Jun 14 2006
Hastert Fiddles As Party Destructs
Well, one thing everyone agreed was that immigration had to be dealt with and not shelved. The hard liners who cannot tolerate MORE than beefed up border security in the House have decided to make a bad situation worse and ‘learn’ about the Senate Bill:
Hopes for a quick compromise on immigration were dealt a blow Tuesday after House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he wanted to take a “long look” at a Senate bill offering possible citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.
Hastert said hearings on the Senate bill should be held before appointing anyone to a House-Senate committee to negotiate a compromise immigration bill. Later, he said he was unsure what the House’s next move would be.
“We’re going to take a long look at it,” Hastert said late Tuesday.
House Majority Leader John Boehner agreed. “I think we should know clearly what’s in the Senate bill,” Boehner said. But he added there are lots of ways to understand its contents.
What have these yahoos been doing? They should be all up on the details already. This is not about them learning a thing. This is about ‘educating the public’ who are whole heartedly against the hardline house bill. Well, it was a good run while it lasted, but we all knew there would be a time where the far right would try and jump farther than the country was willing to go and they would pay the price. It is the way of life and the ever swinging pendulum of politics.
There is a solution for those who want a pound of flesh (as opposed to back taxes and better assimilation) which I proposed a while back (here). Basically it is proposal to deport real criminals who are immigrants, instead of trying to make working for a living a felony. While the House is pondering an issue they should know by now, they might want to consider thisbsolution and stop wasting time.
CrossP, you know better than that, You said:
“Actually, the “amnesty†in the Senate bill isn’t so easy. They would have to keep a job, stay out of jail, learn english, and after 11 years they would have a shot at citizenship. If they land in jail in that time, they go back where they came from. I honestly don’t have a problem with that.”
If on one one hundredth of that were true, it might be worth considering.
” If they land in jail in that time, they go back where they came from.”
Where do you get that from? I can’t find it.
“learn english” Where is the requirement for that? There is a requirement that they enroll in an English course, but no requirement to attend or learn or pass any proficiency test and WE get to pay for it.
I’m not on the far right, but I believe that the Billbray election was a sure sign of what is gonna happen.
BurbankErnie said:
“but there will be NO IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL THIS YEAR. At least not the crap that came out of the Senate”
In fact if that”crap that came out of the Senate” were to pass it wouldn’t be a Reform, just a blanket ‘AMNESTY FOR ALL’
patrick neid, After reading what you said above, I feel you may be the only one I’ve read that fully understands the immigration issue. The only thing you may be just a shade off on is in thinking the discussion is just on the length of the fence. I think that part is a complete smoke screen also. There will never be 100 miles of fence. Never.
If it were as simple as just enforcing laws, then what was the problem in the first place? Which laws? They are conflicting and unenforcable and that is the problem.
As for people attacking the Senate Bill I have heard so much misinformation about this bill from the right that I think they were all set to bitch and moan before it even came out.
Nonsense about how illegals will have more rights than the rest of us and the plan to import 100 million workers in 20 years is just plain wrong. It shows that one side of the debate is not acting in good faith and it also shows that they are more interested in attacking the Senate Bill than they are in coming up with one of their own. I do not trust them or their figures. That is what Savage and Malkin and Tancredo have accomplished, I do not trust or believe their rhetoric on this issue.
Of course tot he people who think taht a 30 year old man who has been here since he was 10 year old is just another criminal and any effort to allow him to become legal is a sin against humanity or something there is no solution. They would rather see mass graves than amnesty. They would rather see families split up than anything that might be construed as amnesty. They are fanatics and as long as they are calling the shots there will be no solutions, just hysterical and emotional assertions of betrayal.
But to say this is an out and out amnesty for all is a lie. A big fat lie.
FROM ABOVE
Hey Rob,
“Set out a little water�? The oldest truism known to mankind is that if you want more of something, subsidize it. How about instead of a little water, you hammer a sign in the ground with an arrow pointing back to Mexico?
Left by Kenny Bania on June 14th, 2006
Just one correction Kenny, The sign should be pointing toward Mexico and say “Nearest Water”
trentk269
Now that was funny, I don’t care who you are.
to quote Larry the Cable Guy.
