Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Goes on Offense on Immigration

No issue animates the Republican base like immigration.

And, in the days following the announcement of a bipartisan deal on the issue, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) found himself on the receiving end of a series of body blows from his presidential rivals -- most notably former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) -- who attacked the agreement as nothing more than amnesty.

Privately, the McCain campaign seethed at the characterization that he was backing amnesty; they argued that his work on the issue was a prototypical example of his willingness to tackle tough issues and try to find solutions to them.

While President Bush has begun to make that same case, it's clear the McCain people are now taking matters into their own hands.

Over the last week, McCain has made a flurry of appearances on conservative talk radio television to sell the plan. He's been on "The Mike Gallagher Show," Sean Hannity's radio show," The Michael Medved Show," "Captain's Quarters Blog Radio" as well as local radio programs in South Carolina, Iowa and Arizona. He also appeared last night on "The O'Reilly Factor"

McCain will continue the offensive through Monday when he has a major immigration address plan aimed at making his case to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce in Coral Gables, Fla.

The argument? Doing nothing amounts to the very amnesty that conservatives are railing against. "Right now it's de facto amnesty because we have 12 million people here illegally," McCain said on "The O'Reilly Factor." He added that the bill backed by him and Bush does "everything short of deportation," pointing out that it includes fines, waiting periods and learning English in order to be a citizen.

This is a delicate issue for McCain as it has the potential to play into fears among the conservative base that he simply isn't one of them. This idea, which was born during the 2000 presidential primary fight between McCain and Bush, continues to linger despite the fact that McCain has spent much of the intervening seven years playing the role of "good solider" for the Bush administration.

The problem for McCain is that it is a far simpler case to oppose the legislation than support it. Decrying amnesty is an easy-to-understand political position that can be conveyed in a matter of seconds to a potential voter. Explaining why this bill is not amnesty takes far longer. Campaigns often hinge not on which candidate has the more nuanced position on a controversial issue but rather who has the more easily explained stance.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 31, 2007; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Endorsement Elite: Florida Democrats
Next: Dodd Gambles With a Global Warming Ad Buy

Comments

This is what the so-called "mainstream"
newsmedia don't want you to know about GOP
US Senators Amnesty John McCain and Sen
Two Face Jon Kyl,as an Arizonan,I can tell
ya'll that at least two groups,MAIA Mothers
Against Illegal Aliens and another one have
already launched Recalla against McCain and
Kyl over their failure to represent us,for
details on the Recall please see this site:

recallkylmccain@yahoo.com

And I wonder how long the gutless censor at
The Washington Post will even leave this
post up as well? This is the first time in
US political history a US Presidential
Candidate has faced a Recall even before a
primary vote was cast no less! Where are
you "Mainstream Press" here now?

Posted by: reheadclaudine | June 2, 2007 2:04 AM | Report abuse

What Americans want RIGHT NOW!!

Americans agree wholeheartedly on our need for Border Security.

Pass the Border Security Bill, funding the 370 miles of fence, the 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and the 105 camera, and surveillance towers. That's all that is needed for right now!!

That is the only decision that needs to be accomplished at this time.

Everything else can be discussed in very great detail, after our borders are safe.

Charge our military with securing our Southern border NOW!!

Deploy the military in helping to build the fence, the barriers, and the towers!!

It doesn't make any sense at all to futilely attempt to try to agree, on all of the other disagreeable issues, that are dependent on the Border Security being in place first, anyway!!!

Do the right thing and get this moving.

Time may allow a clearer view on the direction to take in the future.

But in the meantime, there isn't any reason, AT ALL, to delay the securing of the border, for one more day!!!

Posted by: Buzzm1 | June 2, 2007 12:16 AM | Report abuse

That's bull LMAO in Houston. And that's not the lesson we want ot teach our children. "The laws only apply if". This is a republican tactic of only obeying the laws you agree with. You give young people the jobs and the unemployed. This strenthens the youth and the unemployed. Gives them a future. You DON'T say it's easier (or cheaper) to get someone else to do it. If you can't compeate legally. YOOU CAN"T COMPETE. You can't break laws to help certain people and not others compete

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 1, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

This site is as useful as a brick wall. No, folks that are illegal immigrants are NOT doing jobs that American's won't do - they are doing jobs that either there are not enough Americans to do or that Americans don't HAVE to do, because they have a better job. If the jobs weren't here, they wouldn't be either. Ask a fruit or vegatable grower on the west coast if his crop would be picked without illegal aliens, or in a more recent development, tobacco growers in the mid-south. As to the Heritage Foundation study, anything that they say must be taken with a grain of salt. You're talking about people that do pay at minimumm, a sales tax, and buy products IN AMERICA - so in that way, they help the economy - stop trying to make the facts fit your political stance, folks. This is a tough nut to crack, and the sooner we stop playing "Red State/Blue State, who holds the base" and get real about what we are going to do, the sooner we will solve it.

Posted by: LMAO in Houston | June 1, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

This site is garbage. Propoganda and misdirection. This is not a game. God will judge all of you, one day

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Are you a racist Alec? What does their race have to do with anything? How does George Bush bein white help put money in my pocket or me in a house. It is nothing to do with race. It has to do with racist VOTERS like you. If everyone was black and doing the same thing would you be angry at blacks. Misdirection by the right. Propoganda

Posted by: Jkrish | June 1, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh no! Old rich white males are being oppressed again! Sound the alarms!

Males - As of the 2006 congress, 83.7% of the Congress is male, while the percentage of males of the voting age population (18 plus) is only 48.4. If this is further evaluated to include the over-representation of white males, the figure is even more staggering: 36.3% of the voting age population are white males, yet there are 79 White Male senators making up the Senate (79%).

Posted by: alec | June 1, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

hOW is it I have to give my Driver license when I get a new job and rent or any social services, yet illegals, not part of this country, do not. It is a repuplican attempt to destroy the social program landscape. OHH and get slave labor also

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 1, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

This site is as about as useful as spending all day speaking to a wall. What a waste of time. Mass round ups? Propoganda, lies, misdirection. The laws are already on the books. Nobody is enforcing them. Create new laws? What would that solve, if the current ones aren't being enforced. Close all social programs for illegals(which should be happening already), check for legal papers for any new job, (which they should be doing already), and housing (check legal status before renting or selling), which should be happening already. No round ups. Everything that SHOULD be happening already is. The republican movement wants these people here. THAT"S WHY THYE ARE NOT ENFORCING CURRENT LAW, on any leval for that matter. Anarchy. Sad day in america when our representatives have no fear of commiting TREASON against it's own citizens

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 1, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter-

I was not argueing that there were no Americans who would take those jobs but that this idea that we simply enforce the current law and all 12 million of these people will just self-deport so we don't end up with mass forced deportation is a myth that the nativists are propogating to help them sleep well at night.

My point is that if you increase raids you are still going to deport anyone you find forcibly. And the number of jurisdictions and politicians that are pushing for the city county or state police to have the power to check papers and start deportation hearing is increasing making routine encounters with the police a point where you are required to prove your legality. Better start carrying your birth certificate and passport. Let's not touch what this does to the polices ability to investigate murders or muggings. No witness will come forward if they believe they'll be deported for catching a murderer.

Second is when you look at the people who make up these groups there are components of the population where self-deportation is unlikely. Some national groups, like Haitians or Chinese (yes not all of our illegal population is Spanish speaking) contain borderline asylum cases (cases that might get thrown out in court so they aren't going to court to be deported) escaping persecution or violence in their home countries. They won't self deport. Some don't have the papers that would make it possible to re-enter their home countries so if they have to fly or take a boat to get there they can't self-deport.

And even in the population that can self-deport most easily (ie Mexicans and Central Americans) there are significant reasons why large portions won't. You might get a large number of the recently arrived single men, I will grant you that. But families are much harder especially if they have acquired property. And a mixed family where she's legal and he's not is going to stay even if it means she's working and he's not (a likely scenario anyway). In the Latino community many extended families are mixed so what you'll see will tend more towards those who are legal supporting those who aren't until they can find work in the informal sector.

And the informal economy in the US is larger than you might think. I'm not talking here of the builder pulling up to the 7-eleven and picking up 12 guys for a day of landscaping and bricklaying, although that does happen. I'll assume that enforcement does manage to get good enough to stop that. But things like baby-sitting, basement hair-dressers, selling kitchen tortilla's, fixing someones car outside an auto-garage for a small fee. The small things people do that never reach the IRS or the department of labor, the same type of things many people do to supplement welfare income and still collect welfare, many illegals will find a money earning niche there if they don't already. We might see a spike in people entering illegal professions such as prostitute or drug-dealer in the absense of the semi-legitimate jobs they find today instead of self-deporting. It might sound better than going back to a high unemployment rural farm town in the Yucatan to many.

