May 18 2007
Guest Worker Program Success
Addendum: It seems that all across the right side of the blogoshpere the sky is falling! LOL!. I am so glad I am an independent. Hysterics over documenting undocumented workers is the exact kind of reaction I said would marginalize the right. The far right has officially jumped the shark. The far left has too. And contrary to the doom and gloomers, America will survive and we will elect serious leaders with serious ideas and prosper. Enough already with “the end of the world” wailing. You folks bet the farm and lost. Get over it. – end update
Yes, I know many on the right feel the effort to bring the immigrant workers out into the open and under a more controlled program is tantamount to treason, but I just cannot share these “Drama Queen” fears. And I know my visits will take another hit (as they always do when I post on my support for Bush’s plans for immigration) but so be it. The fact is the Rep Congress had their little test of wills and lost. And now that they do not run Congress Bush is able to do what he needs to get this needed program going. And from what I see it is pretty good plan (not everything I wanted, but I never expected to get what I wanted):
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
…
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called “point system” that would for the first time prioritize immigrants’ education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
…
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a “Z visa” and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
These features (and many more the media is just not reporting on) will deal with the 12 million illegal workers here now (and presumably who have some significant time in – like 2 years minimum). The entire national security component of this plan is to separate those associated with the minor infractions (working without proper papers) from those who are violent criminals and terrorists. Finding a needle in a haystack (the terrorists) is not hard when most of the hay will walk up and move out of the way so you can deal with the bad stalks and the needle you need to find ASAP. This is why those interested in National Security support Bush’s plan because it is the best balance of dealing with the compounded issues involved with illegal immigrants. The plan optimizes and expedites this separation process.
And for new workers the program is really reasonable all the way around
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called “triggers” had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
This is clearly not amnesty. With a fine and back taxes, and limited immigrant worker time and opportunity to stay permanently this is light years ahead of what we have now. I am looking forward to having my prediction come true. And while I will warn my friends on the right not to get all aggitated and angry and spewing names at people who don’t agree with them, sadly I know they will not listen. The anger on the right over this issue is as mindless as the anger on the left over the 2000 election. Logic will not penetrate it. But by the same token, the moderates in America will not tolerate disrespectful and demeaning attacks. So that fastest way to marginalism is to rant and rave about what was an obvious result of the far right’s attack on Bush – which started with Harriet Miers. Many times I predicted we would lose the next three years of the conservative agenda over the civil war the far right started with Miers (see here and here). The far right went from Miers onto Schiavo onto Immigration – and they lost the conservative agenda for 3 years – as I predicted.
I am fairly positive there will not only be hesitency, but outright resistence to the far right if they react in the same fashion which put them on the sidelines in 2006. The Immigration solution is well balanced. It is not driven by partisan ideology but by pragmatic prioritization. It is not out to ‘win’ but to pogress. And anyone who lashes out in anger because the ‘pure’ did not win out over the ‘best’ is going to get shunned. OK, I have given my warning. I am glad to see this success come about in the middle of the battle of partisan wills over Iraq. It shows some semblence of seriousness we have been missing for over year in DC.
For all of those who call themselves “centrists” and mistakenly believe that their position is the “majority” position, you are very much mistaken. The majority of people want the government to prove they are sincere about enforcing the borders before they agree to anything else.
I quote –
“While the President advocates a “comprehensive†reform focused primarily on legalizing the status of illegal aliens, our most recent survey shows that most voters favor an enforcement first policy. Last year, following a nationally televised Presidential Address on immigration, just 39% of Americans agreed with the President’s position.”
The above is ripped directly from Rasmussen. Read it for yourself – http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
Now here is my humble opinion. Every year millions of people cross our southern border illegally. That’s just plain wrong. And it is illegal.
We are the greatest nation on this blue marble. We can accomplish anything we put our minds to. If our government was sincere about stopping the flood of illegal immigrants, it would do it. And yet, it doesn’t. Why doesn’t our government enforce our borders? Anyone care to answer that?
We have been lied to in the past about border enforcement. The last big lie wasn’t that long ago. Remember the border fence that President Bush reluctantly agreed to just prior to the 06 elections? Care to guess how much fence has been built?
