Posted on 06/12/2007 3:22:43 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
What she's missing--and what the bill misses--is that, given past behavior history, the vast majority of illegals aren't going to WANT to get permanent resident status or citizenship. Why should they? They can get a probationary Z-visa in one day, and that gives them, what, four years?
We've altered things in this country to the point where they don't NEED citizenship or even permanent residency...or hell, even legal temporary residency. Right now, without any proof of legal status, or with easily forged documents, an illegal can: own property, own a car, drive a car, hold a job, get healthcare, get schooling, and basically anything else a citizen can do except (legally) own a firearm, or vote. So why should they pay $9,000 in fines?
That's the difference between this generation of immigrants and all prior to them, including more recent ones like the "boat people" from Southeast Asia in the 1970s. This group does not, in general, need nor want citizenship. They're doing just fine as guest workers. They don't need nor want to assimilate. They're not Mexican-Americans or Guatemalan-Americans or ANYTHING-Americans. They're Mexican or Guatemalan or whatever.
And that's where the bill falls down. It assumes that these 12-20+ million folks that are here will line up for legal work status, permanent resident status, and then maybe citizenship, paying fines along the way. But if they don't need to, why should they? It's assuming behavior that this generation of illegal immigrants simply hasn't shown before, because they have no need to. Then tack on the fact that you're throwing these 12-20+ million at an immigration bureaucracy that's one of the most top-to-bottom incompetent in the Federal government, and that can't handle the case load that it's got already, and you've got what basically amounts to a non-fix.
If local and state (and Federal) laws were tightened up to the point where being a citizen MEANT something, and if I had any faith that subsequent Congresses and administrations wouldn't gut the enforcement provisions and "triggers", and if I thought that ICE could actually handle the new workload without snafuing it up completely, then I think something like the Bush/Senate proposal wouldn't be so bad. But as it is, it's garbage.
The only immigration "reform" that will work is enforcement-first. Period. Crack down on illegals and their employers. Secure the border. Deport those that are caught back to their home country, no exceptions. Repeal the anchor baby provision. Once you do all that, with enforcement firmly in place FIRST, only then you can start talking about guest workers and provisional Z-visas and such. To do anything else is, in a word, amnesty.
}:-)4
The economic social and cultural implications are hugh.
BUMP
It was a great thread by Sister Toldjah.
Are they forcing you to lie, Tony, or do you really believe all that krap you’ve been spewing about this abominable bill?
You want a better chance of convincing us? Tell us what the Bush plan is for border and illegal immigration ENFORCEMENT is. Explain exactly WHY you haven’t adequately enforced current laws for the past 6+ years. Admot your failure in this regard.
Then lobby for changes to S1348 that require the border to be double fenced the entire length and all current and future employers of illegals to be imprisoned and fined bigtime BEFORE any illegals are legalized. Add provisions to imprison and deport all illegals who have used fraudulent SS numbers and other documents.
Also, add provisions requiring federal agencies like ICE and HS to cooperate with local and State LEOs and pick up illegals that they arrest. Require that these picked-up illegals are NOT let go, but that they are deported.
If you want us to believe you, then do these things (and I’m sure others will add more requirements) FIRST.
See my tagline, which I’ve had since before the 2004 election cycle.
We don't need a lot of choices SL, just the right ones.
You know from my previous posts that I am a Tony fan but "our people" have severely poo'd the scrooch on this one.
The basic problem is two fold:
1..The administration no longer has the credibility that it will do the right thing. It has lost the conservative eye of the tiger ...so to speak.
2..Conservatives (the party base) simply doesn't trust our leaders any more because of reason #1. I'm sure W has good intentions but we no longer have complete trust in his judgment, certainly not on this issue.
That's not to denigrate all the achievements over the past 6 years but this immigration amnesty bill is a sham..it stinks and conservatives can see it.
W should stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes, show that we have the intent to enforce existing laws, prosecute the employers that hire illegals and then, maybe then.....
It won't happen of course. I feel bad for Tony having to defend this travesty but anything we can to to kill it and keep it from being resurrected, I'm all for it.
What makes them think some Mexican peon has $9,000 or thousands more for family members. Nothing is going to change be cause of this amnesty program it will make the illegals burrow deeper into their sanctuary holes.
In case anyone missed it:
Three National Guardsmen Nabbed on Immigrant Smuggling
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280873,00.html
I pointed out what’s in the bill. That has nothing to do with my way or the highway.
You claimed the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill isn’t amnesty. I pointed out that it is.
* Legal Status Before Enforcement:
Amnesty benefits do not wait for the “enforcement trigger.” After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full “probationary benefits,” complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Astonishingly, if the trigger is never met and amnesty applications are therefore never “approved,” the probationary benefits granted to the illegal alien population never expire, and the new social security cards issued to the illegal alien population are not revoked. [See pp. 1, 290-291, & 315].
http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=275456
Do you want the page number where the bill expressly gives criminal employers amnesty? I can get that for you too.
Sorry for the confusion, I’d referenced the link and had no intention of taking credit for her good work
“That would mean that employers become law enforcement officers. It’s not just some liquor store clerk checking ID’s but someone who must authenticate documentation of citizenship.”