And then there is the issue of enforcement. Why don't we have satisfactory enforcement today? Well, for one thing we tend to let employers off if they can demonstrate that they hired in good faith and attempted to verify legality. Would you set a higher standard for 'good faith' and an 'attempt'. I suspect many would but that would require the compiling of better resources, like a national employment database and stringent rules on ID's. Do you know that several states are not going to fulfill the mandates of the real ID act when the deadline comes up because of privacy concerns? Get your passport and birth certificate ready next time you try to take a domestic flight, or maybe Congress will be lax there. If we want the tools that make it enforceable we have to be willing to accept those tools (ie standardised national rules on ID, a massive database available to employers).

In conclusion, optimistically I would put the self-deportation rate with a strict, active and thorough enforcement of current laws at only about 25%, and I'm not sure we would be able to enforce to those standards. That leaves 9 million who we'd either have to forcibly deport or find a way to accomodate. I guess others can quibble with that, but I just don't see the mass self-deportation happening and making everything all neat and tidy.

Posted by: bluemeanies | June 1, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I hear you on a point Dr. I agree that if you cut off jobs, social programs and housing for illegals THEY GO HOME. You don't have to round people up "nazi style". If illegals can't get free stuff, can't get a job and can't rent or buy what will they do. Live on the streets? I doubt it. And even if they do, then round em' up :). Imagaine how low housing costs go if we sent 20 million people home. Most Americans would own homes if a large number of them wern't filled to the brim with 20 people. This is the rape of our country. If you are a mexican go back to mexico. If you are a iranian or frenchman go back home. If you are a guatemalen go back home. IF YOU ARE AN AMERCIAN, regardsless of national origins, YOU CAN STAY

Posted by: JKrish | June 1, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

LOL, well Ruf/JK, I guess you win because you say so.

And you're right, all I do is shout and insult folks, I never use facts, cites, or evidence (how about settled economic theory?) in my dialogue.

Well, I try to educate the masses, looks like it's a tougher job than I thought.

Posted by: JD | June 1, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse


Let's be clear about McCain's primary motivation: Arizona is the nation's fastest growing State and its housing boom is being built on the backs of cheap illegal Mexican labor. McCain's other backers include folks in agro-business and other sectors of the economy that rely on unskilled labor. The appalling impact of these policies on the empolyment, wages and working conditions of AMERICAN WORKERS is of no concern to the Senator.
He also poses a faulty dilemma when he does his round of talk shows -- and he the "Straight-talking Senator" is about as credible on this one as he was on campaign finance reform: remember when all of us were deceived into thinking he was a different kind of politician?
No one is talking about mass deportation. The President -- Mr. Compassionate who's all about exploiting cheap labor -- and McCain use this language because they like to conjure the horror-show imagery of jack-booted SWAT teams, Gestapo-style, rounding up poor aliens and their wimpering babies. We're told it's that -- a Nazi solution -- or else the anarchy and lawlessnes of AMNESTY (yes, it's amnesty). But those of us that don't want amnesty are not in favor of "Trains to the East" (or South). We want to use the laws already on the books (and add some) and take the shackles off local police and enforce laws about illegal immigration, hit the real villains -- the expoloiting employers hard -- and introduce a secure national identity card so we know who is here lawfully. Link that card with a biometric chip to all other critical documents -- driver's licenses, credit cards, etc -- and the illegal alien without one is suddenly going to find himself or herself immobilized. The point of all of this is to promote ATTRITION: the incremental self-removal of the millions that have entered our country unlawfully, steal public benefits, and remain here unlawfully by breaking scores of additional laws.
The WORST thing we could do is reward their behavior. In 1986 under President Reagan an amnesty of several million was passed. The result? A five-fold increase in illegal immigration. We are far better off living with the results of that disaster for a while longer while putting in place the mechanisms that will promote attrition than rewarding lawbreakers and engendering further massive violation of the rule of law.

Posted by: Dr. Stephen Steinlight | June 1, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

win an arguement with better points. excuse me. These right wingers think, "Yeah I got him. I yelled or insulted him until he backed down. YEAHH I won." That is not debate. That is why this country has been going downhill since the republican revolution in the eighties. Remeber the last blanket amnesty by Reagan?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Just becuse you give an answer doesn't mean it's correct or right JD. Never forget that. That is the Newt Gingrich Rush limbaugh school of debate. Say it loader say it over and over. Just because you through something out there doesn't make it so. You lost. Start following up to see if Fox "News" Rush Bush Chenay, Snow Hannity O'Reilly have been lying to you the last 6 years. Just because they say something doesn't mean that is what's happening. Propoganda and misdirection. You lost the arguement JD. Any answer will not do anymore. You will an arguement with SUPERIOR POINTS not insults.

Posted by: rufus1133 Jkrish | June 1, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

So JKrish, you think Kennedy is a Republican? Schumer? Take a look at who is pushing this bill.

The fact that W wants to establish a legacy outside of Iraq, and thinks this is a nice 'bipartisan' way to do it, is disappointing and mostly irrelevant. It's a bad bill, one drawn up in secret (I thought liberals were against those kinds of things, a la Cheney's energy meetings), and one that will damage America for decades.

Take a look at who is hammering it more, a portion of the GOP or of the Dems. Then tell me 'who's' bill it is. Not that it matters; I'm against it and will vote against any politician who votes for it.

As for Ruf, I'm guessing you didn't do too well in econ class. Oil or TVs or anything has no 'intrinsic' worth; it's worth what someone will pay for it. That's it. Until you can get that through your head, there's really not much reason to try to debate with you. PS, you might want to try lithium or something, your posts are pretty much rambling drivel.

No offense.

Posted by: JD | June 1, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

You argument falls apart JD because Bush was pushing amnesty before the democrats took charge. sTop lying to these people. Why do you continue to support a broken system?

Posted by: Jkrish | June 1, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

excuse me. I meant billion. 20 billion

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Right. Macdonalds makes no profit. You don't think they could compete in the market. It's about profit. It's not that these major corporates aren't making money. It's that all that money goes to a few on the top rather than the employees. Is gas really worth 4 $ a gallon? The market puts a generic price out there. How much is a ferrari really worth? Jd is brainwashed. Just because someone tells you that tv cost 1,500 doesn't make it so. How much did that tv cost to make? How about advertising shipping? Sales. We need a fair market as opposed to a free market. We can end hunder with under 20 million a year. END HUNGER WITH 20million a year. It cost america 600 million to catch one iraqi terrorist, alzuirawi. We need to get our priorities straight. These companies can pay beleive me. The top 1% may have to give up their bentleys and switch to a bmw. What a sacrafice. All the while trading the blood or OUR brothers and sisters for paper with little pictures of dead p[residents on it. Sell-outs traitors. I wish eveyone making money off the blood of our countrymen was charged with treason. That would stop the rape of our country real fast

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 1, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

ruf, just because you like to call it a GOP issue doesn't make it so. And while 'amnesty' has happened (or may happen again) on a GOP prez watch, remember the Dems were (and are) running Congress. If you oversimplify the conversation, people will assume that you're a simpleton.

roston, first of call, we're begging you, take a writing class or something before you post, ee cummings. Secondly, I think you're saying that if we had less illegals driving down wages, then the market rates would be uncompetitive and work would be outsourced abroad? Not too likely; most of the work done by illegals can't really be outsourced (fast food, construction, landscaping, even food production and agriculture).