They were lying to us then, and they are lying now. They have no intention of ever enforcing our borders. And yet, somehow, in this topsy turvy opposite world that we live in, those of us who realize that we have been lied to in the past are the bad guys for not wanting to go along with another big lie. Figure that insanity out if you can. I know I can’t.
I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. Proving once again that truth is stranger than fiction.
ApacheIP
Here is a little more reality for everyone –
–begin quote–
“Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.
A similar number (66%) believe it doesn’t make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.
However, those who are seeking a compromise on the issue may be underestimating the public desire to reduce the number of illegal aliens already living in the country as well as stopping the flow of future illegal immigration. ”
–end quote–
Did you catch that?
66% believe it doesn’t make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.
Should I say it again? Why not.
66% believe it doesn’t make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/enforcement_first_favored_on_immigration
ApacheIP
Here is more reality for everyone’s reading pleasure.
–Begin quote–
Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.
A similar number (66%) believe it doesn’t make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.
However, those who are seeking a compromise on the issue may be underestimating the public desire to reduce the number of illegal aliens already living in the country as well as stopping the flow of future illegal immigration.
–End quote–
I don’t know how much more clear those numbers can be. The majority favor a enforcement first approach. By a very wide margin.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/enforcement_first_favored_on_immigration
ApacheIP
macker stated:
• I would like to see a little realism on the part of the “just build a fence †crowd. Consider the issues involved with building a pipeline or freeway ( ie. property rights, wildlife management, flood plane management, maintenance etc.) It’s a big deal.
“just build a fence crowd”? what crowd is that? what you really mean are the crowd that wants a fence FIRST before we let the inmates run the asylum. inmates akin to the ones here and at other sites that are prepared to pontificate on a compromise bill that has not even been released to the public, not to mention even to senators.
as to your other canards about the difficulty of building said fence they are strawmen. all borders have deeded access and an easement clause that the government can enforce any time it likes. this has already occurred near san diego in waiving all environmental constraints. what’s lacking is the will. it for these reasons and others that we know bush and kennedy are not being truthful, as had all previous politicians since the 60’s when dealing with illegal immigration.
the question folks such as yourself should be asking is why are you so readily naive in regards to believing this latest round of fiction. given the 40 year history of promises never kept the only rational approach is a fence first policy. the “comprehensive” solution is the same snake oil handle that they have sold all these years. why you keep buying it is one for you therapist.
PN,
•First, show that it was Bush that reneged.
•Second, where were the biometric ID’s and stiff employer sanctions in the 40 years of promises? Aren’t these new?
•Third, San Diego is a short run of fence. Easy to waive the rules.
My “pontification” was based on a Tony Snow interview. What is your “rabble rousing” based on?
Apache:
Oh come on there are all kinds of polls out there. When Bush gave his immigration speech there were polls showing 79% of the people agreed with his views. I have seen polls from Gallup, Fox, CNN and Pew as well as others that show the vast majority support legalization of at least some of these people and guest worker programs for others. AJ has posted several of these polls and they are easy to find. I will not bother linking them since everyone knows they are there and has seen them. This nonsense where I meet your poll and raise you two is silly. Especially when we all know how polls can be manipulated, we have seen it a hundred times.
But elections are not polls and in the last election my hardliner Congressman here in Indiana got his butt beat by a moderate Democrat. In fact after a summer of refusing to compromise a lot of those guys in the Congress got beat. If their views are so largely in the majority, why is it their members aren’t? And it is not all Iraq. This issue has been around a lot longer than Iraq has and it has never been dealt with.
What hardliners are doing here is showing they are not capable of compromise, that means they can not govern as a majority.
This has nothing to do with Bush breaking promises, he has never been a hardliner on this issue or pretended to be. He signed their damn fence bill and sent it along. The man has been waiting for more than 100 days for Iraq war funding…don’t you think if he was capable of just demanding the Congress do his bidding he would have it by now?
The idea here that we can not have new laws until we enforce the old sounds simple, it sounds easy, but obviously it does not work that way or we would not be in this present situation. There comes a time when we need to change the way we do things. To just keep doing the same thing over and over and expect it to turn out different the next time is irrational. That is just common sense.
