Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pew: Illegal immigration down by two-thirds

Adam Serwer of the American Prospect is guest blogging for The Plum Line this week.

A recent report from the Pew Hispanic center shows illegal immigration declining by nearly 67 percent, reports Tara Bahrampour:

Between 2000 and 2005, an average of 850,000 people a year entered the United States without authorization, according to the report released Wednesday. As the economy plunged into recession between 2007 and 2009, that number fell to 300,000.

According to the report, the America's illegal immigrant population has actually decreased by 8 percent.

One more thing that's important to note from the report: "In addition to the decline in Nevada, three other Mountain states -- Arizona, Colorado and Utah -- experienced a decrease in their combined unauthorized immigrant population from 2008 to 2009." That contradicts the arguments of supporters of Arizona's SB 1070 and other border hawks that more restrictive laws are necessary because of a recent flood of undocumented immigrants. Although the report may still shed some light on why Arizonans feel that way: the larger trend is that, between 1990 and 2009, Arizona's share of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. increased.

The report also offers more evidence that the criticisms of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other Republicans about lax enforcement on behalf of the federal government are overblown, let alone hyperbole about an ongoing "invasion" from across the border. While careful to state that "the data in this report do not allow quantification" of all the factors involved in the decline of the illegal immigrant population, it lists major shifts in the level of immigration enforcement and in enforcement strategies," as one of the major factors that "undoubtedly contribute to the overall magnitude of immigration flows."

None of this is likely to change the politics of comprehensive immigration reform. Since completely "securing the border" is beyond our technical means, restrictionists can always call for more enforcement in lieu of actually working on legislation.

By Adam Serwer  |  September 1, 2010; 1:42 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Florida Senate campaign hits Charlie Crist for Palin support
Next: ADL'S Abe Foxman denounces anti-mosque rally as 'un-American'

Comments

Yea, but Pew didn't say that there were 50 million illegal aliens who haven't gone back yet.

Including maybe one in the White House who refuses to go back to Indonesia.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Nice report Mr. Serwer, well done!

Here is the NYT's take:

Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Fell, Study Says

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States, after peaking at 12 million in 2007, fell to about 11.1 million in 2009, the first clear decline in two decades, according to a report published Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/us/02immig.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 1, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!! There were reports that illegal immigrants were leaving Arizona BEFORE the new law even took effect!

As for our "technical means" there were a FEW people who even got across the Berlin Wall -- around 5,000 people in total attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200 -- we cannot do it because we will not do it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Picking up an earlier thread, Scott says:

"The "general welfare" clause occurs in the preamble to the constitution, which does not set forth the authority given to the government, but rather simply sets out the purpose of the authorities granted inside the constitution. Among the actual powers given to Congress in section 8 of Article I, you will search in vain for the amorphous power to simply "promote the general welfare"."

You are wrong. The General Welfare Clause actually appears TWICE in the Constitution, once in the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And then again exactly where you say it isn't, Art. II, Section 1:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

In other words, promoting and providing for "the General Welfare" is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution, just as it is for all democratic governments. It is only at this late date that Neoconservatives are "discovering" that the federal government cannot foster the general welfare of the nation. To be more specific, it is only since Democratic president Barrack Obama was sworn in that the Constitutional impotence of the federal government has become "apparent" to Republicans and Conservatives.

Methinks it false. The Conservative Republican Constitutional theory is that the federal government can only do what Conservatives and Republicans want it to do: conduct wars, put citizens in prison, etc. That "theory" will be maintained for just as long as the Conservatives and Republicans remain out of power. In case I've been too subtle: the Conservative Republican Constitutional arguments are bullsh*t. The rantings of spoiled children who want their country back, just like a schoolchild takes his ball and goes home when he's losing the game.

Look, you can argue for any policy you like, but please leave the Constitution alone.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 1, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010


Are you still working on those specific democratic economic proposals ????


Everyone is still waiting .....


You shouldn't ask one side for something, if you don't have them ready for yourself.


Your silly little attack tactics have been exposed.


Democratic economic proposal: Divert One trillion dollar stimulus to democratic interest groups and pet-projects -


Then the democrats spend a year lying to the nation telling them that this will create jobs. For a group of people who spent years complaining that Bush said one lie - (which Bill Clinton also said) - the democrats have sure not been careful about being honest.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest, I thought I told you to go play in traffic.

Didn't someone run you over yet?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

Scott is still technically correct ("promote" is only used in the Preample) and Welfare" did not mean "government charity" to ANY of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I'd think that a big part of the decline is due to the recession.

Most illegal immigrants are here to work. I know Republicans think they are all here to have bomb chucking babies and to sell drugs to innocent white children, but that just isn't true.

If we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, and I doubt we (especially the money behind the GOP) do, we would fine employers $50,000 every time they hired an illegal alien. The GOP will never let that happen.

Posted by: nisleib | September 1, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The real number of illegal aliens is this country is about 50 million.


We all know that 12 million number is way too low - and many people try to say "at least 20 million."


The truth is closer to 50 million. The entire Southwest has been invaded - Southern California, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada and Colorado.


Go to any Burger King in Nebraska - which is supposed to be the heartland - and the place is filled with Mexicans.


Chicago has millions of illegal aliens - in fact, Polish neighborhoods - filled with illegals as well - are being displaced by the Mexicans. The illegal Poles have to move to other places.


Atlanta is filled with illegal aliens - as is New Orleans now. We all know about southern Florida.

The point is this: the Americans who live on the East Coast have NO IDEA what is going on in the rest of the country. The rest of the country has been invaded - and the Mexicans are all over the place - including places in which you would think is 100% American.

Fairfax County Virginia - once a prime example of southern culture - go down to Route 50, or to the Lee Highway, and take a look around. Neighborhoods have changed dramatically in the past twenty years.


The democrats are fools if they think all these people will be democrats. As soon as they buy a house and get a property tax bill, they turn Republican immediately.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Save the rainforest, You're obviously quite miserable with your life, clinging to total fallacies and fictions. I suggest finding a quick, possibly permanent solution to your abject suffering. Self-euthanasia comes to mind...

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 1, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Berlin wall:

124 miles

Mexican border:

1,969 miles

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Preample = Preamble (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

savetherainforests lives in lala land as do most right wing kookoos.

Must be fun!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne


Congressional powers are in Article ONE


Article two is the Executive branch.


In any event - health care is NOT interstate commerce - it isn't even commerce.


At NO point in American history did the Constitution or any Amendment intend to give the power to take over the health care industry to Congress - it was ALWAYS meant to be a power for the STATES.


If you want to change the Constitution, pass an Amendment - don't try to say it means something it doesn't.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid - Don't feed the trolls.

I know it is hard to let such inane stupidity and over the top ignorance stand unchallenged, but engaging them does nobody any favors.

And yes, I do break the rule sometimes too; it is hard not to.