Posted by: JD | June 1, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

and by the way, first rufus, lot of people wont work at mc donalds or subway, but if they pay more you will pay more

and our low skilled people, i work in a plant with a lot of unskilled we have a great rotation, monday specially after pay day a nightmare, not all but about 25% work only for few days so they can be eligible for unemployment help, (something illegals cando cause at least unlabor offices what they check first its the SSN)and believe at this job they can make good maney

Posted by: roston | June 1, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

JD wrote " I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. The truth is, the man whose job is stolen won't work that job *at those wages*. If the market weren't flooded (distorted?) at the low end, the wages of those jobs would gradually rise to a level where the jobs would be filled. "

Thats why we dont understand ok lets get rid of illegals you have this scenario a lot of job positions vacancies lets say 8,000,000 (not saying nothing about the time will take to fill this positions)our low skilled people wont work for that wage, so they get a better wage, this lead to a less profit to the business owners, so they will rise the price, then landlords will rise it because their suppliers, then at the end of the list you, me, those workers will have to pay more, less savings, less expenses in the market sound familiar, welcome to live of the poor countries

or bussines rise prices and pay better money so they got less profit, and trust me big one will send their bussines to china or india and they will pay lot less, but for US no more work (Fact India pay english classes, speech classes to their people so they can work in a call center) lets try citibank

Posted by: roston | June 1, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

JD wrote " I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. The truth is, the man whose job is stolen won't work that job *at those wages*. If the market weren't flooded (distorted?) at the low end, the wages of those jobs would gradually rise to a level where the jobs would be filled. "

Thats why we dont understand ok lets get rid of illegals you have this scenario a lot of job positions vacancies lets say 8,000,000 (not saying nothing about the time will take to fill this positions)our low skilled people wont work for that wage, so they get a better wage, this lead to a less profit to the business owners, so they will rise the price, then landlords will rise it because their suppliers, then at the end of the list you, me, those workers will have to pay more, less savings, less expenses in the market sound familiar, welcome to live of the poor countries

or bussines rise prices and pay better money so they got less profit, and trust me big one will send their bussines to china or india and they will pay lot less, but for US no more work (Fact India pay english classes, speech classes to their people so they can work in a call center) lets try citibank

Posted by: roston | June 1, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

JD wrote " I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. The truth is, the man whose job is stolen won't work that job *at those wages*. If the market weren't flooded (distorted?) at the low end, the wages of those jobs would gradually rise to a level where the jobs would be filled. "

Thats why we dont understand ok lets get rid of illegals you have this scenario a lot of job positions vacancies lets say 8,000,000 (not saying nothing about the time will take to fill this positions)our low skilled people wont work for that wage, so they get a better wage, this lead to a less profit to the business owners, so they will rise the price, then landlords will rise it because their suppliers, then at the end of the list you, me, those workers will have to pay more, less savings, less expenses in the market sound familiar, welcome to live of the poor countries

or bussines rise prices and pay better money so they got less profit, and trust me big one will send their bussines to china or india and they will pay lot less, but for US no more work (Fact India pay english classes, speech classes to their people so they can work in a call center) lets try citibank

Posted by: roston | June 1, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

This is the last itme I'm saying this. If JD or whoever can't hear it, so be it.

This is a republican issue. at least 50% come across mccains border. Reagan was teh last president to offer blancket anesty. Neither bush did anyting to enforce immagration laws on the books. It is so, like above, macdonalds and farmers can have slave labor. Alos so renters pay their landlords more money. Also, the republicans want to flood all social programs in america. They are so scared of socialism they have sold their souls

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 1, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Sorry everybody. This site is garbage. Sorry for the reprint. CC needs better tech support

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 1, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

tHAT'S A COP OUT DILIP. If macdonalds or burger king can't compete in the market without breaking minimum wage laws, THEY can't compete. I think thye are making a small profit at macdonalds though. I think thye can afford to pay higher if thye really wanted to. But why do that when you have another "legal option" to have slave labor. Dry up the jobs for illegals. Dry up the social programs. They WILL go home

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 1, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

tHAT'S A COP OUT DILIP. If macdonalds or burger king can't compete in the market without breaking minimum wage laws, THEY can't compete. I think thye are making a small profit at macdonalds though. I think thye can afford to pay higher if thye really wanted to. But why do that when you have another "legal option" to have slave labor. Dry up the jobs for illegals. Dry up the social programs. They WILL go home

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 1, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

tHAT'S A COP OUT DILIP. If macdonalds or burger king can't compete in the market without breaking minimum wage laws, THEY can't compete. I think thye are making a small profit at macdonalds though. I think thye can afford to pay higher if thye really wanted to. But why do that when you have another "legal option" to have slave labor. Dry up the jobs for illegals. Dry up the social programs. They WILL go home

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 1, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

tHAT'S A COP OUT DILIP. If macdonalds or burger king can't compete in the market without breaking minimum wage laws, THEY can't compete. I think thye are making a small profit at macdonalds though. I think thye can afford to pay higher if thye really wanted to. But why do that when you have another "legal option" to have slave labor. Dry up the jobs for illegals. Dry up the social programs. They WILL go home

Posted by: rufus11_33 | June 1, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

tHAT'S A COP OUT DILIP. If macdonalds or burger king can't compete in the market without breaking minimum wage laws, THEY can't compete. I think thye are making a small profit at macdonalds though. I think thye can afford to pay higher if thye really wanted to. But why do that when you have another "legal option" to have slave labor. Dry up the jobs for illegals. Dry up the social programs. They WILL go home

Posted by: rufus11_33 | June 1, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

ellec says "when in fact, they work jobs that the man who claims his job is stolen won't even consider working"

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. The truth is, the man whose job is stolen won't work that job *at those wages*. If the market weren't flooded (distorted?) at the low end, the wages of those jobs would gradually rise to a level where the jobs would be filled.

The funny thing is, the Dems who claim to be 'for the little guy', are actually hurting the unskilled, uneducated American citizens they are supposed to represent. They do this because they believe they will have a larger pool of uneducated voters who are a natural Dem constuency (ie, good for the politicians themselves, while driving down the wages of those who they claim to represent).

Too bad most of the Dem contuency doesn't see this or chooses to ignore it (mostly unions, blue collar, minorities, etc)

Posted by: JD | June 1, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

'Some top-tier Republican candidates, the natural heirs to conservative religious support, are finding the issue awkward to handle.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been questioned so much about his Mormon faith -- 46 percent of those polled by Gallup in March had a negative opinion of the religion -- that he has taken to emphasizing that he is running for a secular office.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Catholic who says he gave serious consideration as a young man to becoming a priest, is fending off critics who say he should be denied the sacrament of communion because he supports abortion rights.

Religion has become such a common element of presidential politics that during the first televised debate among the 2008 Republican candidates, a reporter asked if any did not believe in evolution -- three Republicans raised their hands: Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo.'

Posted by: and now, for something completely different | June 1, 2007 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Can we work together to find the solution? Everybody see this issue at diffrent angel but the right way to think is that those who oppose i will ask them Did you eat any time in Burger King,Mac donald,Sub way Dunkin Donut or any ethnic rest.,or sleep ove or vacation? The cost of all these places are low because of this workers.When it is impossible to send them back can't we make a viable solution and make one & only one solid and patroic america.

Posted by: DILIP | June 1, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Can we work together to find the solution? Everybody see this issue at diffrent angel but the right way to think is that those who oppose i will ask them Did you eat any time in Burger King,Mac donald,Sub way Dunkin Donut or any ethnic rest.,or sleep ove or vacation? The cost of all these places are low because of this workers.When it is impossible to send them back can't we make a viable solution and make one & only one solid and patroic america.

Posted by: DILIP | June 1, 2007 8:14 AM | Report abuse

I still think the best way to cut down on the illegals rests on the employers being fined a good amount for every one found working for them. The service these folks provide is found in about five or six places/business they work and that employ the vast majority of them. I could be missing something here, and would like for someone to point out where my thinking is flawed. Thanks, lylepink.

Posted by: lylepink | June 1, 2007 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Both Democratic & Republican voted for this mayor, to stop illegal immigration.


The Hazleton, Pa., mayor Louis Barletta who launched a war on the impact of illegal aliens in his city was warned that his future political career would be "haunted" by the decision. Now Louis J. Barletta has won not only the GOP nomination for mayor, which he was seeking, but the Democratic nomination by virtue of 1,200 write-in votes.

Posted by: Dave | May 31, 2007 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Both Democratic & Republican voted for this mayor, to stop illegal immigration.


The Hazleton, Pa., mayor Louis Barletta who launched a war on the impact of illegal aliens in his city was warned that his future political career would be "haunted" by the decision. Now Louis J. Barletta has won not only the GOP nomination for mayor, which he was seeking, but the Democratic nomination by virtue of 1,200 write-in votes.

Posted by: Dave | May 31, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Both Democratic & Republican voted for this mayor, to stop illegal immigration.


The Hazleton, Pa., mayor Louis Barletta who launched a war on the impact of illegal aliens in his city was warned that his future political career would be "haunted" by the decision. Now Louis J. Barletta has won not only the GOP nomination for mayor, which he was seeking, but the Democratic nomination by virtue of 1,200 write-in votes.

Posted by: Dave | May 31, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Both sides of the aisle are so delighted that all party affiliations are divided on this contreversial issue. I tend to believe statistics of Mr. robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, a non-profit unbiased public policy entity. All I know is if the Kennedy/McCain group forces this bill through, without a proper reading by other Senators this country will be in an awful economic mess. If amnesty happens, millions more will come, because they will think the potential is their for yet another amnesty. Then with sponsorship of the millions of extended family members, we will be taxed into the ground for their welfare.