Most people want more border security and the bottom line is that if hardliners kill this bill in a tantrum it will not be Ted Kennedy that gets the blame. for a lack of men on the border. It will be the GOP. The Democrats will say they tried, but the Republicans killed border security because their fanatics refused to compromise. Maybe you think the American public will thank you for that. But I doubt that.
But go ahead, I have reached the point on this issue where I think the whole thing is a waste of time anyway. You people will never be pleased or happy with what you get…you will just complain and on and on it will go. I will listen to hardliners act as if every government official in every level of government is part of some freaking conspiracy to give America back to Mexico or whatever and they will bully and shout down everyone else. Waste of time.
The Democrats must be loving this.
Oh come on there are all kinds of polls out there. When Bush gave his immigration speech there were polls showing 79% of the people agreed with his views.
The problem here is that the info I have says that 100% of the people don’t even know what his views are.
I have seen polls from Gallup, Fox, CNN and Pew as well as others that show the vast majority support legalization of at least some of these people and guest worker programs for others. AJ has posted several of these polls and they are easy to find. I will not bother linking them since everyone knows they are there
They would be meaningless anyhow because they are polling people that are mostly clueless on what is in this new ‘talked about’ law.
But elections are not polls and in the last election my hardliner Congressman here in Indiana got his butt beat by a moderate Democrat.
Who was even more anti-illegals than the man he beat.
What hardliners
Again, a harliner is a person that wants laws enforced.
This has nothing to do with Bush breaking promises, he has never been a hardliner on this issue or pretended to be. He signed their damn fence bill and sent it along.
Know full well it would never be funded or built.
The idea here that we can not have new laws until we enforce the old sounds simple, it sounds easy, but obviously it does not work that way or we would not be in this present situation. There comes a time when we need to change the way we do things. To just keep doing the same thing over and over and expect it to turn out different the next time is irrational. That is just common sense.
Wow, what an understatement. you say: There comes a time when we need to change the way we do things. but then come right back and say lets pass new laws while still not enforcing existing ones. ie, do the same thing again. ignore present laws and pass new ones so we can ignore them also.. Insanity?
Most people want more border security and the bottom line is that if hardliners note: people that want to enforce the law kill this bill in a tantrum it will not be Ted Kennedy that gets the blame.
He didn’t even get the blame for killing Mary Jo.
You people note: people that want to enforce the law will never be pleased or happy with what you get…
The Dimmycrats must be loving this.
.
my comment just got ate.
Dafydd has an interesting post on this:
Hint for those who aren’t good on current events: The Democrats control both houses of Congress. They control the agenda. They control committee chairmanships and how many of each party gets to sit on the committees.
The committees generally write the bills.
The committee membership picked by the majority Democrats does not include many Blue Dogs (conservative Democrats); rather, it’s far more left-liberal than the Democratic Party itself, and even more liberal than the Democratic conference in Congress. Liberal Democrats oppose border security; they are ideological true-believers in totally open borders… and they also believe that immigrants (both legal and illegal) who vote (both legally and illegally) tend to vote Democratic.
And you know what? They’re right. Hispanics in general tend to vote, oh, 55-45 for Democrats; but among recent citizens, the ratio is much worse for Republicans.
Finally, the nutroots, which drives elections for Democrats much more than the rightroots does for Republicans, is 100% against securing our borders, for a variety of reasons. Thus, the very people who write the bills have an ideological reason, a practical reason, and a political reason not to enact border security.
So why did they support it this time? Because there is a ton of border-security pressure coming from Main Street, and the Democratic leadership was afraid to buck it. But lo! If they were to offer this bill with lots of border security, and if the Republicans defeat it by filibuster — then the Democrats are off the hook: They can blame the lack of border security entirely on the GOP, and we’ll get hammered even harder in 2008 than we did in 2006.
But that’s all right, because the GOP leadership all have safe seats… so they’re not worried. Most of them spent many, many years in the minority before and may actually be more comfortable there; in the minority, you get to fulminate and make grand gestures, but you needn’t do the hard work of actually governing.
enforcement:
My understanding is that they are still working on the bill. This compromise is just a rough outline. There will still be lots of debate and in the long run the hardliners will probably kill it and leave us right where we are and where we have been for some time. When it comes to being obstructionists, Daschle has nothing on them.
