a tamper-proof social security card.
"We have 20 years of amensties"
"Just one year of amnesty, and the majority of illegals came after the passage of "strong" laws that promised to prevent it. " --- more uninformed babble. We've had a number of 'mini-amnesties in the last 15 years that have amnestied over a million people for various reasons/excuses.
" The Republicans know full well that they'll likely lose the elections this fall"
No, they wont. the only thing that could cost them the Congress is to pass the Senate CIRA bill into law.
"The right direction is one that combines both carrot and stick."
Then why do you keep arguing wrongly that the 'stick' wont work, when it clearly is VITAL to the overall solution?
The "enforcement first" plan is not 'enforcement only' it is simply recognizing that failure to do 'enforcement first' will only create the 1986 repeat and lead to failure.
Enough said. If you dont understand the House bill, there's no point trying to talk sense about it.
My concern with amnesty for illegals is how it encourages law breaking in the future.
I would increase new immigrants by a lot, if we "need" more workers, but require illegals in the country now to go to their home country to apply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.