Read the truth and judge for yourself.
www.judicialwatch.org
www.numbersusa.com
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

Posted by: Dave | May 31, 2007 10:36 PM | Report abuse

The problem with illegal immigration is that, at the core, poverty exists all over the world, and it is especially prominent in South America. Building a wall or arresting people for attempting to cross the border will not dispel the fact that the prospect of escaping poverty supersedes the consequences. I think the misconception in America is that "they" are stealing our jobs and resources, when in fact, they work jobs that the man who claims his job is stolen won't even consider working. Why do you think Bush has this visitor program? Because our economy needs illegal immigrants to give you your 99cent hamburger! Why aren't people looking for a solution? All of these immigration and illegal immigration talks are but band-aids to the problem.

If our government really wanted to halt illegal immigration, it would spend money on helping lesser-developed nations grow economically. Supporting the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty would a great step to take, rather than funneling money into inefficient border patrol. According to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually would end starvation. Put into perspective, we have a $522 billion military budget. I may be socially liberal, but I am conservative when it comes to the economy and spending...the Millennium Goals would be a better place to invest the money than endless war.

Posted by: ellec | May 31, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

dr mondo - that is exactly the point of handling border and port and airport security first. It deals with a variety of major issues - not just illegal immigration. And it must be enforced on both borders and all our ports.

I will think that the Congress and the Dept. of Homeland Security have shown some adult behavior when they deal with the borders and the ports, first.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 31, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Since roughly 20% of the illegal immigrants in this country come from central and south america, what do we plan on doing about the other 80%? Are we going to buld a fence across the Canadian border as well? Coincidentally, that's where our recent TB typhoid mary snuck back through our border security after being allowed to fly dispite being on the no-fly list. I'm for safe legal immigration, but don't see any rational plans out there. Just a bunch of slogans.

Posted by: dr mondo | May 31, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

What are the similarities between Selections for individual landing on moon & U.S.A Citizenship Both have same odds to get thr 

So, I think its all DIRTY politics who are opposing this immigration bill. They are share holders in those company who hire illegal workers & but ready to fill there pockets but not ready to give them one chance. You need their son's to fight for this country where their parent's dnt have any rights what you call it double standards.

They talk about terrorist but did they know by this bill you can scan all illegal people who are here but they not ready to do so bcz there intensions are not right. They are using all these tactics for Vote bank only. It's shameful that world power American politicians are so greedy for vote bank.

They can support Distractions of Iraq by attacking them but not ready to go for prosper America with immigrants.

If only Native American oppose then only I can understand but if those who all ready here as immigrants how they can ask other not to be here. Now they say we are legal immigrants Yes that's true but when there parents came here No one have to go by this kind of bureaucracy at that time.

So what I can say is dnt misguiding us.

I am not saying give them amnesty anyway this bill is not amnesty but do a fair Job......If you hang this bill you are playing with national security.

Don't for get for shake of national security our troops are there .You spending tax payer money & Americans blood for American security when you approve war bill on Iraq. Now you have chance to secure America why you siding your self .......

Posted by: rohan | May 31, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

contractors I'm talking about. All respect to the troops. They can't say I won't follow that order. if so they are getting court martailed. That's why all the generals are waiting until they get out to speak against bush and this "war"

Posted by: rufus | May 31, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm 100% serious. The right are the one's who fell for bushes propoganda, and continue to follow. It doesn't matter what republicans tell other rebuplicans as long as they get an answer. Any answer will do. No one has to follow up. It doesn't have to be true. Why else does the right love to run actors. All republicans politicans are actors. They dont' care about this country. They are not patriots. They sold the country out to make REPUBLICANS MONEY. Do you know anyone in iraq right now? Are they a democrat? I doubt it. I know I saw this from the beginning.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 31, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

to mike B. another proof, poeple like you will drive way down this country, so you dont want big corporates everything belongs to the people (reminds me stalin, russia, china o cuba, wich one you like better socialism) even denmark uses computers and software , guess what they have to run under mac or microsoft protocols theres no other way, and for sure 75% of this software were created but bunchs of MBA, and you right, less keep monopolies out of US so you'll see these companies going to somewhere else, with your non MBA probably not even a college degree you wont see Toyota the finest car bet you cant afford one, are yes paying american people to make that work, good money but the way, but who are the top CEO some again MBA asian people, and yes they are beating american companies founded by american people ford, gmc, and the best they pay good, have plants here so they can deduct those expenses from their income resulting in less taxes paid so their revenue guess where they go


you right asian banks, like somebody else wrote, when you post something post it with knowledge, and just another thing China is the best emerging economy and they will beat US in the next few years, perhaps they already did it

and for last well done on your research to post at least you try but please get some background knowledge.

Posted by: roston | May 31, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Ruf said "low educated? Sounds like perfect guina pigs for the right to play their games with."

LOL, you're kidding right?

Posted by: JD | May 31, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

that's right buzz. It's called legal SLAVE labor. But only it's really illeagal. How are Bush and his cronies NOT in jail right now?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Different perspectives on immigration

The Dorgan amendment, eliminating Temporary Workers, failed, 64-31 - every vote in favor of scrapping the program (which would, in turn, have scuttled the entire bill) came from a Democrat.

The Bingaman amendment passed, 74-24. Every senator who opposed reducing the number of visas for the temporary workers program was a Republican, except for Democrats Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The Vitter amendment, eliminating citizenship, failed 66-29, with 38 (of 49) Democrats voting to maintain the "path to citizenship" for illegals, while only 25 of 49 of Republicans voted in accord with them.

The Coleman Amendment failed 49-48, 40 of the 49 Nay votes were by Democrats? No comprende??

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2007/05/29/different_perspectives_on_immigration

Obviously, for Republicans, it isn't that important for immigrant workers to gain citizenship, but they do want as many imigrant workers as they can get.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 31, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

1866? wHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? What world are they living in? the year is 2007. The future is now. John Wayne and Elvis are dead. We have the internet now. The old rules no longer allpy. Your facist tricks no longer work because you can't tell one person one thing, another a totally differant thing and not get caught. The republican party is now done for good. Cable tv (despite Rush/o'reilly/hannity) attempt to destroy it, and the internet change the game

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Buzz, but I just can't get agree with a website/organization that lumps votes together to conclude that Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Pete Defazio are more conservative than John McCain.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 31, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

AndyR writes
"My response to anyone who doesn't like this legislation is what is your solution?"

I still don't understand why enforcing existing laws isn't discussed. People are all up in arms over illegal aliens / undocumented workers - whatever you want to call them. How/why are they getting away with illegal behavior? Seems like this is a law enforcement problem, not a legislative problem, or even a fencing problem. Why don't they take that money going towards a fence and put it into enforcement instead? Then start penalizing the countries the immigrants come from - say, for each person we catch here illegally a second time (or more), we cut $1 million from aid to Mexico (or whereever). We already have rules that people are supposed to follow - both employers & immigrants. Writing new laws that also go unenforced will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

Posted by: bsimon | May 31, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Raging arguments about how in freeing the slaves we would be turning California over to the Chinese...really, y'all should read this stuff.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 31, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"| is half right, the Republicans are doing it (for the cheap labor, as a sop to the biz community). The Dems are doing it too, however; they want to mass influx of low educated, low skill people who they see as their constituency.
"

low educated? Sounds like perfect guina pigs for the right to play their games with. The right will get this influx of people because the president is republican everytime blanket amnesty is offered. They republicans are doing the oppistie of what they are saying IN EVERY CASE. They are selling us out to our enemies (bush ties to saudi arabia and iraq) illegal immigration (mccain bush reagan) war on terror (really just a gimick for certain individuals to make a fortune ie halliburton). Watch what happens on their watch, NOT WHAT THEY SAY TO YOU. The right are playing their people like fiddlers and making a huge profit. Watch the news as a man/woman, not as an american.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 31, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

For any of you who are interested, the 1866 debate was about whether or not the children of Chinese "coolies", largely undocumented, but seen as "necessary" by the railroads to build the transamerican lines, were to be citizens.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 31, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

| is half right, the Republicans are doing it (for the cheap labor, as a sop to the biz community). The Dems are doing it too, however; they want to mass influx of low educated, low skill people who they see as their constituency.

And we get caught in the middle. I'm going to stop voting for these b@stards until someone starts making some sense on this issue.

It's undebatable. These people have broken the law. First, stop more people from doing it. Second, deal with those here already in a way that doesn't insult those who have been waiting in line to go through the process legally.