Posted by: nisleib | September 1, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"Fairfax County Virginia - once a prime example of southern culture"

That's very honky of you savetherainforest.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

We need to make a decision here everyone. I think it's best to unanimously starve them of oxygen.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 1, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

mikeinArlington:

The Berlin Wall only cost $3.6 million to construct. We could easily build a better wall than that (manning it like the Berlin Wall was guarded, not so much, I agree with that ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

America is becoming more Hispanic, more Black, and less White,like it or not, and it is not due to illegal immigration. Most of the Hispanics are here legally, and their portion of our population is growing rapidly. I would suggest people learn to live with it.

The number of illegals slipping into the country has declined as our economy has declined. They come here to work, so when jobs are less available, they don't come here in such large numbers.

FYI, rainforest, I own a home, have owned a home since 1971, and I have always voted Democratic.

Posted by: samsara15 | September 1, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, I know, I know. But jeez its hard to do. Especially once other people start responding and the whole thread gets hijacked by their blather. This cat almost makes me miss Bilgey.


Almost.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 1, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Tried that. It's like a 500 ft. wall of relentless stupid.

My next technique is to fight stupid with stupid.

Two negatives make a positive right? If my math is correct, this should work.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

mike, not really. All that does is make that many more posts to have to scroll past, which begets more posts, and more to scroll past, rinse and repeat.

Please, let's just put them on Imsinca's starvation diet.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | September 1, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

Go down to Route 50 toward Fairfax - and to the Lee Highway and report back to us as to whether the illegal immigration is down.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington - There is no way any of the regular commentators on this blog will EVER win a war against these trolls if the chosen weapon is "stupid."

They swim in stupid. Stupid is their life blood! Most of the time they are so stupid they don't even realize that you are calling them stupid and those times that they do they consider you to have paid them a compliment.

For God's sake, they actually like Palin! You can't out dumb that. Impossible.

Posted by: nisleib | September 1, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

$3.6 million to construct

1 million back in would be around $9 million today.

9 x 3.6 x 15 = no illegal aliens?

Hmmmm...

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca....AMEN..starve the trolls..especially the ones who are so whack as to be pitied. These folks are not playing with a full deck!

@wbgonne...your 1:59 post was excellent.

@nisleib..."I'd think that a big part of the decline is due to the recession."

I couldn't agree more...in fact IMHO it's 100% of the reason. Although in troll think that means we must hate America. Because everyone knows the Mexicans cross over our borders to somehow become exceptional people not because they need jobs. Just come to the land of exceptionalism where we are all the best looking, the smartest, most righteous, theologically correct nation in the World.

Why we even get to decide who lives and dies in the rest of the world and which country gets attacked and which is spared.
We are kind of like god on earth! snark snark.

Again before some rightwing know nothing accuses me of not loving my country...have you ever heard of the saying "You can't be a friend and a flatterer too." So lets take that to it's logical extension...if you believe America is perfect you are no patriot...you are a patronizing fool who TRULY doesn't give a squat about the good ole USA!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 1, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest, I live in that area you dolt.

Hence the name.

I've got no problem with it. Arlingtonians don't have a problem with it.

Our economy around here is very vibrant. Crime really isn't too bad around here.

I don't fear for my or my wife's life.

Should I be scared? I don't get it.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid


That thing you have in your hand, please pull the pin out.


thank you.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"in fact IMHO it's 100% of the reason"

It can't be 100% of the reason since there has been stepped up efforts by both the Bush admin and Obama admin, but predominantly Obama.

Maybe 70% of the reason, or somesuch, I dunno. :)

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 1, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

My apologies: Congress' power to promote the General Welfare is, of course, in Article II. The Preamble, which also contains a General Welfare Clause. sets forth the purposes of the Constitution and the federal government altogether.

Fostering the General Welfare is one of the primary reasons for having a central government, just like proving for the Common Defense is. It is the American people acting through their elected officials who decide what fosters the General Welfare. The American people have decided that health care reform fosters our General Welfare. And that is the end of the Constitutional analysis.

If Glen Beck University is instructing otherwise you may want to reconsider your sources of education. ANd get your money back.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 1, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Jake


I have the best solution for the southern border.


All we need to do is set up machine guns with camaeras at various points - linked to the internet.


We can charge people to log onto the website for each gun and see the surrounding area.


This way, we don't even have to pay for border guards - we can take care of the border from the comfort of our own homes.

Quite a deterrent - huh ? I think after a while, they will stop coming.


What do you think ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Two negatives make a positive right? If my math is correct, this should work."

Mike, it will end up being you and them, I'll come back when you've come to your senses. We have more important issues looming. Just my opinion.

Have a good one though.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 1, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Ethan....I take your point...OK 70% of the reason. Having worked with illegals in the dairy industry here in Florida I have lived and worked amongst this problem.

WTF happened to all my Christian brothers and sisters. The fright wing walks around with crosses on their lapels and uses people like Saint Beck and Sister Sarah to proselytize endlessly. But they do not act even a SMIDGEN like Jesus. You worry about some brown person who is doing a job that the whites and blacks find to demeaning or difficult...and yet you don't give a squat about that rich white farm owner who buys a double wide that would normally be a 3BR 2 Bath unit...guts it and crams more than a dozen illegals in there...pays them next to nothing and then takes half of that in rent for the squalid conditions.

Yes that's the ticket...blame the people so freaking desperate that they will take all kinds of abuse and low paying jobs...and never thing of the scum who takes advantage of them.

Remove the jobs and fix the problem overnight. But the R's and some D's don't want that to happen because their corporate masters need that unending supply of cheap easily controlled labor!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 1, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

*removes pin from pincushion*

Not sure what you're asking for there friend, but whatever...

*resumes needlepoint*

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 1, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne

If your belief that health care should have been the power of the Federal Gov't from day one, then your position is that EVERY state law in the health care field has been passed in error.


The States have traditionally been in charge of health care - every one of the 13 States had health care legislation - unchallenged until the day everyone living then died.


So, after a 200 year history of health care legislation being the power of the States, how in the world can you say it properly belongs with the Federal Government ???

Pass an Amendment if you wish to grant additional powers to the Federal Government - that is the proper way to do it.


If you elect someone who is committed to COMPROMISE legislation - and bipartisanship - it is a breach to the American People to change that committment and support a one-sided bill.


Pretty close to Treason all this - Impeachable Offenses.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS


Man has broken into the building of the Discovery Channel - complaining about its on-air coverage.

MSNBC and Fox News wonder: Why not us ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Who was it that said Caribou Barbie would have made a good president?

Early in the 2008 campaign, when John McCain’s aides discovered that Alaska-size gaps existed in Palin’s general knowledge (among those previously unreported: she had no idea who Margaret Thatcher was), they from time to time would give her some books to read in hopes of improving the candidate’s learning curve.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz0yIWXF5yO

h/t ThinkProgress

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 1, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"You are wrong. "

Well, sort of. The clause you cite, while mentioning the "general welfare", refers to the power of the government to collect and distribute funds, not regulate behavior. In context "providing" for the general welfare means allocating funds towards a given activity, not telling people what they can't or must do.

