[georgiarat]

Kyl makes many fallacious points in the article supported by the "We Only Want Cheap Labor" Wall Street Journal.

Among them: "As a practical matter, from a political standpoint, you can't have enforcement first. Democrats won't allow it,"

So Senator Kyl we should not enforce our laws is what you are saying. Can that go to income taxes also. Mayber Republicans should go along with not enforcing our tax laws. After Twenty years those that have been illegally not paying taxes could be given amnesty.

"Yet the vitriol doesn't always show up at the ballot box--some of the most hardcore opponents of illegal immigration lost their Arizona races last year."

That is because Arizona and others allowed the illegals to get a ballot and vote!!

"Ten years from now, if we have a good immigration bill and it took a couple of extra days to get there, no one will know what he did during those two or three days that were so important. Better let people have their say"

I could go for that. Put it up as a constitiutional amendment and let the people vote. I cannot go along with selling out this country. He is also wrong that people will forget about it. In 1964 the Rebublicans were the ones that provided the majority of the votes for Civil Rights but who got the credit? Democrats and the Black vote has been solidly Democratic since then. Think the Hispanics and other illegals will proceed differently?

Senator, not all Americans are that stupid!

[etradervic]

Kyl is a phony and he needs to go.

[blam]

We don't need a Immigration Bill, we need a Deportation Bill.

[Swordfished]

"As a practical matter, from a political standpoint, you can't have enforcement first. Democrats won't allow it," Mr. Kyl says.

Then why write new laws - they won't be enforced!

[LantzALot]

... what that means is you are basically going to send that crop, the melons and the tomatoes and the lettuce . . . to Mexico.

It may be worth the try. Then the pickers would follow the crops. Yes, it would cause some economic pain here, but I'd rather deals with solutions to that than accept the solutions proposed.

[elizabetty]

Finding out about Kyl is like learning your spouse is having an affair. I always thought I could trust Kyl, not anymore.

[new yorker 77]

The Wall Street Journal is a disgrace.

I will NEVER buy that newspaper again.

[etradervic]

Mexico's Economic Reform Plan:

[Brilliant]

“As a practical matter, from a political standpoint, you can’t have enforcement first. Democrats won’t allow it...”

If that is true, then why compound the problem by granting amnesty? The fact that the Dems won’t allow for the enforcement of the law is just more proof that this whole thing is a sham.

[samtheman]

For those who say, 'This bill is amnesty, we shouldn't pass it,' one of my responses is, 'OK, so do you like what we have?'"

What a nitwit. We don't like the non-plan that promises nothing but failure to stop the invasion. That means we like the invasion.

What a nitwit.

[samtheman]

Are they all so extremely stupid or are they all just craven liars?

Do they really not know the alternative: secure the borders.

Or do they know it and just lie and pretend it doesn’t exist as an alternative?

[ModelBreaker]

Kyl makes many fallacious points in the article supported by the "We Only Want Cheap Labor" Wall Street Journal. Among them: "As a practical matter, from a political standpoint, you can't have enforcement first. Democrats won't allow it,"

This is a huge political opportunity. 72% of Americans want border security first (Pew Poll). The fence is authorized and only 2 miles have been built. Let the dems block the fence. We have, at that point, the best issue for CONSERVATIVES (not Republicans) that we have had since the Jimmy Carter economy and appeasement in 1980 and HillaryCare in 1994.

Look at the Pew Poll and lets not get sidetracked on amnesty--that's being against something. The key pressure point is border security. We can be for something that 72% of Americans want and that the establishment Dems loathe.

It also gives our 2008 candidate a big issue to run against W on (other than Iraq--and we don't want an R surrender monkey running in 2008). That will be key in winning in 2008.

This issue can carry a lot of conservatives into office. And it can get the border fence built. But we have to keep our focus and just keep saying it over and over.

ENFORCE THE BORDER. ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS.

I have been really glum about America's future up until now. This victory, and the public focus on border security, is a once in a generation political opportunity. We can flip the 2006 results with this issue.

One other point. Let's not get sidetracked on saying nasty things about Mexicans. Aside from the fact that there are a bunch of great folks who are Mexican (some illegal--I know, I used to live at the edge of the barrio in LA), "hating" Mexicans just doesn't work in American politics. It's not in our nature to hate immigrants. Ronald Reagan would never have run such a campaign and we should learn from that.

So when you (generic--not directed at georgiarat) start thinking about illegals in terms like "ants" or "maggots" (I have seen both terms used here on FR), stop and think: God loves them as much as he loves you. They have dads and moms and brothers and sisters and kids just like you. And they probably attend church and follow Jesus more than the average American, certainly more than the average New Yorker. If that doesn't work, stop and think: if we use terms like that, we probably won't get our border security because the NY Times will flip that right back at us. The left desperately wants to change the subject here. Don't let them.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Go to hell, Kyl. And take my President with you.

[moreisee]

“As a practical matter, from a political standpoint, you can’t have enforcement first. Democrats won’t allow it,”

BS. We have current laws to enforce and a Republican Administration that stands in the way of carrying them out. Does anybody really believe the open borders crowd has any intension of following through on the enforcement aspects of this Amnesty? It would be no different than 1986.

[Mogollon]

"Yet the vitriol doesn't always show up at the ballot box--some of the most hardcore opponents of illegal immigration lost their Arizona races last year."

That is because Arizona and others allowed the illegals to get a ballot and vote!!

Arizona has a law that requires voters to show a valid U.S ID before voting. Illegals did not vote in any significant amount in Arizona in 2004.

[longtermmemmory]

THESE ARE SENATOR KYL’S COMMENS FROM THE 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act COMMENTS.

It was made part of the appropriations spending.