Posted by: JD | May 31, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Mike B, I am an attorney and I cannot understand what you are saying about the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the USA and subject to its jurisdiction. The floor debate in 1866 made clear that it covered children of illegals and the only exceptions carved were for tribal indians, who were not then considered subject to our jurisdiction, now changed.

Under Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the United States Supreme Court's current position appears to be that there are three types of citizenship: the two defined in the Fourteenth Amendment, birth and naturalization in the United States when subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and non-Fourteenth Amendment statutory citizenship, e.g., the citizenship of Native Americans, persons born abroad to U.S. citizens, and persons born in
Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.

I think the "subject to the jurisdiction" exception would permit an "end run" around the problem you see with the 14th A. that you incorrectly attribute to "Marshall".

A NAFTA amendment could, by treaty, recognize that children of the nationals of each signatory nation born as uninvited guests in another signatory nation were subject first to the jurisdiction of the parents' nation. The Fourteenth would then treat them as not primarily under the jurisdiction of the USA, the way it used to treat Indians. Treaties have equal weight to the Constitution, generally.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 31, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

mCCAIN ADMITTED THAT HALF THE ILLEGALS COME ACROSS HIS BORDER. THEy are flooding the housing job and social services market.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING THIS. The conservative movement is the slave labor listen into you calls, export you job to make a buck, sell-your country out to make a buck party

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Why has Sen. John McCain not become a cosponsor of S. 1348, if it is as great as he thinks it is?

Posted by: Norman | May 31, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 31, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Buzz - I agree that boreder security is a must, but I am very disheartened at your previous suggestion that it would take 2-3 years to complete the fence. This has taken way too long already! I liked your other 'rough ideas' very much, and I would add that any pol who can get border security accomplished will have my support, R or D.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 31, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

re "my great grandfather came to this country many years ago from ireland, they didn't call him illegal"

Many, many people have immigrated and continue to immigrate to the US in a legal fashion. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't set limits or enforce our borders or our laws.

Nearly 12 million immigrants arrived in the United States between 1870 and 1900, more than 70% of which entered through New York City, which came to be known as the "Golden Door." Throughout the late 1800s, most immigrants arriving in New York entered at the Castle Garden depot near the tip of Manhattan.

In 1892, the federal government opened a new immigration processing center on Ellis Island. This coincided with the rise of industrial America, and was probably when your relatives came over from Ireland, fleeing crop failure, land and job shortages, rising taxes, and famine.

The Mexican govt. is complicit in our current illegal immigration problem, and the next president msut address the issue of Fox's refusal to make necessary changes in his own country.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 31, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP,

Moody and Cunningham don't stand a snowball's chance of stopping a fence, if their land happens to be part of the 370 miles where the government really wants to put a fence. Eminent Domain can't be defended against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Border Security is a must. It's the first priority of a very large majority of Americans and its alleged to be the trigger for at least some of the new immigration plan, whatever that immigration plan turns out to be.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 31, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

my great grandfather came to this country many years ago from ireland, they didn't call him illegal, nobody said a word about it. he was able to find work buy a home and live the american dream, as i suspect everyone else's family did as well. get over it people! we created this word called freedom but only want to give it to people we feel that deserve it. take a long look at your family tree and think about were you would be right now if your realitives did not get on that boat and sail here from a far off place. america was never ours to begin with, WE STOLE IT! to think that people that live without the word citizen in there title dont contribute is plan stupidity, everytime they buy gas pay rent go to the grocery store buy cothing etc... they contribute.

Posted by: jay | May 31, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know how this McCain position is playing in Arizona? I'd be willing to bet that he's 'onboard' with this effort to play to the home-state as much as anything or anyone else. He needs that as a base, even if he grabs the nomination. I don't think that he anticipated the backlash, as the MSM hasn't given play to, nor anticipated the depth of the backlash. The bill in its present form is DOA. It will have to morph into something else to get the support it needs in the HOUSE as well as the Senate. BtW. I appreciate the post about Norway.. You should also look at New Zealand, and other ("non-American") countries that have seemed to apply what the "Empire" appears unable to do.

Posted by: L | May 31, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Intersting, isn't it, that the right wing whack jobs reort to name calling and distortions when they are confronted with the fact that LIBERALISM actually works. Razorback calls the unfettered corporate greed of Amercian business "free enterprise". I suppose he also calls period visits to a prostitute "marriage" also. Please cease and desist our twisting the English language! Current corporate practices are a recent invention. At the time of President Roosevelt, a Republican I might note, Enron, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Halliburton, Exxon, etc. etc. would have been called "monopolies" and "trusts" and would have been put out of business or broken up. It was only with the advent of this recent perversion of traditional economic models, since the 1980's, that we abandoned the use of the Sherman AntiTrust Act and the result is the present mess we are in. As for banning the import of cars, I'd be all for it! Toyota makes pretty much all of their cars right here, using Amercian labor, and they are the best built cars in the world. The American worker has been mistreated and mislead by the sociopaths, play acting as "conservaives" and "patriots" for too long. Sometihng we ought to be exporting are the Razorback's and KOZ's and Limbaugh's and other traitors...they and their entire families. Let them go live in China or India or Mexico if they hate this country so much.

Posted by: MikeB | May 31, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

JD says "But shut the @#$% border first".

I second that motion, but I am very disappointed that the border security bill that was already passed has not been acted on more quickly. To go to the airport these days, one has to take off their shoes and go thru a security checkpoint just to get to the gate!! But criminals can wander across our border day and night! It's outrageous! We don't even HAVE a border anymore!

But the bill Bush signed does not include money to build the fence, and it's now clear just how aggressively Congress will pursue this multibillion-dollar project now that the Democrats assumed leadership of the House and Senate. They won't pursue it at all because it may cost them votes.

Additionally, many ranchers in the southwest are opposed to a fence.

Matt Brockman, executive vice president of the 14,000-member Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, says economic and environmental questions -- notably landowners' concerns about access to the Rio Grande -- should be enough to stop the project.

Ranching magantes Bill Moody and Dob Cunningham aren't happy about the possibility of having to give up a strip of land along the river to the U.S. government for fence construction.

Even though Cunningham says that in recent years, thieves cutting through his land have stolen ranch equipment and threatened his neighbors, and some have returned to Mexico with a few of his cows, he says "We'll fight it tooth and nail," including filing lawsuits to stop the fence, if necessary.

With critics such as these Americans living in the Southwest, we will need a bipartisan effort to make improvement happen.

I support McCain's efforts to tackle this issue. At least McCain is willing to take the politcal risk in order to change the status quo on illegal immigration.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 31, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, why wont your boy John Edwards propose to ban importing cars? Wouldn't that save American jobs?

Posted by: Razorback | May 31, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Globalization is not the problem. Globalization would be a great thing. But it has to be decided on. You can't strong arm the system, like what is happening now. American values CAN spread, but it has to be a volcano. We have to get our country right first. Then everybody els e in the world will want to be a part of it. I think the republican plan is to let in people from countries with no future. Use them as slave labor. "You are either with us or against us." Anybody who doesn't agree with republican priciples would leave, and that's exactly what these facists want. As opposed to everyone working together. Republicans CAN only work with republicans. How do you communicate someone who only speacks martian? Either learn martian or hire someone who looks and thinks exactly like you. Facist dittoheads

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, on one of his rants says:

"The government stays out of most businesses but oversees them very closely"

That is a contradictory statement. Were you a John Kerry speech writer? "I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it" sounds like something you would write.

"At the same time, Denmark embraces free trade, competition and little government ownership or involvement in business."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm

FREE TRADE. Got it MikeB?

MikeB, you and your union buddies like to run up wages and benefits to the point that consumers buy elsewhere (such as with airlines), and you wind up screwing yourselves. Unions, (like corporations) are special interests. Only a fool thinks that consumer prices should not be part of the balance when determining what is in the public interest.

The best example of unionism run amok Great Britain in 1975. Garbage men went on strike, and garbage piled up in the streets. Funeral people went on stike, and bodies piled up. The public had enough of it and voted in Thatcher.