But more importantly, you ignored the second part of my point, which was:

"Besides which, if the "general welfare" clause can be understood to mean "force people to buy product X", then it can be understood to mean virtually anything, rendering the powers of the government unlimited."

You also ignored my other questions to you. What do you understand the term "right" to mean; given this understanding, how is it that 2 rights can come into conflict; and can you give me an example of a right being violated in the absence of coercion?

"The American people have decided that health care reform fosters our General Welfare. And that is the end of the Constitutional analysis."

Really? So if the "American people" decide that preventing a mosque from being built 2 blocks from ground zero fosters the General Welfare, is that the end of the constitutional analysis? How about if the "American people" decide that rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in camps fosters the General Welfare, is that the end of the constitutional analysis? How about if they decide that rounding up Muslim Americans and putting them in camps fosters the General Welfare? Any consitutional problems there?

This is why I said that your understanding of the General Welfare clause implies that the powers of the government are unlimited. I don't think they are or should be unlimited.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 1, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"We need to make a decision here everyone. I think it's best to unanimously starve them of oxygen. "

Agreed. From now on, the scroll bar is my friend.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 1, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"From now on, the scroll bar is my friend."

Index finger aerobics!! :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | September 1, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"So if the "American people" decide that preventing a mosque from being built 2 blocks from ground zero fosters the General Welfare, is that the end of the constitutional analysis? How about if the "American people" decide that rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in camps fosters the General Welfare, is that the end of the constitutional analysis? How about if they decide that rounding up Muslim Americans and putting them in camps fosters the General Welfare? Any consitutional problems there?"

Yup, plenty of Constitutional problems with your Parade of Horribles. To start with, each of the actions you describe directly violates the Bill of Rights. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Constitutional provision prevents the American people from deciding to reform or health care system. I suspect I'll be waiting a very long time.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 1, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Folks, the trolls are really bumming me out. Will try to ignore and get with it, but maybe it's an August hangover and too much work. The hysterics last Aug and again this year make me wonder what's wrong with that month.

Right now I can't get past the question: what are the Dems going to do to gotv in Nov? I can't believe this country is going to be dumb enough to turn congress over to the Know Nothing GOP.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 1, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2:

"Scott is still technically correct ("promote" is only used in the Preample)"

No, that's a nitpick. He is correct that the phrase is used outside the preamble and I was wrong, but he is wrong in his application of it. It does not do what he wants it to do, ie give the government unlimited power to do whatever it wants in pursuit of an amorphous "general welfare".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 1, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"the trolls are really bumming me out"

BG: I try to ignore them but they have certainly proliferated since Greg went on vacation. Coincidence? Or do the Trolls imagine that, as the substitute teacher, Adam doesn't have Banning Authority.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 1, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"I try to ignore them but they have certainly proliferated since Greg went on vacation."

Good point. What's up with that?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 1, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Scott You said something on an older thread that I understand and support. It perhaps provides some better insight for me into where you are coming from. It was regarding the tax cuts but we can bring it back to the whole "general welfare" thing you got going with wbgonne.

You stated that all of our debate about the shrinking middle class, worst income distribution since 1929 worried you on the principle that a group of people who had "no skin in the game" non taxpayers could end up dictating to those who do pay taxes exactly how much tax would be charged to pay for things which might not even be necessary (I could toss in a war here but that's another debate:-) ) and I get that Scott...IN PRINCIPLE...hopefully you get that the corollary to that thought would be that the wealthy few can control the majority with their money..an oligarchy, aristocracy...you pick the name..again in THEORY OR PRINCIPLE.

Where I think you are coming up short is in reality Scott. What we are really talking about is the balance point between those two. Have we reached the point where the rapacious greed of the lower/middle classes is taking advantage of the wealthy class?

Of course taxes are at the lowest point since Harry Truman was in office..over 50 years. Meanwhile the wealth continues to shift from the middle class to the wealthiest amongst us! Again statistics show the middle class was actually GROWING from WWII until the late 70's and beginning in 1980 it began to shrink.

And so while I accept your basic thought that if the non tax payers have more CONTROL than those paying taxes and abuse that control it is a problem. Again thought that works the other way as well...when the wealthy game the system to their advantage...the golden rule..he has the golf makes the rules.

Given the historic low levels of taxation, given that even people like Warren Buffet have pointed out that his Secretary pays a higher % of her income and our current system is unfair...a return to the levels of the Reagan era of marginal tax rates...less than half of the Eisenhower rates...is not too much to ask of our wealthy class.

BTW Scott another area we can possibly agree is your desire for a flat tax. Take away all the write offs...but then there is the law of unintended consequences..not just the accts and tax attorneys..realtors who can no longer sell second homes etc.
Still I am open to the concept.

As for promoting the general welfare...
I'll need a new post.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 1, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Nevertheless, wbgonne, I accept your apology!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

" It does not do what he wants it to do, ie give the government unlimited power to do whatever it wants in pursuit of an amorphous "general welfare"."

Scott:

You have fundamentally flawed conception of democratic government. The "federal government" is not some alien being, it is us, the American people. Acting through our elected representatives, we, the American people, have the right to pass laws and govern ourselves. It is not only constitutional doctrine, it is the plainest common sense. Admit it: you just don't like the fact that Obama won and the Democrats control Congress. This Constitutional objection is just a silly fig-leaf for your efforts to preclude thwarting the will of the American people and preventing our duly elected leaders from governing.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 1, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

I would be more than happy to debate Gov. Palin with you on that prior thread. Did you see my Tom Clancy hypo?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

@Scott...on the Constitutional question about what welfare means. Assuming of course that we have come to the point that the word indeed does appear in our Constitution. From Merriam Websters..
1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
2a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

I grand the 2nd is probably too modern to believe the Founding Fathers were thinking that...however the first is pretty broad and IMHO does fit within the Founding Father's mindset.

As for HCR being Unconstitutional because of "mandating" a product be purchased....you're going to lose this one in the end big time which is why we Floridians are so peoed at jerks like Bill McCollom who are wasting our tax dollars fighting a futile battle. You are arguing over semantics here.

If your side wins all the Administration has to do is slap a tax on anyone who doesn't follow the mandate. A tax is clearly within Constitutional limits. We are already mandated to purchase Government retirement...Government health care for seniors and the poor...what is the difference if they expand the mandate to include purchase of insurance for ourselves. Again they are not forcing anybody to select any private company...they are forcing people to pay for insurance or the Gov't will tax them and in effect utilize the money to help defray the cost of all the uninsured showing up at emergency rooms.

This is really a stupid battle to be having in light of our health care needs.
It solves nothing and is as important as say...whether Obama is a Muslim..a citizen..where Mosques can be built...
This country has serious problems and we need to address them and stop all this crap about who we pray to and falling victim to Obama derangement syndrome.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 1, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

P.S.

