Hi Okiedoc,
Watching legislation being crafted, it is said, is like watching sausage being made. Having watched my wife MAKE Thai sausage from scratched, sometimes it isn't pretty.
I DO appreciate civil discussions of this topic. It has been flamed by many and that doesn't help us get to where we need to be, which really is to keep the conservative base together for November and beyond so we don't blow what we have.
Specifically,
1) I concede there are different interpretations as to "felonies" which would cause the disqualification. I really LOVE Saxby Chambliss and John Cornyn, but right now I believe they are using the House Felony definition to make their argument, but under the past interpretation, simply being here has not been considered until now a felony.
2) I'm not COUNTING on anything. I am simply saying that out of conference I would hope that someone would consider these things and since the House is more conservative that the Senate that this ban on providing public benefits for illegals to change the previous court rulings would be passed.
3)Same as 2); if the Senate can't fix it, hope the Conference will. I know "we'll fix it in conference" is a typical Beltway comment, but on a bill this complex one can hope.
4) Same as 3).
5) I have heard John Ensign and I like what he has to say. I think I did hear an FBI report cited on the floor that indicates a lot more fraudulent SS numbers are actual hackers than illegal immigrants, many of whom use dummy numbers like 555-55-5555. No, it ain't pretty, and identify theft ain't pretty. It is partly an executive branch function to tie together enough computer systems to catch this. Since I do computer systems, I think it could be done using the same sort of data mining they're doing on the phone surveillance.
6)We know people "can't" but DO work in the US through a variety of strategems. One--or both--of the biometric cards contemplated by the President and the bill--should minimize if not end this.
7) Identify theft is a major crime problem. The immigration issue CAN be an aggravating factor but my hunch is that terrorism is even more an aggravating reason the security services need to merge the data so it can be caught. My point is that it is a problem whether you think of immigration or not. It's a Problem we need to address.
8) I question the 187 million number. I heard the Heritage guy (Rector) this a.m. on Laura's show, and he IS depending on a worst case analysis. Believe me, if we started getting to that number public policy WILL have changed so it won't happen, so I just doubt it. I think demographics are inexact predictors of future behavior.
9) If I had my druthers, a major component of this legislation WOULD be and MUST be BICE reform to computerize the major systems of the Agency to speed up normal LEGAL immigration and catch illegal applications. It is my belief based on my experiences with the agency with my wife and many of her friends that the agency is seriously broken and only a systemic reform can fix it. So I would SPEED the entire line, but make sure that only those eligibe were IN the line.
10) I love Sen. Sessions. Some of our posters (women, mainly) call him Sen. "cute as a button". He's smart, was a prosecutor himself and knows his stuff. But HE's relying on demographics too, and my point is that no one knows. My guess is that he's taken the high number to make his point. There's nothing wrong with that--the number is in the range predicted. My point is that the prediction is probably as accurate as global warming--which is, not VERY.
11) You heard the same colloquy I did, so the issue is yet to be resolved.
I think you for your courteous and civilized discussion. I think this CAN be worked out as long as we're not flaming each other.
11)
LL, who got voted the next AI to be ignored as untalented?