Gulliani has come out for the biometric cards. Silly man is worried about terrorists, instead of worrying about the Reconquista.
And I see from a post at Roger Simon that Fred Thompson is in trouble with some folks because he had the temerity to say we needed more bipartisan cooperation. Imagine that. I guess Fred will have to be pillaried now, just like Bush.
And Ed Morrisey who is a very strong conservative is supporting a compromise if it includes stronger border security and of course the fanatics are threatening to never darken his door again.
Really, you guys just need to be honest about what you want, nominate Tancredo and go for it. If you are really such a large majority and if everyone shares your feelings…no doubt he would win.
One thing I would like to add before I go plant my garden:
If people did not want these people here, they would not be here. We can blame the politicians all we want, but they did not create this situation without all of us.
I grew up in the south. I am 55 years old. I saw what a white majority bound and determined could do to a minority when they wanted to. I saw what happened to both blacks and natives. I am not playing some guilt trip here…that is not my point. I am simply pointing out that if there was not some desire on the part of a significant part of the population for these people to be here…they would not be.
The southwest always had a significant Spanish population. It was always there. Look at the names on the maps, do they sound French to you? ElPaso, Corpus Christi, San Diego, San Francisco, San Antonia, Rio Bravo, ElPaso, Los Angeles….barn door…horse. I can remember being a little girl and going to places in Texas where the locals spoke Spanish. But in those days Dallas and Fort Worth were seperate cities too. Lots more people now.
I hope this new President Calderon will help. He seems different from Fox and he says he wants to bring jobs to Mexico and stop the migration. But then again he is not supportive of a wall. But if Mexico and the rest of Latin America could get it together it would help with this problem as much or more as almost anything we could do up here.
I wonder how people would feel if Calderon managed to attract enough business that the jobs started going the other way?
Terrye
My understanding is that they are still working on the bill.
And without knowing what’s in it, how can you be either for or against it. Do you add salt to your food on the table before you taste it, or do you wait until you have evidence that it needs salt?
This compromise is just a rough outline.
What? see:My understanding is that they are still working on the bill. How do you know if it is an ‘outline’ or a fully documented, detailed deal. The answer, of course, is: you don’t know.
There will still be lots of debate and in the long run the hardliners note: people who want the law enforced will probably kill it and leave us right where we are and where we have been for some time.
Gulliani has come out for the biometric cards.
Big f******g deal.
And Ed Morrisey who is a very strong conservative except on immigration is supporting a compromise read, sellout if it includes the promise of stronger border security and of course the fanatics are threatening to never darken his door again.
Really, you guys note: people who want the law enforced just need to be honest about what you want, nominate Tancredo and go for it. If you are really such a large majority and if everyone shares your feelings…no doubt he would win.
Not really.
.
I wonder how people would feel if Calderon managed to attract enough business that the jobs started going the other way?
Good question, and suppose these jobs were highly paid skilled jobs requiring good educations and white anglo’s from the USA moved there in such numbers that they became a majority. And started running for public office. Do you think the average unskilled, uneducated Mexican would be real happy with that situation? Do you think they would want a wall built to keep the white people out? Do you think they would pass a comprehensive bill to give these USA people even more rights and freedoms and dole out even more benefits to them. Sure they would.
.
Macker stated:
PN,
•First, show that it was Bush that reneged.
•Second, where were the biometric ID’s and stiff employer sanctions in the 40 years of promises? Aren’t these new?
•Third, San Diego is a short run of fence. Easy to waive the rules.