Scott, I appreciate how you've conducted yourself during our debate. Let's call it a draw and move on.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 1, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Not to agree with Scott, but I have to say that it is certainly possible for our elected representatives to pass laws and our elected executive to sign laws that the judiciary determines to be unconstitutional.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 1, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

What is missing in the constitutional argument about general welfare is some other words that appear in the preamble. specifically: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Much of the liberal agenda seeks to reduce liberty for the sake of what they percieve to be an improvement in general welfare.

What we really need though is a balance between the two. Health care reform is perfect example. This monstrosity will result in thousands of federal register pages and voluminious changes in the CFR. All of those will diminish our liberty.

It that a reasonable trade off? If one believes the polls, it is apparent that most Americans don't think so.

Further, it is also clear that those who ask us to trade liberty for "welfare" have a burden to prove that the program on offer will actually work. Many in America, for example, view the entire great society welfare program as an utter failure. It does the liberals no good to complain that poverty still exists in America, even though we have transfered trillions from productive people to non productive people.

We gave up liberty via the additional tax burden that was engendered by the welfare state approach. We got nothing in return.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 1, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

BG &lmsinca...

"the trolls are really bumming me out"

Perhaps you'll join me then in lobbying for a simple change for Greg to make when he returns.
An attempt to save the plumline from the effects of our troll invasion.

Simply have the techies change the format to place the posters name at the head of the post. We'd all simply scroll past the two idiots who are trying to ruin it for everyone without even a temptation to respond.

It's too tough to expect Greg to expel them..too much of a judgement call and perhaps difficult technically since they just come with different names and email addys.

One thing the St. Pete Times does that is pretty cool. After every story you're invited to post a comment. You are also invited to VOTE on those comments...a simple click for thumbs up or thumbs down.
It only takes your vote once..a second attempt prompts "your vote has already been saved." This is a neat feature. Maybe Greg could get the techies to add that as well. For example some Rick Scott moronic supporter will chime in...and within and hour he'll have two thumbs up and 13 thumbs down. Perhaps if our two clowns saw how many thumbs down they were getting...if they knew their names were posted up front and so people simply skipped their posts...they'd go back to Drudge, Fox, or RedState with the rest of the mullungens.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 1, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Much of the liberal agenda seeks to reduce liberty for the sake of what they percieve to be an improvement in general welfare."

Examples?

And when you're making this list, also make one of the GOP "reducing liberty".

Can't wait to see your work.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 1, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

We are told by the Feds that illegal immigration is down to no more than 400,000 per year. So why are we still whining? Actually, 400,000 new illegals per years is simply 400,000 too many. Given the world that we live in, who wants anyone coming into the country without our knowledge? Consider the Narco government developing in northern Mexico. View the National Geographic TV program on illegal aliens. Immigrants must be legal and need help to assimilate into society.

Posted by: windmill3 | September 1, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Arizona: It's not the heat, it's the paranoiac delusions.

Posted by: CalD | September 1, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse


Palin has been a national figure for barely two years—John McCain selected her as his running mate in August 2008. Her on-the-record statements about herself amount to a litany of untruths and half-truths...


“As soon as she enters her property and the door closes, even the insects in that house cringe. She has a horrible temper, but she has gotten away with it because she is a pretty woman.” (The friend elaborated on this last point: “Once, while Sarah was preparing for a city-council meeting, she said, ‘I’m gonna put on one of my push-up bras so I can get what I want tonight.’ That’s how she rolls.”) When Palin was mayor, she made life for one low-level municipal employee so miserable that the woman quit her job, sought psychiatric counseling, and then left the state altogether to escape Palin’s sphere of influence—this according to one person with firsthand knowledge of the situation. The woman did not want to be found. When I finally tracked her down, her husband, who answered the phone, at first pretended that I had dialed the wrong number and that the word “Wasilla” had no meaning to him. Palin’s former personal assistants all refused to comment on the record for this story, some citing a fear of reprisal. Others who have worked with Palin recall that, when she feels threatened, she does not hesitate to wield some version of a signature threat: “I have the power to ruin you.”

Read More http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz0yJDO48NG

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 1, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

If Obama would simply release his "original vital records" or step aside and let Biden take over, then I wouldn't bring it up ever again.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3 at 2:58

Excellent set of points


In addition - this issue came up in the 1700s - and the solution was to answer the question that any powers NOT delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the People.


So clearly, a division of Powers was the INTENT -

The intention was not to have the Federal Government do whatever it wanted.


This is why the democrats prefer to ignore the 10th Amendment.


The Bill of Rights has 10 Amendments - I don't know why the democrats always appear to ignore the 2nd and the 10th - meaning they believe the Bill of Rights wound have 8 Amendments.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

ruk, I agree on the format change.

I'm not opposed to righties making arguments here (as should be clear from my history). But endless, repetitive statements that have little to do with the topic and no constructive engagement with the ideas being discussed wears me out.

So let's talk to Greg about that. The site is still bare-bones and it needs some reconstruction.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 1, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne at 3:07

The Health care bill was passed under the interstate commerce clause.


I would say that health care has been the tradition domain of the States.


Health care is not "interstate"

And Health care is not "commerce."


I would suggest a reading - United State v. Lopez (1995) - in which the Supreme Court ruled that the "interstate" commerce clause has limitations.


The question now is: where are those limitations.


I would expect that the Health Care bill will go to the Supreme Court - and the Court will decide the line between a 1930s Fire Insurance case which really was an anti-trust ruling - and the United States v. Lopez decision.


That is where we stand on the issue.


Enjoy the topic - it should be good.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

There is a common pathetic thread running through some of our heartless posters.

It goes something like this..."we have transfered trillions from productive people to non productive people."

This of course is EXACTLY like the Gospel of Wealth that prevailed in the Gilded Age. The wealthy are wealthy because of God's blessing...or in today's world because they are so hard working and smart...The poor are poor because God has frowned on them..or in todays conservative meme because they are LAZY.

What a total crock of ignorance. Ignorant and heartless. Are there people gaming the system...food stamp fraud...YES..welfare fraud...YES..lazy people taking advantage YES...Are there people gaming the system..wealthy people taking advantage..YES. Of course some mental midgets choose to pick on the poor or the powerless instead of facing up to the reality that the corporations and wealthy game the system FAR FAR more effectively than the poor who cheat.

But the sad thing is that this is all a complete red herring. THE VAST MAJORITY of Americans are good HARD WORKING folks.
If they're not as smart as Bernie Madoff or Donald Trump and lose there jobs then they become "unproductive".

It's ironic that a great percentage of the heartless who make this argument call themselves Christian...what HYPOCRISY!!!
It's also ironic that many of these people like Sister Sarah deride Darwin..yet that is exactly what they are advocating...survival of the fittest.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 1, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"Immigrants must be legal and need help to assimilate into society."