Posted by: Razorback | May 31, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin - I really wish people would stop making claims about the inevitability of globalization, about not being able to deport illegals, etc. when what they really mean is they don't want to! Of course we could round up every illegal in this country and deprt them. It would even save us a great dewal of money to do so. A more practical solution however, would be to take the interpretation of the Pryer opinion wsince 1982 before the Supreme court and deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegals. That footnote to the Pryor decsion, another t*rd left us by the late Justice Marshall, is the entire basis by which these children are granted automatic citizenship. It amounts to an enticement for illegals to come here and have their children and wail about not separatng families as an excuse to allow the whole lot fo them here. Remove that and enact and enforce punative laws, including civil penalties, against employers of any illegal for ewhatever reason, and they would voluntarily leave en mass. No job, no access to social services or schools, and there is no reason to stay. They would leave. Likewise, get control of our corporations, force them to be responsible for thiewr actions and actually *earn* the protections they are granted by our government, and you would quickly end this globalization nonsense, too.

Posted by: MikeB | May 31, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Good point Mike B about scandilavian countries. Liberal societies are all great sucess stories. To bad they have to fight facists sell-outs at every turn, sabatoging their sovernity and they way of live. Always trying to tempt the weak and out of touch with $$$$$ bribing them. It's impossible for a socialist soceity to succed when Capitalist sabotage their efforts out of fear. What are you scared of Razor/Zouk?

Posted by: JKrish | May 31, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I got two topics on this and I'm done. I'll leave the trolls to do what the dittohead facists do.

1. The immigration issue is the republicans fault. The laws are on the books, they just wern't enforced. Reagan offered the last blanket amnesty. Bush 41 did nothing to secure it 43 did nothing. Now 43 is offering blanket amnesty again. The laws are on the books they just aren't enforced. Why you ask. High rent for land holders and low wages for all. Also if you flood the social landscape there is no way the social programs the republicans hate so much can help people on the streets.

2. It's not about rounding people up. If the work, for them, dries up they will have to leave. It's as simple as enforcing the laws already on the books. If the companies that hires illegals are shut down they we be force to either leave or resort to crime, which would get then deported.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 31, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday I wrote that there were at least three separate problems here:

1] the painful crunch and crush to border communities - it is all bad.

2] the gross problem of 12m+ illegal aliens in the USA - it is a mixed problem, b/c some will argue that so many illegals are hard workers, contribute more than they cost,etc.

3] national security issues b/c of a porous border and uninspected ports/airports.

I proposed that Congress concentrate on the third problem, first, because it is a very big one; it raises issues of national sovereignty and invited terrorism.

I agreed that fencing, outside the border twin cities, was a waste, but that policing the border was actually well within our capacity, if it were a national priority. No one called me on that assertion - I am appreciative of that because I have little evidence to support it. Still think I was correct, however...
-------------------------------------
After the borders and ports are secured,
I argued that the first two problems required the negotiation of labor protocols long missing from NAFTA, and would take years.

While mass deportations are beyond our capacities, I believe that any comprehensive attempt to address issues other than border/port security requires revision to NAFTA. "Free trade", done without addressing the movement of labor, has ever been an elephant in the room.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 31, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, You are one of those right wing nut jobs that is wrecking this country. Denmark is a success story, one where genuine liberal ideology was given a chance and the result is a country that works, that provides health care and social services and a retirement program and jobs and dignity for all of it's citizens. Workers, as all workers in Denmark belong to trade unions, sit on company boards to keep them honest and to have say in how those buesinesses are run. The government stays out of most businesses but oversees them very closely, to ensure that their activities are lawful and are of benefit to the national interst. If we emulated them, there would not have been an Enron nor a Tyco. We would not have sen Boeing selling cruise missile guidance systems to China nor ITT selling night vision technology to China nor Indian workers stealing little things like our stealth technology or plans for the B2 bomber. We would not witness our corporate sociopaths selling our most sensative national secrets with impunity and purchasing politcial coverage with the profits. But, then, there wouldn't be a FOX News nor would political hacks like Kennedy, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Bush, and the rest of that lot have a chance of ever being elected. Your ideas of "free enterprise" bear all the resemblance to what Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were referring to as does prostitution to love. Current American corporate practices are an evil abomination, more like the Nazi state-corporate conglomerations that wrecked Germany than to sane and patriotic economic practices advocated by Jefferson. Your's is a twisted and perverted world of dog eat dog, amoral persuit of money, with no soul, and (fortunately) no future, either. Go found your new Nazi state somewhere else. This is MY country. You don't belong here and you don't deserve to be here.

Posted by: MikeB | May 31, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Denmark for MikeB?

"At the same time, Denmark embraces free trade, competition and little government ownership or involvement in business."

"There is no government-set minimum wage, but Danes earn livable wages. They also negotiate pension contributions that go into a national fund that is privately administered, but whose earnings the government taxes."

"In Denmark, the unions and business have a working relationship rather than an adversarial one, with shop stewards sitting on company boards."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm

MikeB, I wonder if the unionists in Denmark referred to management as "snot nosed MBS's"?

MikeB has lots of passion, but is woefully lacking on knowledge.

Posted by: Razorback | May 31, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Don't confuse spending money to try to close the border, to actually closing the border. Unfortunately, this bill (and Washington in general) does exactly that.

In the mid 80's when Reagan signed the last amnesty, the deal was amnesty for the (3 million) illegals, and then we'll shut the borders and that will be that. How did that work out?

And people wonder why conservatives and nationalists are so skeptical this time around?

How about this: pass a bill that actually builds a fence, uses enough drones and border patrol to get the job done, even mine the desert if you have to, and otherwise funds and executes until the borders are SHUT. Then we can have a discussion, on the merits, of whatever naturalization procedures the illegals (DON'T CALL THEM 'UNDOCUMENTED') need to go through.

But shut the @#$% border first. Otherwise, STFU, McCain.

Posted by: JD | May 31, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain's argument is extremely weak. Too bad that all those who are given access to him are stiffs and, to be frank, plants.

We wouldn't have the "de facto amnesty" if McCain had been pushing to enforce the current laws. Bush has been extremely weak; when has McCain pushed him to enforce the laws? BTW, how much money has he received from industries that are known to employ large amounts of illegal aliens?

Those are just some of the questions real journalists would ask. Too bad the WaPo doesn't believe in real journalism anymore.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | May 31, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Notice that the right wing apologists for corporate corruption and theft and the treasonous export of our nations technological and defnse capabilties denigrate a clear example of the success that genuine liberalism and an end to globalization can bring. Denmark's companies operate under free enterprise as it was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson and our nations founders. They are not huge, tax dodging multinational criminal enterprises, run by snot nosed MBA's and sociopathic nutjobs that would gleefully sell their mothers soul if the price was right. Companies have an implicit social responsibility to the countries and culture that nurtures them and allows them to do business in the first place. Denmark provides a clear example of how this ought to work. Norway and Sweden and Iceland are following Denmark's example with remarkable results. All of these countries have birth rates and cultures that are very similar to our own. We can either emulate them or fail as a country and as a people. Get off the globalization banwagon, end outsourcing, end guest worker programs that cost Amercian's jobs, and make the possession of an MBA a felony punishable by death.

Posted by: MikeB | May 31, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Mike says:

"Mitt Romney's resume runs circles around all other candidates on both sides. As governor he turned around the mess in Massachusetts"

Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, John Kerry and now Mitt Romney all talked about turning around Massachusetts.

Who keeps turning it back around?

Posted by: Razorback | May 31, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

MikeB:

According to the UN, the annual population growth rate for 2000-2005 is 0.24%.

MikeB, countries with low population growth do not need job growth, so policies that might seem to work for them will not work in countries that need job growth because of growing population.

To quote the great conservative economist Hillary Clinton: "There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets"

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html

Posted by: Razorback | May 31, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"Campaigns often hinge not on which candidate has the more nuanced position on a controversial issue but rather who has the more easily explained stance."

This is a depressingly accurate description of the state of modern politics.

Posted by: kij | May 31, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

One thing that may have passed most people's notice here. Denmark, a country that pretty much climbed off the globalization bandwagon, is due to completely pay off their whole national debt before the end of this year. This is a country with universal health care, polls show to be the best in the world, universal retirement for all citizens, social services that ought to be the envy of everyone, and the an unemployment rate below 3%. They do not permit companies to bring in guest workers, nor allow immigrants, that will displace Danish workers and they tax the snot out of companies that outsource jobs. They have the strictest privacy laws in Europe, amoung the best in the world anyways. A side benefit is an extremely low divorce rate and a falling and already low crime rate, a clean environment, and energy polcies that will cut greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumtion by 50% before 2020. So, don't let anyone tell you that globalization is good for us nor that it is inevitable. Use Denmark as an example and tell them that globalization is a false promise that benefits no one but the rich and powerful, that uncontrolled immigration results in net job and econoimic loss, that we can have it all if we have sensible and intelligent representatives here. Start tossing the McCain's and Clinton's and Kennedy's and Buish's and things can get a lot better in a hurry.