TERRYE, AJ had a post yesterday called
“MAKING THE NEWS FROM WHOLE CLOTH”
Well, quoting you from above:
“As for people attacking the Senate Bill I have heard so much misinformation about this bill from the right that I think they were all set to bitch and moan before it even came out. ”
and
“Nonsense about how illegals will have more rights than the rest of us and the plan to import 100 million workers in 20 years is just plain wrong. It shows that one side of the debate is not acting in good faith and it also shows that they are more interested in attacking the Senate Bill than they are in coming up with one of their own. I do not trust them or their figures. That is what Savage and Malkin and Tancredo have accomplished, I do not trust or believe their rhetoric on this issue. ”
I believe you are just making it up. Most of the misinformation on the Senate bill are in the other direction. If as you say “one side of the debate is not acting in good faith” then I feel that it may be the side that you represent. Basically it is just an AMNESTY FOR ALL bill and those that try to say it either does more or does less just simply don’t understand the bill, yes it says a lot of things but requires little other than requiring AMNESTY FOR ALL . Shouting louder and trying to make other people think they are the ones that are not right won’t change that.
You also said: “I do not trust or believe their rhetoric on this issue. ”
Would you kindly say what it is about your rhetoric that would tend to make someone believe it?
I’ve decided to make a Statement on immigration that everyone of us can adopt as our belief
Here it is:
“What I understand about the Immigration situation is the only correct one. Nobody understands it as well as I do. Neither the House Bill or the Senate Bill will completely solve it. But I feel like you are wrong in what the Senate bill will do, you didn’t read it correctly. What you believe is in it, is not there. No matter what you say, you’re not gonna change my mind. If you don’t believe as I do, then you are just wrong.”
Don’t you agree?
Making it up?
Well I heard you say that this bill would give illegals more rights than the rest of us and Big Lizards did a very good take down on the whole 100 million lie that was out there. And I heard Tony Snow correct Rush Limbaugh on his assertion that illegal entry was a felony, he was going on and on about this and did not even have that basic fact right. And no it is not outright amnesty for all. People who have been here for a short time have to go back or be deported. People who have been here for five years and are employed and who pay a fine and back taxes and can pass a background check might get a shot at citizenship. People stopped at the border will continue to be sent back as well. There will still be people deported, it does not make it ok to come into the country illegally.
I am not a great fan of the bill, I think compromises can be reached if people on both sides of the issue are willing to be reasonable, but on the right all I hear is hysterical emoting and you know what? So far they have spit to show for it, other than treating anyone who disagrees with them [including the President] like a traitor.
In the end it will probably be like Dubai with the loudest people accomplishing nothing other than making fools of themselves and wearing out the patience of people like me.
Now I’m getting really confused. AZR, the examples you listed — are those amendments that did or didn’t pass or are they part of the main Senate bill? If there is a provision in the Senate bill that allows an illegal to not pay taxes for 5 years and then allows that same illegal to “make good” by paying 3 of the last 5 years, that is a right I, as a legal U. S. citizen, do not have. If an illegal can steal my (or your) SS # and then count all income earned while illegal toward SS benefits, then that is a right I do not have. These are the 2 deal-breaker provisions of the Senate bill that I’ve seen most widely referenced. Are these in the bill or are they not? Anybody know? If they are, are there other provisions that are also deal-breakers? I wrote to my Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, nearly a month ago, and asked him to explain his rationale behind voting for the initial bill. No answer so far.
TERRYE, you said:
”I am not a great fan of the bill, I think compromises can be reached if people on both sides of the issue are willing to be reasonable, but on the right all I hear is hysterical emoting and you know what? ”
LOL
That’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
“if people on both sides of the issue are willing to be reasonable, but on the right all I hear is hysterical emoting and you know what?
What you meant to say was, If those hysterical emoting people on the right would just be reasonable, then us lying emotional people on the left wouldn’t have to be. Right?
Retired Spook , I have read everything in the Senate Bill, and I think I have at least a basic understanding of what is in it. So I’ll try to answer your questions.
you asked: “illegal to “make good†by paying 3 of the last 5 years, that is a right I, as a legal U. S. citizen, do not have. ”
This is IN the bill, but it, in fact, does not require any taxes to be paid, only to file for those 3 years, you get to pick which 3(and of course no taxes may be due for those 3, so you wouldn’t have to pay)
You don’t have that right.