Hence the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Conservatives used to believe in it as well. There's room in the debate for both border security and a path to citizenship, we won't even call it amnesty. What we cannot do is keep passing a bunch of state by state laws that only punish, with no encouragement to become legal, and leave our common sense of humanity at the border. There's entirely too much demonizing of the basic human need to create a better life for oneself and family.

ruk, I'll leave that up to Greg, and to be clear I'm not calling for banishment, there's an alternative I think if we all choose it.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 1, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Another "REPORT"? We are not allowed to check immigration status of children in school, people who go to the doctor/hospital, prisoners in jail(in most cases), people who rent homes etc. How in the world can any person/organization come up with any realistic figure? Of the 11 million left, we have no idea how many billions of dollors are spent (or lost from illegals not paying state or federal income tax) on illegals for all services. The gov't is quick to announce figures when they make gov't look good. However the gov't refuses to do a vaild, realistic study on how many billions illegals cost or save us. Until this is done those who say illegals help the economy may be right and so might those who say illegals hurt the economy. All the so-called experts are guessing about something that is important to American citizens. Either way, laws are being broken. States ignore federal immigration laws. The states want federal money but choose to ignore laws that they "don't agree with". The federal gov't keeps getting weaker and countries around the world know it!

Posted by: baz987 | September 1, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

So, you don't want to take the Palin debate" to that thread? Fine by me:

1) Do you know what the words "ON THE RECORD" mean?

2) Did you see my Tom Clancy hypo?

3) Are you going to respond to anything I post in defense of her?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

@BG "I'm not opposed to righties making arguments here (as should be clear from my history)."

Thanks for pointing that out. Kevin W..although I hesitate at this point to label him anything..:-) has been a terrific addition to this blog. We get to see what the sensible conservatives are thinking...the "silent majority" as it were.

And even the idealogues like Scott, Q.B., SBJ, and especially tao(apoligies to those I left out) are fun to spar with and they make lucid relevant points.

I don't think we're after agreement...just honest, THOUGHTFUL discourse.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 1, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Commerce is a division of trade or production which deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer OR commerce is the exchange of goods and services from the point of production to the point of consumption to satisfy human wants. It comprises the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information, or money between two or more entities. Commerce functions as the central mechanism which drives capitalism and certain other economic systems (but compare command economy, for example).

Genius said:

"And Health care is not "commerce."

Explain, enlightened one, how health is not "the exchange of goods and services from the point of production to the point of consumption to satisfy human wants"

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3

You are right on the Constitutional issues - see my posting at 3:51.


At this point, you have to start looking at the caselaw.


The issue comes down to the definition of "interstate commerce"


On one side of the line is a Fire Insurance case which really deals with anti-trust law from the 1930s - on the other side of the line is United State v. Lopez, which recognized that the Federal Government has limitations to its powers.


The question right now is where EXACTLY is that dividing line - and whether health care falls on one side or the other.


As I have said at least twice now, there is a 200 year history of laws in this nation - State and Federal - which indicate that health care falls to the States - a 200 year history of PRACTICE.


Not sure how anyone is going to be able to overcome that history - and somehow say that all the health care laws of ALL the States over 200 YEARS have somehow been in error and health care was the domain of the Federal government all along - there is precedent here - 200 years of precedents.


.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Well here's a perfect example: the so called health care reform. The government is MANDATING that we do something. We are told that this coercion is a necessary trade off between our liberty and our "welfare".

I don't buy that and, as I said, if one believes the poll a large number of Americans agree with me.

this seems pretty straightforward to me. Sometimes the trade off is clear cut. We agree to stop on a red light and thus reduce auto accidents.

But some of these trade offs aren't so clear cut and the track record of the government is dismal at best.

If you want examples from the right, go find them youself. Either you can argue your position or not. It is not up to me to do your leg work for you.

All this talk about banning "trolls" is amusing. It seems that the definition of "troll" is "anyone who is winning an arugment with a liberal".

Hey wait, I believe that this is also the definition of "racist", "Islamophobe", "tea party member" and so forth.

Either you can argue your pov or you can't. Banning those with whom you disagree simply proves the point that liberals don't really respect the opinions of others.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 1, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7

On your Immigration views.


Fine - I respect your opinions.


However, those opinions are in support of CHANGING Federal Immigration laws -


Those people are still ILLEGAL - they have broken the law and they should leave the country IMMEDIATELY. They should be deported.

The Congress passed a system of immigration laws - it involves WAITING LISTS AND REQUIRING A VISA TO ENTER THE COUNTRY PERMANENTLY.


There are thousands, maybe MILLIONS of people on the waiting lists right now.


To be fair, if you want more immigrants in the country, all the illegals should be MADE to leave - AND the IMMIGRANTS FROM THE WAITING LISTS SHOULD BE LET IN.


There are people who played by the rules, and followed the law, they are on the waiting lists -


And there are people who BROKE the law.


"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is quite deceptive - because no one knows what people mean by that - if you mean "amnesty" say "amnesty."

Furthermore, the immigration laws MUST be enforced by the executive branch - it is not optional.

If Obama is purposely NOT enforcing Federal law, that is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE and he should be impeached on that count.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

skippy: "Well here's a perfect example: the so called health care reform. The government is MANDATING that we do something. We are told that this coercion is a necessary trade off between our liberty and our "welfare"."

There is also a provision for the states to opt out of the mandate. Did you miss that part?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | September 1, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Well here's a perfect example: the so called health care reform. The government is MANDATING that we do something. We are told that this coercion is a necessary trade off between our liberty and our "welfare"."

Nah, it was just a conservative based cost control method so everyone's insurance didn't spike when a bunch of sick people got pushed onto insurance plans. See, a public option would have handled the influx nicely but since the teabaggers were all against that, the mandate came about as a cost control method.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"Furthermore, the immigration laws MUST be enforced by the executive branch - it is not optional."

Except Arizona who decided to write their own because of the paranoia introduced when Democrats run the WH.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 1, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington must be unaware (or lying on purpose) that 63 state and local agencies ALREADY participate in enforcing federal immigration law:

http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

skip makes my point exactly.

That he doesn't understand HCR, the new mandates and how they came to be that way (instead of a better, more public option that idiots on the right were against), and how trying to fix something that is badly broken is what government does, further demonstrates that you just can't argue with these people.

They don't know anything.

The left doesn't want to "take away liberties," moron.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 1, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

My plumbing is "badly broken" (does that mean the federal government has the power to fix that too?)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Interesting statements. Now, are they saying they can count but not stop entering illegal aliens, or is this simply an estimate - maybe based on a phone survey? Are these numbers any more credible than the adjusted jobs numbers - the ones that are artificially spun down and then are later quietly adjusted upwards? It would appear that the number "contradicts the arguments of supporters of Arizona's SB 1070 and other border hawks" - coupled with the lawsuit that pretty well explains everything.