My “pontification†was based on a Tony Snow interview. What is your “rabble rousing†based on?
read the footnotes that will be forthcoming. even tony snow admits by accident that the fence bill as signed last fall is being changed. the homeland czar has already stated as much. the mix of double wide fencing has been changed to electronic. electronic fencing is not meant to stop illegal immigration–it simply keeps a head count.
all prior bills dating back to the 1960’s included work place enforcement. while the amnesty provisions were always granted up front the work place sanctions were always defunded. in fact the same language was used about the fence last november when the dems proudly announced that no funds, despite being previously approved, would be spent on a “physical fence”. hugh hewit pinned tony snow on this issue. of the 800 miles of fence how many miles have been built? two, and the construction has stopped.
again in regards to the actual fence building–the government has deeded access and easement rights that supercede all private property rights when it comes to the border. the environmentalists and open border advocates learned this lesson in san diego. it is just a matter of will power.
finally “my pontification” is based on the history of illegal immigration and the political response to it over these last 40 years. i am not naive enough to base my conclusions on a political spokesman promising me that he would do something that he has never done despite prior promises. that is the very definition of insanity—repeating the same behavior, over and over, expecting a different result.
if you trust bush and company so much–build the fence first and then grant all the other provisions. are you worried that if the fence goes up you won’t get the others? I know from history that if we do it your way we will never get the enforcement. that is not an opinion–those are the actual facts. read the barbara jordan commision 1990-95 conclusions on immigration policy from 1950-1995.
FE, Mexico already has a wall on its southern border and they don’t treat illegal immigrants very will at all, unless they have enough money to bribe their way through.
The biggest problem with this bill is that the day it is signed, there is actually no such thing as an illegal immigrant anymore. Every single immigrant here is assumed to be eligible to apply for a work visa, therefore are given a prima facia legal status “temporirarily” until they can file for paperwork. This essentially stops law enforcement and ICE from processing any formerly illegal alien as an illegal and deporting them. While that does not mean they are a citizen or green card holder, they are still allowed to stay! As far as the people who come across the border in the future, how does law enforcement know when they crossed the border. Whet it does in effect is to legalize the illegal status! That is so obviously intented to make us an open border country! Tell me how I’m wrong! I just saw George Steffanoupoulos on This Week press Mitch McConnel on this and Mitch was tougue tied! I’ve also seen a lot of comment on the other blogs about it and heard Ruxh Limbaugh press Tony Snow on this friday and Tony tap danced all around it.
That is the big question, do we want to be an open border country where anyone who walks across that border is legally allowed to be here? If that is what you want, then you would be supporting this bill.
Terrye:
Yes, polls are very easy to manipulate. I agree completely. You cited a perfect example of poll manipulation – “the vast majority support legalization of at least some of these people and guest worker programs for others”. That is probably true. If the polling company asked only that one simple question, or they asked more questions but only reported the results to the one question, then they reported truthfully but didn’t report the whole picture. Ergo, they are manipulating the public. On that point we are in complete agreement.
I support some sort of documentation and legal status for the illegal immigrants currently here. So I would have answered that poll with a “yes”. Where you and I seem to disagree is the WHEN that is done. I want to see it done AFTER they stop the inflow of illegal immigrants.
And that puts me in the majority, as some aptly demonstrated by the poll I cited.
All of you who believe that we need to do some sort of “comprehensive reform” in one fell swoop, PRIOR to securing our borders and enforcing existing laws, are in the minority. A rather small minority.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to see our government secure our borders and enforce existing laws, PRIOR to making new laws. Try as you might, you can not come up with a good argument as to why that is a bad position.
The Iraq war cost the Republicans votes.
Growing the size of government cost the Republicans votes.
Earmarks cost the Republicans votes.
Jack Abramhof (sp?) cost the Republicans votes.
Foley cost the Republicans votes.
The constant negative portrayal of the Republicans and all things conservative by the dinosaur media, cost the Republicans votes.
And if the Republican party goes against the wishes of the vast majority on the “comprehensive reform” bill, they will be regulating themselves to minority status for decades. It is entirely possible that the party may never recover from it.
And since I am a conservative, and the conservative light party (aka Republican party) comes closest to representing me, it would be a sad day for me personally if they became the minority party. I could argue that it would be bad for our country, but I will save that argument for some other day.
Best wishes,
Chuck
Lot’s of excellent comments from a few.
Mark Steyn has a good Article on this in the Chicago Sun Times, as well as a lot of good comments at the Corner at National Review, Mark Levin takes on the Wall Street Journal at his National Review Blog. And Debbie Schlussel has some Information from a Homeland Security Official.