Posted by: MikeB | May 31, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

MikeB:

One seemingly obvious fact that you always ignore is that lower labor costs are passed on to the consumer through lower prices. The last time we tried it your way, inflation was 15% and interest 21%. That is what happens when you take price competition out of the economy.

Posted by: Razorback | May 31, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney's resume runs circles around all other candidates on both sides. As governor he turned around the mess in Massachusetts, he conquered the private sector and doesn't need to work another day in his life, and after 9/11 he served our country well and saved the 2002 Winter Olympics for us all. No one could turn around this country better than Mr. Romney. Even a caveman could cast votes in the senate.

Posted by: Mike | May 31, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

How stupid do these people think we are. Of course it's amnesty. It's dumping millions of new workers onto an already tight labor market that exaserbate the preset downward pressures on wages and benefits. The impact on lower income families will simply be devisating - broken marriages, juvinile delinquency and crime increases, wrecked credit, lost homes and dreams. All so businesses can pit our resident workforce against the immmigrant work seekers to wring wage and benefit concessions. Right now, the Labor Department estimates that two-thirds of the illegal immigrants in this country work for subminimum wages and most do not use social services for fear of discovery and deportation. Legalize them and they will not work as indentured servants or slaves any longer. They will compete for jobs with lower income Americans. Likewise, they will full advantage of available social services, which is going to result in tax increases, added government employees and programs, which will place an even worse strain on Middle Class taxpayers about the same time Bush's "wars on credit" bill comes due.

This whole immigration debate has polarized people into two camps - one that thinks we need to help these desparately porr and mis-used human beings, the other that is degenerating into racist views of Hispanics. Likewise, in Mexico, and elsewhere in South and Central America, we are witnesssing a degree of racism directed against whites and anti-Amercianism that is just sickening, as we witness repeatedly when U.S. sports teams or beauty pagent contestants are boo'd, Amercian tourists are subject to harrassment, armed robbery and muggings and worse.

Both sides are about as morally bankrupt as you can get. First, we have an obligation to feed and clothe and provide jobs for our own citizens, first and well before we run off running up debts we cannot afford. The fact is, we simply cannot afford 12 million illegals. We cannot afford one quarter of that number. They are already wrecking havoc with our economy and they are trying to stay below the radar.

The entire immigration debate is too complex to trust to the political chattering class. These are, remember, the same idiots that got us into Iraq, Democrats and Republicans; the same fools that get absolutely nothing done while the whole country goes ever more in debt, jobs are outsourced, corporations and investors run wild and roughshod over our citizens and country in their unseemly and insane search for money. Mr. McCain is an idiot and a fool. Someone needs to tell him and Senators Kennedy and Clinton and Obama and President Bush and the rest of them that they need to actually *think* about what they are doing for a change.

Posted by: MikeB | May 31, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

bluemeanies.... Actually, a meat packing plant in the south was raided and there were too many applicants for the vacated jobs.

Don't fall for that "jobs no Americans will do" line.... it's the new corporate jingle.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 31, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

To Roston...
Illegal aliens that sneak into Mexico from any country would be put into prisons or shot. ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL! Can't you understand that?

Posted by: WTF | May 31, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I suggest all of you that oppose this law to read it first before putting the word amnesty next to it. I agree that we have laws and we have to enforce them, but that does not mean that the actual law is good. Sometimes and American citizen has to wait 15 years to bring his or her brother to our country. Segregation laws were laws, but that does not mean we have to follow them. That is why we have the congress, to change bad laws. Just look at it in a human way. A father is going to do whatever it takes to feed his child...

Posted by: cay | May 31, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

WTF.... You make a good point.

What this legislation is endorsing is anarchy. Black leaders should be speaking up for the interests of the already disadvantaged U.S. citizens.

If our lawmakers cave in and pass this legislation, it'll prove we're not governed by the rule of law, and the lawless will just demand more.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 31, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

There are approximately 21 million illegal immigrants in our United States at this time.

http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

There are almost 650,000 Illegal Immigrant Fugitives in our country. In reality there are 21 million illegal immigrant fugitives, except for the estimated 338,000 illegal immigrants that are presently incarcerated.

Based on a study done by Robert Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, a low income illegal immigrant household, on average, creates an almost $20,000 annual fiscal burden at the federal level, and a $9,000 annual fiscal burden at the state and local level.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Imm...tst052107a.cfm

It is estimated that since 1996, Social Services for Illegal Immigrants, has cost our country $400 billion.

It isn't, so much, the estimated 10 million jobs that they have taken. They are a boon to our agricultural work.

Much of the money that they earn here, is not spent here, but is sent back to their native countries.

Money Wired to Mexico Since Jan 2006----------------------$31 billion
Money Wired to Latin America Since '01 --------------------$270 billion

http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

Many of these illegal immigrants, become part of the underground economy that thrives in this country; they work for cash, and pay no taxes at all. At the same time we deal with the illegal immigrant problem, we also need to deal with this problem. Immigrant (all) workers need to pay taxes.

The most important thing about any immigration plan is that it shouldn't create another bureaucratic nightmare that our government seems to be so famous for.

Following are some rough thoughts:

Border Security is the first priority. Build the 370 miles of fence, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and surveillance towers.

Since it would probably take 2-3 years for that to happen, and nothing else can be done until we have Border Security, charge our military with securing our Southern border. They are the ones who should be in charge of the border anyway--for a number of reasons--it's much cheaper, and more efficient, and they can communicate all along the 1,952 miles; it's a National Border and it should be controlled militarily.

In the meantime phase in the documentation of the illegal immigrant. Institute a tamper-proof (Relatively Low Cost) biometric Right To Work Card (RTWC), and an easy way to determine if a potential employee is legal. I think to make sure they register for their Right To Work Card , the easiest way would be for the Immigration Program to work in concert with the employer, who would be required to make certain his valued employees register, so they could continue to work for him/her. All illegal immigrant employees, currently working full-time jobs, are immediately eligible, for the Right To Work Card. Any illegal immigrant, failing to legally register, within the prescribed time period, would, along with his family, be subject to immediate deportation

Since the employers are receiving great benefit from these workers, the employers should be more than willing to help bear the responsibility for legal registration of their employees. I personally don't know what the validation/registration process would be, but a simple software program could be issued to the employers, to generate the formatted data, which would then be downloaded into the Federal RWTC database. (which will be designed to eliminate the bureaucratic mess).

Make the program an immigrant worker program--not a path to citizenship--just the right for immigrants to work here in America. Most immigrant workers are here for the money, not for the citizenship. As long as they don't create problems, they can continue to work here.

The immigrants will pay a flat (To Be Determined) working Fed/State tax on his/her income, no dependents claimed, and they won't file an income tax return; this will prevent them from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit, that benefits our U.S. poor. Everything will be handled electronically. We'll know who is in the country, where they are at, and who is, or isn't, working. They won't pay SS, because they won't become U.S. citizens. They won't be eligible for Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid.

The most important thing about developing a system, is to think everything through upfront. Do whatever it takes to prevent another inefficient bureaucratic nightmare. Everything needs to be computerized.

When they leave or re-enter the U.S., they slide their biometric card into the reader at the border; in that way we have a record of when they come, and go. We will also know where these immigrants are at any given time.

Handle everything electronically. If the computer system is designed correctly it can be managed by a relatively small number of people. Eliminate the paperwork snafu. Design the software so that it eliminates the paperwork, and the need for 1,000's of people to manage the system. Find the right database software people to design the system---few people understand how efficient things can be made with a lot of forethought going into the software design.

If the forethought goes into this, a system can be developed, where it benefits the illegal immigrant to register, otherwise they are not eligible to work. A system can also be developed where employers, paying cash, would face severe punishment, and where it would benefit the employees to report these employers. Perhaps immunity, for the reporting employee, for taxes not paid, and a 25% share of any taxes not paid, which will be extracted from the "cash" employer, along with a large fine. Also rewards for the reporting of any unregistered illegal immigrants, by other registered immigrants.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 31, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

to Truthhunter, what a nick man, but used seek for the truth and dont post things " my friend told me and he knows about thi sh.. "
this the fact and the truth and answerme with a real answer not things i pasted answers

ok theres 12 million lets say 8 are working so how or where youre going to get those 8 millions to cover those jobes, fact took more then 5 months to replace 1000 jobs of the meat packers only 1000 so just use math

and there no give away after 24 hrs, it will keep running background check, when they try to get their z another background check, green card other one, yes i shoul say your answer after the work permit they wont look for z, well work permit its good only for 12 months, and companies need to track them, so come on get real, hnt for truth, dont try to make in accoerdance to your opinion, i propose run a pee test first if they are positive bad thing

Posted by: roston | May 31, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Not that stupid 'we're not going to deport them we just want to enforce current laws line'. Give me a break, deportation IS the current law. Are you honestly telling me that you believe that we find, say a meatpacking plant in Nebraska that employees 1,000 people 300 of them illegals the government should reverse the status quo of simply slapping the wrist of the company and deporting the people we'll impose harsh penalties on the company but ignore the people? No, under the imagined scenario the company gets hit, the illegals get deported and the meatpacking plant shuts down for a couple of weeks. Except more of it because we're being stricter.