Posted by: tnvret | September 1, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Senator Reid voted--YES--on Comprehensive Immigration Reform--AMNESTY.(Bill S.1639 ; on Jun 28, 2007) Voted--NO--on declaring English as the official language of the US Government (Bill S.Amdt.1151 to S.1348 ; on Jun 6, 2007) Voted--NO--on building a Fence along the Mexican Border (Bill H R 6061 ; on Sep 29, 2006) Voting--YES--establishes a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have worked in the US for 5 years. ( Bill S. 2611 ; vote number 2006-157 on May 25, 2006) Voted--YES--on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security ( Bill S.Amdt.3985 to S.2611 ; vote number 2006-130 on May 18, 2006 )Voted--Yes--on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.( Bill S.Amdt.3969 to S.2611 ; on May 18, 2006) Voted--YES--on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work ( Bill S.2260 ; on Jul 23, 1998)

Voted--NO--on limiting welfare to Immigrants ( Bill S.947 ; on Jun 24, 1997 ) Reid has an open border immigration record with NumberUSA and Fair and needs to be recognized as a danger to America. Like so many other Liberal Democrats they are selling themselves for votes in the coming midterm ele

Posted by: infinity555 | September 1, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Great Point from skipsailing28:


It seems that the definition of "troll" is "anyone who is winning an arugment with a liberal".

Hey wait, I believe that this is also the definition of "racist", "Islamophobe",
"tea party member" and so forth.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse


Is 2010 shaping up to be an Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Liberal or Anti-Democratic year, beginning with first Martha Coakley? Is this the year of anti-tax and spend? Smaller government and returning the power back to each state and the people. Is this the genesis of politicians working for the people again and not for the special interests and open border lobbyists. Only time will tell and its inception is the November midterm elections?

Perhaps not the best person to be witted against Sen. Harry Reid, but Candidate Sharron Angle did NOT dismantle E-Verify, illegal worker verification system, implemented by the Social Security administration and Homeland security databases. Reid is also a confirmed Pro-Amnesty lawmaker, when his own state of Nevada is suffering chronic unemployment and a withering state deficit.

Like Arizona, Nevada has a very large population of illegal immigrant households that have been continuously nibbling at the public welfare programs and across the rest across the country. Whereas, Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer along with state Senator Russell Peirce have enacted laws such as SB 1070, to try to inhibit the illegal immigration invasion. The omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill includes a little-known provision that guts the major provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This provision -- buried on page 123 of Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. It is my analysis that if the 2006 Secure Fence act had not been amended, to a single fence the growing occupancy of illegal aliens would not have happened to the 18 and up population. Sen. Reid has done nothing to safeguard his state from being overrun by illegal alien families working in the entertainment and service industries. With 15 million American workers jobless nationwide, why hasn't read made E-Verify permanent?

Posted by: infinity555 | September 1, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Back to Mr. Serwer's contention that a mere 300,000 illegal aliens does not equate to an "invasion", may I remind my much younger friend that the Allied (actual, military) LARGEST AMPHIBIOUS INVASION EVER at Normandy only used 1.3 million. Maybe you would prefer if we call this a "sneak attack" instead?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know if our gracious host, Greg Sargent, is related to Robert F. Sargent? I'm a Coast Guard history buff ; )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Sargent

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Global Warming Liberal gets violent, starts to take hostages at the Discovery Channel.


I guess the guy refuses to read the East Anglia emails.


All the fear-mongering of the global warming nuts had to end up somewhere. Sooner or later, we all knew the liberals would go off the deep end.


Somehow - with all the talk of banning this one or that one - restricting Freedom of Speech, some of the posters here have to be on the verge of being unhinged as well.


If someone does not agree with a liberal, the first thing the liberals question is their right to Freedom of Speech. The liberals will take away someone's Freedom of Speech, but an illegal alien should be free to run wild, right ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid they've found us out, BG.

We should finally admit that HCR -- despite all that stuff about, ya know, health care -- was actually our secret back-door scheme to reduce Americans' liberties (including our own).

Oh and Obama, he's a Muslim.

Oh and moon landing? Fake.

Oh and the Loch Ness monster is real and so is Bigfoot (and they're both Democrats).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 1, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"Either you can argue your pov or you can't. Banning those with whom you disagree simply proves the point that liberals don't really respect the opinions of others."

Skip, I have not heard anyone here talk about banning. It's our choice who we respond to or ignore. There are two or three, you're not one of them btw, who do not know how to have a discussion and they tend to take over the thread posting nonsense. If they're interested in true debate they could prove it by making a cohesive argument. Haven't seen that yet have you? We actually like having conservative voices here until they take over. I'll leave it up to everyone else to take their own stand, I just thought maybe if we ignored the few who are doing it we could get back to our normal disagreeing with each other. What do I know though? I could sure find something more constructive to do with my time, but that's just me.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 1, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

Algore should be sued in civil court for the damages. It seems as if the hostage-taker is one of those pro-choice extermists too.

"All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions," it reads. "In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."

The manifesto was published on http://SavethePlanetProtest.com. Law enforcement sources said they believe the site was operated by the same person who is inside the building. Lee has lived in Hawaii, California and the D.C. area.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103911.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Sounds to me like the nutjob at Discovery doesn't really have clearly defined left/right stances. One of his demands:

""Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows";"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 1, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca at 3:56

The problem with your position is that there are millions of immigrants on the waiting lists waiting to come into the country - what about them ?


The people who followed the law should be LEGALIZED AND GIVEN VISAS FIRST.

The REAL problem is one of INCENTIVES - if you give people a "path to citizenship," people from all over the world will want to come here - we will lost control over our whole country.

In the 1980s, the democratic Congress wanted to do exactly what you said - Give everyone amensty and then NO MORE - just deal with all the people here.

Do you know what happened? The US was kind - we legalized 3 million illegals - and what happened? 50 million MORE illegals showed up - hoping to be legalized somehow.


It was a mistake to have "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" in the 1980s - because it GAVE 50 MILLION MORE ILLEGALS AN INCENTIVE TO COME HERE.


Immigration policy is NOT about the people who are here now - it is about the BILLIONS of people who want to come here - and who would if they thought they could.


Immigration laws apply to the 8 BILLION people OUTSIDE the US - not the 50 million who have ALREADY broken the law.


You really are not thinking clearly on this issue.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't Bear Grills or the Survivorman dude carving up the Discovery Channel hostage taker??

Starting to think those shows are fake, except for when they drink their own urine. That seems all too real.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 1, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat:

For the record, I do not want all immigration stopped, nor do I want American births slowed down at all. Plenty of leftists are backing "stop population growth" movements.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"In the 1980s, the democratic Congress wanted to do exactly what you said - Give everyone amensty and then NO MORE - just deal with all the people here."

I remember when Ronaldus Magnus vetoed that. That was so cool. Oh, wait....

"Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones — it was part of his understanding of America — that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 1, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Hi, all, back again. I feel like I'm watching Groundhog Day, only speeded up.