So what. For $29 I can get so much background information on you you’d crap your pants if you saw it....anyone with a shred of common sense can deduce that if a guy walks up for a job and his personal information “begins” at age 26 you can assume he wasn’t dropped here from Alpha Centari.
I am happy with you being hard headed and pursuing your views with vigor. I am asking for maturity. If you personally did not call anyone names or did not go down the path of using hyperbole, then this commentary doesn’t apply.
On Fox News Sunday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, “Our sense is that if Majority Leader Harry Reid brings it back up, which he should, and permits a full debate, …we’re not only going to get a bill, but we’re going to get a better bill.”
Really? Knowing that border security and enforcement is the main concern of the public, let’s recap just a few of the amendments that were defeated in two weeks of debate: the Coleman amendment to end the policy of “sanctuary cities,” defeated 48-to-49; the McConnell amendment to require a photo ID for voting in order to combat voter fraud, defeated 41-to-52; the Cornyn amendment to deny amnesty to gang members and illegal aliens with criminal records, defeated 46-to-51; the Vitter amendment to guarantee a secure, biometric check in/check out visa system be in place prior to any guest worker program going into effect, defeated 48-to-49; and the Coburn-DeMint amendment to guarantee full border security prior to amnesty, defeated 42-to-54.
Maybe President Bush is going to go to Capitol Hill tomorrow and urge senators to reconsider their votes on these important border security amendments. That would be a debate worth having. I suspect Harry Reid decided to cut off the debate last week because all these votes against commonsense border security issues was getting a little embarrassing. As Rasmussen Reports noted, border security could rally the overwhelming majority of Americans and unite the conservative base against Ted Kennedy and the pro-amnesty liberals in the Senate. But without these amendments, it’s hard to imagine how we will “get a better bill,” and the insistence of Washington’s political elites on forcing something through that the public clearly does not want will only infuriate the grass roots even more.
rebelfags.blogspot
You're simply wrong on every point here. Making employers legally responsible when they break the law is NOT dumping on employers. Employers ARE driving illegal immigration...if there weren't an abundance of jobs available by employers willing to ignore and break our laws the largest incentive illegals have for crossing our border would be gone.
No business in America has their hands tied by the state when it comes to hiring illegals. Every employee hired since 1986 has to fill out an I-9 form to prove eligibility to work in the US. Every employee has to file either a W4 or other tax paperwork with the IRS and SS Administration and all of these forms or forms that support them require a valid SS number. If an employee files a false or stolen SS number the employer is promptly notified. Withing days. At that point the employer KNOWS that the employee is not legally eligible to work in the US and the employee should be fired...if he's not the employer is liable for some very serious fines and penalties. Most of which are never levied because we're not enforcing the laws already on the books.
Yes, how dare he have the audacity to disagree with you.
If the Big Dig cost $16 billion and it’s still flooding, a fence run by the governmnet would be vastly more expensive.
If you want a fence, why go to the gov’t? Why not find private citizens who will buy the land and pay a private company to build a fence?
grey_whiskers' seal of approvalTM on that post!
Cheers!
As I have been chastened to point out, I was posting a thread from Sister Toldjah
Doesn’t wash. Just the money spent on schooling, emergency room care (ask the southwest re: closing hospitals), law enforcement, prisons and maternity fees kills that $9000 in no time. BTW, it’s not $9000 anyway, and thats only years later... IF, they plan on becoming citizens. Meanwhile, they talk of doubling or tripling legal immigrants fees.
Here’s what I sent (I always try to be original):
Honorable Senator Kyl,
We dodged a bullet with the immigration bill. It’s dead, and good riddance to bad garbage. When you lock yourself in a room “until you get it done”, apparently by the time you are through anything looks like the declaration of independence.
This bill was horrible, and I say that as a supporter of some amnesty. Even strong amnesty people should hate this bill, giving illegals a place in line in front of legals, giving illegals a chance to bring family in while legal immigrants languish, giving illegals a free pass for working illegally for years while legals waited at the border not allowed in because there were too many illegals.
Imagine a sold-out concert. Tickets are being scalped for thousands (Mexicans pay thousands to smugglers). But when the doors open, a bunch of people without tickets sneak in and take all the seats.
What do you do? Well, you throw them all out. But they all bought food and beer, they are sitting nicely, they have great respect for the band — too bad, throw them out.
Your bill instead said let them stay. They pay what a scalper would charge for a ticket, and they get to stay, while people who bought tickets legally are stuck outside because someone else took their seat.
That’s the law of the jungle, not a country under the rule of law.
I got a plan for your — if an illegal wants to stay, they get a signature from someone WAITING IN LINE that says the person waiting will give up their slot for the guy that snuck in and took his place. Now THAT would be fair. How many people who waited legally do you think are willing to give up their places for people who broke the law?
Look, the bill is dead. Thank God for your fortune, Reid killed it, not you, so you can move on and maybe have hearings to make sure the President enforces the many laws we already have on the books, and then we can pass a SENSIBLE plan, not one that can get the agreement of Ted Kennedy.
TomGuy, I am not saying that the laws are enforced well. I am asking how it will be better if we make it bigger?
So why wouldn’t a substantial welfare and health care reform act make the illegal immigration problem more manageable?
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.