Glad to see A.J. is now an Independent.
From Debbie: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/05/exclusive_dhs_o.html#trackbacks
1) Temporary Worker Program (TWP) aliens will NOT be checked against the most basic databases–so we have no way of knowing who these aliens are (they can give whatever name they want to give and it must be accepted at face value) and whether they are terrorists or criminals.
2) Currently, CIS officials are “encouraging” all immigration and citizenship application adjudicators to approve 10 applicants per hour. That means no more than 6 minutes per applicant is spent checking who they are, CURRENTLY. Imagine what will happen under this new Amnesty Bill when over 100,000 people per day must be processed
3) All applicants to the TWP and citizenship parts of the bill have at least a 24-hour until their fingerprints and info go online all over the country. That means they have a 24-hour window to apply at multiple CIS offices to get multiple citizenship documents under various names and identities. There is no check on this.
4) Even where backgrounds are checked and/or applicants are caught with terrorist or criminal problems or inconsistencies, ICE(Immigration & Customs Enforcement)–which investigates and enforces against them–turns down 79% of the referrals it gets from CIS, and those people get to become citizens, anyway. Wonderful.
5) The increased border presence and toughness? Don’t hold your breath–this quid for the quo of giving citizenship to millions who don’t deserve it–is really not a quid at all. This bill doesn’t guarantee that, unlike the Mainstream Media’s false reports. All it guarantees is that 6 months or so from now Michael Chertoff promises to give President Bush a plan for what he’ll do 18 months beyond . . . when all of them are out of office and heading for shuffleboard and the Early Bird Special in retirement in Miami or Boca or whereever. OH, and by the way, the “increased border security” in the air will be a scant two drones each for thousands of miles of unmanned territory on our northern and southern borders. What a joke.
6) Don Crocetti, Director of CIS’ Fraud Detection National Security Unit, is responsible for all the national security background checks at CIS, benefit fraud analysis, etc. He was investigated and censured by congress for his role in the Citizenship USA scandal at INS. Guh-reat!
I’m sure many will poo poo this at this blog, including the host. There is much more at the link provided.
My only other parting thought is this: This bill if signed seals the minority statues of the Republican Party, as far as House Seats and the Senate. I think they would still have a shot at the White House over the next two Cycles. But not beyond that.
Well, my last post here was on 3/15/07. Judging from that, I’ll be back in a few months.
Enjoy your day folks!
bikkerken, you addressed your last comment to me. If you can read anything I’ve written and interpret it in any way to be supportive of this ‘so called’ comprehensive bill, then you have just totally misinterpreted me. I support nothing about it. In fact, my name, For Enforcement, was derived from my position on illegal aliens. I am for all present laws being enforced that apply to them. Once that is accomplished, I don’t feel we’ll need any new laws, but if we do, and pass them. Then we could feel like they would be enforced also.
The only new law I would like to see is one that requires every illegal alien to register with the gov. within 6 months and get an ID card and if you don’t register within that time frame, you become a felon, never to be elibible for legal entry into the US. That’s it.
Bikker, I do understand your position and agree with practically all of it.
\
I think the problem is people are talking past each other. One side wants to find a solution and the other side wants what they want and if they can not have that to hell with it.
I am not adverse to shutting down the border. I am not adverse to seeing all the illegals either legal or gone or whatever. The thing is Republicans are in a minority and while they can try to negotiate as good a bill as they can get, they can not and do not control the process anymore. And when they did, they could not find easy answers to this.
I think the hardliners will kill the bill, brag about it like it is a great thing and then not be able to come up with a better alternative and in the long run they will just look like spoilers and it will hurt them.
I hope I am wrong.
enforcement:
If they become felons you have to arrest them, process them, try them and put them into prison at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a year. And then there would have to be more prisons and law enforcement. I know you say there would not be, but if you create a new class of felony and want that to mean anything at all then you will have to be prepared to deal with the influx of millions of people into our courts and prisons.
Better to just try and deport them. If they could make certain of them legal and get the numbers to deport down to even half what they are now it would be a lot easier to manage.