When Rainforest starts talking about his right to free speech and how you all are trying to take it away from him, boy, is that familiar. Wait until he accuses you all of being part of a conspiracy of paid bloggers who meet daily to defeat him and his free speech needs (needs which are overwhelming I might add). And wait for the hourly accusations that you all are racists. And then the postings about the inner cities and violence of blacks. And his thousands of postings, over and over again, sometimes for 24 hours straight.

If you want to see what's ahead of you, go to the Fix Archives, any month of the last several years and search for 37th&OStreet and you will see the agony ahead for you guys. (After June of this year, 37th started changing his handle on a daily basis to avoid the monitor.)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/archives.htm

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 1, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Miller Leads In AK-Sen But Dems See Opportunity

Rasmussen's poll, taken last night after Murkowski conceded she lost the GOP primary, shows Miller leads McAdams 50-44. Neither man is well known in the state.

The pollster is moving the race from "Solid Republican" to "Leans Republican." Rasmussen writes:

"""Ninety percent (90%) of Democrats back McAdams while 79% of Republicans throw their vote behind Miller. McAdams holds a 22-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party."""

The survey of 500 likely voters has a ±4.5% margin of error.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/miller-leads-in-ak-sen-but-dems-see-opportunity.php

* ahem *

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24825

(I gave on primary day, anyone wanna join in?)

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 1, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

"User reviews and comments that include ... personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site."

You do remember agreeing to abide by the Delphi Rules when you signed up, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 1, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

in other words BG, you can't actually argue your point effectively. Hardly surprising. What you offered is a total non sequitar. Basically you said that we should shut up and enjoy this mandate (which is essentially a diminution of our liberty) because the mandate you really wanted didn't pass.

yeah, that makes no sense at all.

Once again, the balance between liberty and welfare has to be valid to the American people. They aren't seeing that balance in the so called reform. You can't argue against that because the polls support my position and not yours.

It doesn't matter how badly broken you think something is, reducing our liberty is a high price to pay for whatever fix you come up with.

And it is always thus. How about cap and tax? That's exactly the same thing. Reduce people's liberty (by taking their money away from them) to "fix" something that you think is badly broken. No thanks.

And yes, you did prove my point.

Mike offers some sophistry. He tells us the noble reason behind the mandate. How nice. I lose my liberty to prevent a spike in insurance premiums? How is that a valid trade off? What is the government doing in my business to begin with?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 1, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"When Rainforest starts talking about his right to free speech and how you all are trying to take it away from him.."

Oh! Another jackass that doesn't know what the First Amendment is about? LOL He's in good company then with Sister Sarah and Dr. Laura. They all need a remedial civics class.

Actually, he/she/it can post whatever he/she/it likes. I haven't read a single one of the posts from that person in several days. Nor JakeD2.

Although, truth be told, I have no problem with both them being banned. I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep. To me, they are like junk mail. Toss it in the trash.


Posted by: suekzoo1 | September 1, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010

Have you been working on those Specific economic proposals of the democrats all day ???


We have been waiting.


I suppose you have nothing - is that the case ?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Ethan: * ahem *
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24825
(I gave on primary day, anyone wanna join in?)

Yes, I will on payday this week! :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | September 1, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Reportedly one of the last statements made by the liberal global warming activist at the Discovery Channel before he was shot by police was that he was MOTIVATED BY AL GORE AND HIS BOOK.


Chalk that one up.



.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse


Colleen Cottle, who is the matriarch of one of Wasilla’s oldest families, and who served on the city council when Palin was mayor. She says she and her husband, Rodney, will pay a price for speaking candidly about Palin. Their son is one of Todd Palin’s best friends. “But it is time for people to start telling the truth,” Colleen says. She describes the frustrations of trying to do city business with a mayor who “had no attention span—with Sarah it was always ‘What’s the flavor of the day?’ ”; who was unable to take part meaningfully in conversations about budgets because she “does not understand math or accounting—she only knows buzzwords, like ‘balanced budget’ ”; and who clocked out after four hours on most days, delegating her duties to an aide—“but he’ll never talk to you, because he has a state job and doesn’t want to lose it.”

Read More http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz0yJcWw1SC

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 1, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing, all of the benefits of society with none of the responsibilities. America works through magic. The roads magically get paved, children get educated, the military gets paid and is properly trained, cops and firemen keep bad things from happening, all through some magical process that does not, cannot, infringe upon his liberty to retain as much of his money as possible.

Liberty defined as keeping your money and not contributing to the system that allowed you to make it in the first place.

You offer no coherent arguments about liberty, how a very large, very complex society like the US works, or anything else of substance. But you might have some polls. So stick with that. A majority of Americans might just make you feel right.

Right and self-righteous aren't the same thing.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 1, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


Why don't you go hire an illegal alien ?

OH- I have another one - Why don't you go start an support group for illegal aliens who want to have same-sex marriage ??


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Did Al Gore write in his book that people should take hostages or otherwise resort to violence?

U R Stoopid.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 1, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat

You are right - Reagan did sign the bill.


But the point is that amnesty and "path to citizenship" has already been tried - and it only led to more illegal aliens hoping to get legalized somehow.


Then it was 3 million - now it is 50 million.


So in the 1980s, we legalized 3 million illegals - how many children have they had since then ? We have been kind to millions of people - and only more came.


The 50 million illegal aliens in this country are young - they will be 100 million people in 10 years - one generation - perhaps more.


The nation is at the breaking point -


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 1, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

LOL, yeah right. man you are desperate, how about REPUBLICANS PROVEN MEAN SPIRITED or OBAMA WILL CURE ALL ILLNESSES BY 2013, luckily for the US no one believes your stories anymore, you all at the wp have cried wolf too many times.
You can trust the study, right?
So the massive increase in illegals getting arrested and prosecuted here for criminal acts means what, that in 10 years reduced numbers are much more violent and criminal?
How about ELECTION CANCELED due to possible results...and you really think anyone believes this ....?
LOL

Posted by: Saladin3 | September 1, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The last, pitiful refuge of a Glenn Beck Christian:

Yea, but Pew didn't say that there were 50 million illegal aliens who haven't gone back yet.

Including maybe one in the White House who refuses to go back to Indonesia.

.
Posted by: SaveTheRainforest

Don't confuse them with the facts - especially one that takes some wind out of their racist Rovian wedge issue.

Posted by: areyousaying | September 1, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Where would the GOP be without their wedge issues? I bet, being that they lack any real plans except let business have unchecked control, resting peacefully next to the Whigs. So you can expect the harshest response from the conservatives on this report. On boards like this one, they will pull out all the old tricks, getting you baited to respond on openly bigoted or outright fascist comments. They will seek to go after semantic mistakes and in general avoid speaking on the issue. On the TV news they will slam the source, as being liberal but will have no problem pulling facts from rightwing think tanks. On Fox, an openly conservative channel, they will probably not even run the story. Yet the number point to a more general trend. Deportations are up under Obama and new illegal’s are down; anecdotal evidence and a desire to not believe what doesn’t mesh with your world view aside.