REMEMBER THIS COMPREHENSIVE REFORM IS ACTUALLY SELLING WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE and(!) it actually TAKES AWAY some of the 1996 reforms (IE the “Dream Act” makes ALL minors into anchor babies REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP!!!!!!)

Read and enjoy.

for more on the 1996 reform act go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1847498/posts

OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 (Senate - September 30, 1996)

---

ion we hope will significantly reduce illegal immigration in this country.

We could have passed this bill in the Senate last week. Unfortunately, partisan politics almost derailed efforts of the Congress, and particularly the efforts of the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Alan Simpson, who, under extraordinary circumstances, has worked long and hard to produce a bipartisan, far-reaching immigration bill.

That is because, in the end, the Clinton administration threatened to veto either the omnibus appropriations bill—and shut down the Federal Government—or a stand-alone immigration bill unless some of our reforms were deleted from title 5 of the immigration conference report. It is interesting that the immigration conference report, with title 5 intact, passed the House last week with bipartisan support by a vote of 305-123. Notwithstanding this strong support, in order to ensure passage of this historic immigration measure, important provisions of title 5 have been deleted.

One of the most important provisions dropped from title 5 would have required that sponsors who bring their immigrant relatives into the United States earn 200 percent of poverty in order to bring in extended relatives or 140 percent of poverty when they sponsor their spouses or their minor children. Revised title 5 changed the income requirement for all sponsors to 125 percent of poverty. At that income level, the sponsor could already be participating in several welfare-related programs, including, but not limited to, food stamps, reduced school lunch, Medicaid for pregnant women and children under the age of 6, and the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] program. In other words, the sponsors may well not be capable of supporting the immigrants they sponsor.

Another provision that was removed from title 5 would have clarified the definition of `public charge.’ Under the House-passed conference report, an immigrant could be deported—but would not necessarily be deported—if he or she received Federal public benefits for an aggregate of 12 months over a period of 7 years. That provision was dropped during Saturday’s negotiations.

The House-passed conference report would have required that public housing authorities verify the status of individuals who obtain public housing benefits. Individuals would have had 3 months to verify their status with a public housing authority or they would be required to vacate the unit. Revised title 5 will give an illegal alien 18 months to vacate the housing unit. In addition, revised title 5 will now give discretionary authority to public housing authorities to determine whether or not they will verify if someone in this country has a legal right to federally-assisted housing. This doesn’t make sense to me since, in my home State of Arizona, officials of the Maricopa County Housing Authority alone estimate that 40 percent of the people receiving housing assistance in the county are illegal aliens. In Maricopa County, there are 1,334 section 8 units and 917 units available. There are over 6,500 individuals on the waiting list there.

There are other provisions in title 5 that shouldn’t have been dropped from the immigration conference report. It is my hope that in the future, partisan politics will play a smaller role than it did on Saturday in efforts to effectively reform our Nation’s immigration laws.

Having said that, I do believe it would be a great disservice to the people of Arizona and the rest of the Nation if this illegal immigration conference report were not to pass the Congress during the 104th Congress.

In Arizona’s Tucson sector alone, the U.S. Border Patrol has apprehended more than 300,000 illegal aliens this year. It is estimated that for every illegal immigrant arrested, four slip through undetected. These undetected entrants are costing Arizonans millions of dollars. In fact, the State of Arizona estimates that it spends over $200 million each year on the medical care, education, and incarceration of undocumented immigrants. That’s about equal to what the State spends each year to run Arizona State University.

With this immigration bill, we have the opportunity to lift this financial burden off the States by forcing the Federal Government to take responsibility for reducing illegal immigration , and to reimburse States for many of the illegal immigration -related costs they incur.

Perhaps most importantly for Arizona, under the immigration conference report, our borders will be better secured. One of my amendments to the bill will

increase the number of border patrol agents by 5,000 over 5 years, nearly doubling the current number of agents. An increased border patrol presence in Arizona will help cities and towns such as Nogales, Naco, and Douglas, which have experienced surges in illegal immigration and border-related crime.

The immigration bill will also require that the security features on the border-crossing card be improved to counter fraud. There will be new monetary and civil penalties for illegal entry. In addition, every illegal immigration apprehended will be fingerprinted. Preinspection at foreign airports of passenger bound for the U.S. will be increased. The bill creates a mandatory, expedited removal process for aliens arriving without proper documentation, except if they have a credible fear of persecution in their home countries. Penalties for alien smugglers will be increased and deportation of criminal aliens will be expedited.

In addition to beefing up our borders, the bill cracks down on those individuals who overstay their visas. Half of those who temporarily enter the country legally remain here illegally. The bill requires that an entry-exit control system be developed to track those individuals. Visas overstayers will also be ineligible to return to the U.S. for a number of years, depending on how long they overstayed their visas.

The immigration bill also provides for mandatory detention of most deportable, criminal aliens and requires that those aliens be deported within 90 days. The bill also authorize $150 million for the costs of detaining and removing deportable or inadmissible aliens and increases the number of detention spaces to 9,000 by the end of 1997.

Finally, this immigration bill will remove many of the incentives for illegal entry. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that 10 percent of the workforce in Arizona is made up of illegal aliens. H.R. 2202 sets up three pilot projects, to be implemented in high illegal immigration States, that will determine the employment eligibility of workers and thereby reduce the number of illegal aliens trying to get U.S. jobs.

While I may well vote against the omnibus bill to which this legislation is attached and while I am very disappointed about the last minute changes to the immigration part of the bill, I nevertheless believe that part of the omnibus bill should be passed. I am confident that this legislation is the keystone we will build upon in the future.

[Page: S11882] GPO’s PDF

[goldstategop]

Agreed. This notion that throwing our values out of the window for political expediency is one I find offensive. Sen. Kyl wants to enfranchise new Democrat voters. The American people don't.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus