Jun 04 2007
The Immigration Insanity
Why would anyone who has supported this President through all the tough times he has endured trying to protect this country and destroy those who attacked us on 9-11 call for his impeachment over policy differences?
It has pitted some of Mr. Bush’s most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign lawbreakers when he should be focusing on border security.
Postings on conservative Web sites this week have gone so far as to call for Mr. Bush’s impeachment, and usually friendly radio hosts, commentators and Congressional allies are warning that he stands to lose supporters — a potentially damaging development, they say, when he needs all the backing he can get on other vital matters like the war in Iraq.
“I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty,†said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill’s legalization process for immigrants. “We are not all that stupid.â€
Impeachment, eh? Look, in a democracy sometime you LOSE. What is stupid is people saying fines and back taxes are the same thing amnesty. They are penalties. They are just not the penalties these people dream about. What they want is people booted out of the country. The Immigration Hypochondriacs have a form of BDS so bad they have succumbed to making up theories based on wild speculation and assuming everything will be a disaster no matter what Congress passes.
Sorry, but my patience with those who would join Dennis Kucinich in calling for Bush’s impeachment because they are losing a political battle is over. When these same hot heads went off on Harriet Miers because they did not know her positions, and then filled them in with all sorts of scary fantasies they made up in their heads, we all joined back together again to support Bush in the war and on other subjects.
When these same people went off again on the Dubai Ports deal and cost us the cargo container inspection devices Dubai Ports World and the UAE was willing to put in place in all their port handling facilities which feed US ports (which is THE WAY to detect WMDs coming into this country), we cons once again pulled back together. Even though many of us thought the far right had lost their minds.
So it is clear these people will continue to use poor, emotion-driven judgement to put the conservative movement and our country at risk whenever they get their backs up. It is not so much they have views. It is they pillory people and use character assassination and rumor to try and smear the opposition. They don’t have arguments. Their inability to work with others is on full display over the Guest Worker Program element of the Bill. They oppose a Guest Worker Program of any form. Always have. We join in the border component and split on the worker component.
But the immigration hypochondriacs cannot live sane with compromise. So they are going ballistic and using terms like ‘stupid’ (and ‘RINO’ and ‘quisling’ and ‘traitor’) while running around like drama-queen Laura Ingraham acting all hurt that Bush (and others) have turned on them! The drama-queen stuff is really rich. After years of complaining about the immigration issue we are on the cusp of getting a lot of good reforms in place and making a huge difference. But the far right now begs for more of the same in a panic over Guest Workers (already here!).
It just like Bush’s work on prescription drugs for Medicare/Medicaid and No Child Left Behind being attacked when proposed, yet the solutions produce great results. Not perfect results. Great results. Bush has an amazing ability to pull together solutions that really do something. A rare talent that DC does not see very often. And the answer from those on the right is impeachment?
I had hoped the right would lose this debate with dignity (I knew they could not win anything in this, they gave that up when they lost in 2006). After a while I realized they were incapable of accepting the democratic process at work and were going over the edge – but I assumed their was a limit. I assumed they would not go so far as to undermine our democracy because they were losing this issue under democracy. When you call for impeachment in response to a democratic loss (like the whacked out libs have been doing since Al Gore flamed out in FL), that means you have given up on democracy. There is no honor it taking democracy down with your little pet issue. There is no honor is getting so worked up you cannot rejoin the process at the end of the day and keep America alive by participating in its most wonderful aspect – losiing with grace and joining arms to battle the next issue. The far right seems to have forgotten, it means something to “lose like an American” also, at least in the political domain.
Update: I wanted to elevate something I said in the comment section of this post. I do not believe everyone who is against the Guest Worker program is insane enough to call for the impeachment of Bush, but I do think these folks are aligned now with those who do want to impeach Bush. And I expect the calls from the GOP for impeachment will grow due to this issue. Folks will want to assess whether this entire fiasco and temper tantrum on the right has gone far enough, or even too far (like some of us think now).
Some examples of those calling for impeachment of Bush from the right over immigration are here, here, here [“Message To The Left: I’m not saying you should impeach him, I’m just sayin’, you know, go with your hearts.”], here [The planned NAU has even some long-time Republicans using the words “Bush” and “traitor” in the same sentence with the word “impeach.” ] and here . Seems to me this is not as uncommon as some would think. It will grow in size when the Senate passes the bill.
Update: One of the poster children for the Immigration Hypochondriacs is the blow-hard Lou Dobbs on CNN. He has become the Keith Olberman on the immigration issue. He epitomizes how bad things can get. Just check out this strange rationale for not dealing with the 12-20 million illegals here now:
And then there is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has gone from monitoring hate groups to monitoring Dobb’s show. The SPLC placed an ad in newspapers urging CNN to acknowledge that Dobbs “has been spreading false information about the prevalence of leprosy and its supposed links to undocumented immigrants.â€
At issue is the claim by CNN reporter Christine Romans that “in the past three years, America has had more than 7,000 cases of leprosy.†It turns out this is the figure for the past 30 years, not three years. The correction came to light during a profile of Dobbs on “60 Minutes.†Even after CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl pointed out the actual number, Dobbs told her that he stands “100 percent behind†the claim. He also told Stahl: “If we reported it, it’s a fact.†But it’s not a fact. And, in a segment after the “60 Minutes†interview, an unrepentant Romans repeated the bogus figure. So, there.
Going for the actual ‘leper’ claims – now that is low. The ‘unclean’ in vivid the vivid example of a disease which kills living flesh. Could Dobbs have gone any lower? 7,000 divided by 30 = 233 cases per year. Not an epidemic by a long shot. Out of 12 million (to give Dobbs is best case number) those 7,000 are .06%. Which means 99.94% of immigrants here illegally not carrying lepersy – assuming all cases are in the illegal immigration community. This is truly an ugly attempt to extrapolate the sad sickness of a few into some kind of rampant infection in an entire population.
Look, in a democracy
Democracy? How about in a Republic?
I am opposed to impeachment, that’s ridiculous. Pres Bush is entitled to his opinion and that’s not a high crime or misdemeanor.
AJ: anyone calling for Bush’s impeachment over this issue, is just a plain idiot!
And that’s coming from the guy who for a week, has been telling you to quit calling people names!
But, I would NOT bring up the Harriet Meiers and Dubai Port deals though, “examples”.
I don’t care what Meiers service to Bush has been, and I don’t care what her abortion stances are/aren’t, she was NOT a wise choice, and she didn’t belong on the SC. Of course, I don’t think Ginsberg, and Stevens, Souter and Kennedy belong there either, for various reasons.
There were lots of other qualified “conservative” women candidates, that the President could’ve choosen, who were WAY more qualified.
As for the Dubai Ports deal, you keep bringing that up, that was just sheer stupidity, and Tone-Deafness, no matter what you say!
Though I agree with the basic premise of open and free trade, multinationals, etc; and even the equipment you keep bringing up; SOMONE in the Administration should’ve Anticipated the fall-out of just exactly what happened, and worked behind the scenes with the Government of the Emirates, to make them aware of that potential, and to come up with a way around it; whether it meant doing it thru a US ‘front-company” or anything.
But the fact that they let it happen at all, shows that this Administration has been it’s own worst enemy, most of the time.
And it pains me to say it, because I wholeheartedly support this President in the GWOT, Iraq War, etc.
Dale and FE,
I am not lumping you folks in with those you have allied with….
But you are on the same side with some truly bizarre people. Just pointing out that maybe you folks have taken this whole thing beyond the point even YOU might find palatable.
Be prepared. If it passes the Senate it will pass the house. The house GOP needs Bush’s veto threats to get their projects into bills, they do not have the filibuster to give them power on their own like in the Senate. And watch the calls for impeachment to grow on the right. The fever pitch is immensely high right now.
AJ: just to be clear, we haven’t “allied” ourselves with anyone, especially the nutbag “impeachment” people; we’re only reasonably, I might add, asking some questions, and saying in it’s present form, there are SERIOUS problems with this bill!
That doesn’t mean I’ve allied myself with anyone; John Shadegg is a prime example, his criticism are much the same that have been brought up on this board, and he’s certainly not a hard-right “impeach” crazy from the Right!