You asked: “If an illegal can steal my (or your) SS # and then count all income earned while illegal toward SS benefits, then that is a right I do not have. ” This part is true. It is IN the bill.
This is a right you don’t have.
Every single item that is claimed to be in the bill, whether it is in it or not, is NOT required. There are exemptions and exceptions to enforcement FOR EVERY SINGLE ITEM in the bill except for one and that one is AMNESTY FOR ALL.
I have made this statement several times and so far no one has disputed it.
Just to show you how ridiculous it is.
One provision is that you can not get an exemption to the requirement for having a job until after you get into the US., but there is an exemption to that also. The entire bill is written that way.
This column by Sarah Chamberlain Resnick (a Republican) in today’s Post is a must read. The whole thing. Couple of excepts here.
TERRYE you said
“And no it is not outright amnesty for all. People who have been here for a short time have to go back or be deported. People who have been here for five years and are employed and who pay a fine and back taxes and can pass a background check might get a shot at citizenship.”
as I said just above, and as I have quoted specifically to you in the past, THERE IS AN EXEMPTION available for every one of those situations. NO, NONE, NADA, ZIP, PROOF is required as to how long someone has been in the US. All they have to do is sign a statement themselves as to how long they have been here, and I believe very few given the choice of a)less than 2 b)more than 2,less than 5 or c) more than 5 are not gonna choose c. when the proof for each is the same.
Why is it in your interest to mislead people? What is in it for you?
Enforce the current Laws.
Too convoluded? That is rich. Too many conflicting immigration laws? Really? Stay too long on a Visa? Gone. Snuck in ILLEGALLY? Gone. Hire Illegals? Pay BIG FINE AND JAIL. That was tough.
Quiz: When Reagan passed the Amnesty Bill that allowed, oh, 20 million Illegals to stay, and now the Amnesty crowd wants, oh, 20 more million to stay, what will you say in 20 years when, oh, 20 million more want the get out of jail free card?
I am pretty useless when expressing my feelings, but Mark Steyn says it oh so much better then I. Go to his site and enjoy the read. Brilliant.
crosspatch that linked article is gonna require some disecting. Those “Republicans” that write for the “Post” just may not have real Republicans interests at heart, but I’ll disect later, too busy right now
FE, you are jumping to conclusions. Actually, what you are doing is called “catastrophizing”.
You are taking a worst possible case and applying it to all cases. You note that there is the potential for exemption or waiver of a requirement, and then you conclude that it would be used in every case. It is quite reasonable that there be a method of waiver for these conditions because there might be special circumstances where we might want to allow someone to stay even though they are technically not qualified. An example might be the illegal immigrant parent of a Congressional Medal of Honor winner.
You imply that the waiver would be used in every case of every individual. Would you please present evidence that this is the intent of the legislation rather than producing rectally extracted scenarios?
And here you claim to know by exactly what procedure a waiver will be granted. Again I claim rectal extraction because the procedures by which waivers would be granted would not be written by ICE until the legislation passes. Again you are jumping to a worst case (not to mention completely illogical) extreme and implying it is the norm.
I would ask this question of you, sir.
BurbankErnie,
When you can only imprison 2.2 million people at a a time, you have to prioritize. And at this point, folks working for a living – and not hurting anyone else – are people way down on the list when compared to terrorists, MS-13 gang members, and other folks. And a lot of the folks who we need to go after before folks who are working without proper paperwork are born-and-raised Americans, who themselves are capable of doing very bad things to people.
Spook: Every thing I listed a Republican vote for (except the bill) was a recorded vote of an amendment THAT PASSED . On other items, I defer to Enforcement, since unlike him,I did not read the total bill. In examining the votes, I had only the one line description of the amendment plus whatever I picked up in watching the debate on CSpan, so may be some lacking detail that changes the meanings some.
One of the points that I obviously failed to make was all of these items passed, but NONE had a majority of the Republicans vote for it.
Hence my comment re: a BLUE bill.
Anything that gets through the Senate is going to have to be a “purple” bill to some extent. The shade of purple might vary from violet to magenta … but there is going to be both blue AND red for something to pass that chamber.