Posted by: hansenthered | September 1, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Well , Bush , Cheney and the Republicans who opened the flood gates and laid out the welcome mat for illegals to come here accidentally accomplished one good thing by trashing the economy , so few jobs now that the illegals are going home and not as many trying to enter the country .

Posted by: Koom | September 1, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne,

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

This clause gives the Congress the TAXING POWER to provide for the general welfare, it does not give the Congress the power to pass regulatory laws in order to promote the general welfare, ie. the new health care law.

Go back to law school.

Posted by: NewTexan | September 1, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne,

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

This clause gives the Congress the TAXING POWER to provide for the general welfare, it does not give the Congress the power to pass regulatory laws in order to promote the general welfare, ie. the new health care law.

Go back to law school.

Posted by: NewTexan | September 1, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne,

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

This clause gives the Congress the TAXING POWER to provide for the general welfare, it does not give the Congress the power to pass regulatory laws in order to promote the general welfare, ie. the new health care law.

Go back to law school.

Posted by: NewTexan | September 1, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Racist blag blah blah...bigot blah blah blah...In November the American people will decide and thing are not looking to good for you progressive race baiter's.

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | September 1, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

If this were REALLY an issue now, it would have been an issue two years ago, and that darling of the Tea Party, George W. Bush, would've done something about it. But the fact is that it is NOT a serious problem now(or then), but is quite handy for stirring up Xenophobia in the knuckle-dragging idiots who are lobotomized by a steady diet of Fox "News" and AM hate radio. Bush and the Republicans did not do anything about it because their wealthy business owner friends need that cheap labor that illegal aliens provide, while the government looks the other way, it was only when they were bounced out of power that it became a useful tool in muddying the waters, while helping their constituents forget that it was Republican policies that gave us this economic disaster we now suffer from. I'd like to see something done about the H1B program of Legal immigration, which businesses abuse to bring in "special" workers from Pakistan and India, pay them a fraction of what an American worker would cost, and then bully them into working around the clock with the threat of losing their green card. This when unemployment is over 10% in this country! Republicans need to start putting country BEFORE party, and supporting Americans, not trying to shaft them and inpoverish them!

Posted by: squirebass | September 1, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse


Apprehensions

UNITED STATES BORDER APPREHENSIONS
(Source DHS/CBP)
1987--1,190,488------1995--1,394,554------2003----931,557
1988--1,008,145------1996--1,649,986------2004--1,160,395
1989----954,243------1997--1,412,953------2005--1,189,075
1990--1,169,939------1998--1,555,776------2006--1,089,902
1991--1,197,875------1999--1,579,010------2007----876,704
1992--1,258,482------2000--1,676,438------2008----723,825
1993--1,327,259------2001--1,266,213------2009----556,041
1994--1,094,717------2002----955,310------2010----beg. 10/01/09

In the last 23 years, since the 1986, Reagan, one-time amnesty http://n.pr/9IMtLO
over 27 million illegals have been apprehended,
as they crossed the border into our United States.

UNFORTUNATELY, far less than half of illegals are apprehended at the border.
Before the recent addition (over the last two years) of 10,000 Border Patrol agents,
313.9 miles of Pedestrian Fence, 34 miles of the legislated double-layered fence,
and 298.5 miles of Vehicle Barriers. it was estimated, by the border patrol agents,
that less than 1, out of 7, illegals, were apprehended at the border.
Some border patrol agents said less than 1, out of 10.

Now, they say they catch about 1, out of 3

12 million illegals is a boldfaced lie to all Americans

in all likelihood, 30 million illegals, is much closer to the truth

+ 6,000,000 more are Visa overstays

8,000,000 illegals, are working at known employers

IT'S ONE HELL OF A FINE WAY TO RUN A COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND


Posted by: Warof2010 | September 1, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

If they are leaving, all the more important to prevent them from oozing back in again.

Posted by: capsfan77 | September 1, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The only prevention method to illegal immigration issue is NOT AMNESTY because then it just rewards the illegal action in the first place. Reagan made that fatal error that resulted in our society having to deal with the consequences of such a political move - 12 plus million illegal immigrants costing taxpayers billions in education, welfare, medicaid and incareration/deportation costs! The statistic mentioned above could be a result of stricter enforcement of deportation or consequences of being arrested as an illegal. But also more information sharing, stricter rules and regulations on WHO is eligible for US ENTITLEMENTS that is an increasing burden on responsible, law abiding citizens of this country AND retrictions on the pervasive inclusion of the 14th ammendment on birthright citizenship. I am no genius BUT if I wanted to immigrate here illegally having all the information that restricts me from participating in the freedom and freebies of this nation, why would I want to immigrate here illegally? There is NO COST BENEFIT to such a risk - SO increase the COST and decrease the BENEFIT of illegal immigration - simple economic and human theory!

Posted by: american17 | September 1, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for pointing this out. Whew! We're fine now. Send no help. False alarm! Close to a million illegals crossed into Arizona last year. We'll be fine here. No problem. No economic concern for Arizona. No national security issue......So glad we have this report!

Posted by: Barb_AZ | September 1, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Ya know what we love here in Arizona? Political columnists sitting at their keyboards on the east coast telling us how safe we are out here!

Posted by: Barb_AZ | September 1, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Guess I can retire my side piece. Thanks goodness for this report!

Posted by: Barb_AZ | September 1, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Again folks, just ignore the troll that has taken up residence in the blog. Eventually, Greg will be forced to take the same measures that CC took.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 2, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Might there also be some effect from the Obama administration's targeting of the businesses (Republican stalwarts, I would bet) who hire these illegals, thus depressing salaries for U.S. workers?

Posted by: kstack | September 2, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Why don't you mind your own business?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

According to immigrationcounters.com, there are nearly 23 million illegal aliens in the US. This site lists their sources for each category. To state illegal immigration has drastically been reduced is blatantly false and another Obama administration tactic in an election year. What's next, they going to say the national debt has suddenly been paid off? Are they going to say unemployment is down below 5% ? Are they going to say the economy has rebounded? Say a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. Vote these bums out in November.

Posted by: Stephen44 | September 2, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I live in Phoenix, Arizona and to me, 300,000 illegal Mexicans is a very big number. It might be fewer than 5 years ago, but 300,000 criminals are coming into my country every year, many of them are coming into my state. Let me put this into perspective. I'm originally from Minneapolis. Its' population is 370,000. Every year, a group almost the size of Minneapolis enters my country. They don't pay taxes. They send their children to my state's schools and expect our tax paying citizens to pay. Illegal aliens(according to the FBI) make up 40% of Arizona prisons, represent 86% of warrants for murder, and 75% of our auto thefts.
Illegal aliens in Arizona almost never have auto or medical insurance. They get a free ride.
Is this not a problem?

Posted by: Brihaspati | September 2, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company