Many of the people who are all "oh, we don't want to deport all 12 million of them, of course that's an absurd extension of the police state" are the same people who say "the Townsville police should have the authority to check for papers and initiate deportation at every traffic stop". I know thats not all, but some of the real screamers have held the two positions simultaneously.

The current bill does require a level of enforcement before the legalization route is formalized.

Posted by: bluemeanies | May 31, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Travis.... Amen!

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 31, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Proposing a bad or ineffective solution is NOT problem-solving. The problems are 1) nationalism 2) rule of law 3) others including security, disease, welfare. In a real sense, the country is being overrun by those with allegiance to other countries. Doesn't that scare anyone? How does that work in a democracy! And the so-called solution is to set aside the rule of law! McCain, you are wrong!!

Posted by: Travis | May 31, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Something huge that's being overlooked in the illegal alien issue are the multi- million African-American U.S. citizens that stand to suffer the most from providing legal status to illegal aliens!
The select few that are spearheading the current immigration reform bill should get on their knees that there are presently no strong African-American leaders with the vision to safeguard the economic and social status of their people in the face of an oncoming illegal, low wage tsunami of millions of aliens and their families.
The current Black leadership is more concerned with catering to their egos and their new silk suits. If militant Black leadership surfaces, it could easily create havoc in the streets in our major cities and skew the 2008 elections.

Posted by: WTF | May 31, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Andy R. here's a common sense solution that would cost a fraction of what it would cost to administer the terd you're endorsing. Unleash a $100K fine per illegal for any business that employs an illegal immigrant. Make multiple, high-profile raids to show that the government is actually serious about enforcing the law. Businesses will not want to bear that risk and as a result they will not hire anyone who cannot prove their legal status. Problem solved, if there's no jobs the illegals will self-deport. The Washington Post just ran an article the other day with a day laborer quoted as saying the employers are now more reluctant to hire illegals bacause of the recent raids. Proof that enforcement can work and at a much lower social cost than the terd your endorsing. But if you put your money where your pie hole is and voluntarily sign up for the 45% tax bracket, then maybe I'll consider some of your points, but I don't think you'll do that cause you don't think about the cost, that's too much forward thinking for you isn't it?

Posted by: Vincent | May 31, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"Then, those remaining who aren't criminals, members of gangs or terrorists, and want to work, can get in line just like the rest of the world."

What you are not aware of is that there is no line. The current immigration system is strictly limmited to relatives of us.

The 10-20 year line that people talk about is for relatives of US citizens. We presently have no line for unskilled workers or even skilled ones for that matter.

One of the Great things in this bill is that it creates a line for people to get into! ie, guest workers and a point system so that people can come based on merit rather than nepotism.

Posted by: The Law is Different | May 31, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Andy R.... Tell me, just how are all of these monies going to be collected? It'll never happen.

We're going to give illegals legal status with only a 24-hour wait for a background check. Give me a break. The terrorists are jumping for joy!

Before we take on new laws to enforce, let's try enforcing the ones we have.

Then we can figure out how to absorb the millions who want to work and not just abuse our generosity... who want to become law abiding members of our society.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 31, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Truth hunter,
That is why any illegals will have to pay back taxes and a series of fines before they can even get into the system to begin the process to get their citizenship.

My response to anyone who doesn't like this legislation is what is your solution? Sending them all back is impossible for many reasons. Now if someone has a viable third option then I would love to hear it.

Posted by: Andy R | May 31, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

No one is suggesting rounding up the illegal aliens.

Just enforce the borders, penalize illegal-hiring employers and stop the social net except for emergency situations.... in other words, take away the bait.

Then, those remaining who aren't criminals, members of gangs or terrorists, and want to work, can get in line just like the rest of the world.

Let's call this immigration bill what it is, corporate welfare. I'm going to vote for the candidate, from either party, who puts the U.S. worker and the middle class first.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com


Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 31, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"The great white hope" Fred Thompson is off to a rather unpromising start on this complicated issue, intimating-- in his rather simplistic speech last weekend at the Prescott Bush dinner--that the 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States are little more than "suicidal maniacs [who] want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."

SO much for nuance from the latest entry to the Republican race!

Posted by: TK | May 31, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Turkey helps Iran transport weapons to Hezbollah!!!!!!

http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc053007DO.html

Turkish media: Cargo train derailed by HPG (PKK) was transporting rockets from Iran to Syria

DozaMe.org

The Turkish cargo train with serial number 55555, which was attacked and derailed by HPG forces (PKK's armed wing) on May 25, was transporting 300 rockets from Iran to Syria, reports Turkey's biggest newspaper Hurriyet today.

The derailed train turned out to be transporting containers filled with rockets. The containers carrying the rockets had been filed as transporting construction materials and were rolled into Turkey at the border point in Van. The containers were then transported to Lake Van and from there with ferry boats to Tatvan in Bitlis province where they were loaded onto train 55555. The train was then to be transported to Malatya and then to Islahiye before transported into Syria at the Yolbasi border point in Gaziantep province.

HPG had derailed the Turkish cargo train 55555 close to Suveren in the Genc district of Bingol province of northern Kurdistan (southeastern Turkey) on May 25 at 08:00 (8.00 a.m.) EEST. The train was derailed with a remote-controlled bomb placed on the tracks.

HPG said in a statement relating to the derailing that they had had intelligence on the cargo train transporting weapons, but didn't indicate whether they had collected this intelligence themselves or been given it by someone else.

Turkish intelligence service MIT is now investigating the matter. The final destination of the rockets is believed to have been the Lebanese Hezbollah or Palestinian organizations according to Turkish media.

It was also reported that an Iranian cargo plane flying to Syria was forced down to the Turkish military airbase in Diyarbakir by Turkish authorities. The plane was claimed to have been searched by Turkish police and then allowed to continue the flight to Syria when nothing was found.

DozaMe.org reported in August 18 last year that Turkey was helping Iran smuggle weapons to Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah through its Red Crescent organization.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/6609539.asp?gid=180

Posted by: che | May 31, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I agree with a comment posted yesterday by bsimon - anyone who thinks we can round up and deport 12 million people is "an infernal loon".

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 31, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

McCain seems determined to roll with his Straight Talk Express on at least two flats....

The "stay the course" position on the war in Iraq....

And, granting 15 to 20 million illegal aliens (and their families of countless millions) citizenship and the social net that entails.

The Heritage Foundation says the cost to Social Security alone will be $2.3 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits.

How does McCain suggest we fund this boondoggle? More loans from China to keep ballooning our runaway deficit?

Illegal aliens who broke into our country made their choice. They should have to live with the consequences, not our workers and legally in line immigrants.

McCain needs to pull over to the side of the road and take a deep breath....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 31, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I think this is perfect for McCain. It shows he is a problem solver. It also will spell good news for him in the general election because he can point to this as a bipartisan agreement. Whomever is nominated by the Republicans will need to portray themselves as being able to work with the other side of the aisle if they have any hope of being elected.

In addition, Romney and McCain's folks should set-up someway to corner Thompson on this issue soon. He will have to side with one of them and that will help the other one out tremendously. I would imagine that Thompson will side with McCain leaving Romney to take up the anti-immigration mantle.

Posted by: Andy R | May 31, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The pending bill has many shortcomings, which should be soberly addressed by Congress, but it seems they're hell-bent in rushing this first draft into law and trying to tell us idiots that it's the "best which could possibly have been agreed upon."
But McCain and most others are right: any dictionary or practical definition of "amnesty" suggests full forgiveness with no sanctions whatsover.
Those who keep screaming about this bill being amnesty, on the other hand, seem to define it as anything short of the imprisonment or deportation (or both) of every last illegal alien in the country. While that may strictly comply with current law, even Orwell didn't imagine the police-state necessary to bring such an outcome about.
What's really needed is some sanity, especially on the part of the mass media, which would relegate these pseudo-fascists to the dark corner of the imagination they deserve to inhabit.

Posted by: judgito | May 31, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company