Ted Kennedy sure has been fairly quiet about this immigration bill. And he was one of the sponsors of this bill.
I believe that the far right’s of the GOP reaction to Meirs and UAE deal has hurt them in the ’06 election. This one may hurt them big time in ’08. I sure hope that the democrats won’t win the WH in ’08. If Hillary wins, we will see an increase of social programs. All of them wants to pull out of Iraq “now”.
This bill has huge cost implications. Which is one of the issues that I have with this bill, in spite of what I like some things in this bill.
Bush did not come up with this bill and doesn’t have to defend the bill either. He doesn’t need to stand up against the far right. But it’s the same treatment he got with Meirs and UAE. In spite of whether Meirs was a good fit or not for SCOTUS.
Does the far right want more penalties? or they think it is too costly or what?
I campaigned for Bush when he was running against Ann Richards for governor of Texas when no one thought he could win, including his mother. I sent out mailers, knocked on doors, pounded the pavement, spent days on the phones, and donated money to a campaign that I could have spent making my life more pleasurable to help he get elected president, not once, but twice. And feel I have the right to say, yes, he has insulted his base.
Bush has made some major errors. And knowing him, as I have, I cannot blame it on those around him. He is not the type of man who is easily swayed by those whispering in his ear. Harriet Meirs was political “payoff” and everyone knew it. And while I had very little concern with the Dubai Ports deal (they have been running the Port of Houston for years) he handled it poorly in a time when emotions against Muslim lands run high.
But for you to try to pass off Kucinich as seeking impeachment over the immigration bill to your [uninformed] readers is just so much hype. Kucinich has been trying to impeach Bush over the war for a long time and the immigration bill is just another club in the battle.
You keep using the “back taxes” canard, yet you are fully aware (as I have told you) that Bush requested, and was granted, the removal of that provision from the bill. But it seems your dishonesty has reached the level of your vitriol.
Yesterday there was a protest march in Washington will thousands of illegals demanding amnesty.
“We want people to know we did not come here to steal jobs from Americans. We came to work hard and make a life for our children” said Jose Rose, 37, a father of six from El Salvador who waits tables at a Fairfax restaurant. “Back home there is no way I can support my family on $3 a day. Their future is here.
We need ligalization. I need legalization. We have to get all this in order,” said Ana Espinoza, and office cleaner who has been here six years and OWNS A TOWNHOME IN GERMANTOWN.
Leonardo Gonzales, 50, a Mexican imigrant who came with a church group from Baltimore, said he prayed for legalizaton because it would give him the courage to ASK FOR A RAISE. “I earn $9 an hour remodeling rooms, and I SENT $200 HOME EACH MONTH,” he siad. I KNOW MY WORK IS WORTH MORE THAN THAT, BUT UNTIL I BECOME LEGAL, I AM WORTH NOTHING.”
These are your “shadow” people, AJ. Leonardo Gonzales who thinks he should have the right to demand more money although he is in our nation without permission. Ana Espinoza, who has earned enough to buy a townhome when there are Americans who cannot afford a home, thinks we are being mean. Jose Rosa, who never thought about having six kids when he was living ing El Salvador but now thinks that because he has six kids he should be allowed to stay here. Shadow people who have no problem coming into the light of day demanding rights they are not willing to demand from their own nations and seem to have no fear of letting the world know where they live and work. So they leave their trash-can nations that they think is not worth fighting for to come to our nation where they can violate the law openly and not suffer for it. If they are not willing to fight for reform in their own nations, do you really think they will be willing to fight for ours? If you do, you are a dreamer.
It all goes back to the conservative value of personal responsibility. People should be responsible for their actions and the actions of these protesters are they came here without permission, jumping in front of the line by having jobs and buying homes and then thumb their noses as those of us who think they are wrong. It is not my fault that Jose Rosa has six kids. It is his fault. It is not my fault that his nation is in the toilet, it is his for not fighting to change things in his native land. It is not my fault that Leonardo Gonzales only makes $9 an hour, but instead of being grateful for that $9 he wants more because HE thinks he is worth in. Where, in all of their statements is the gratitude for being able to even have a job in the freest nation in the world? There is none. There is only anomosity and demands for more and more and more.
I have given up hope that you will ever debate the bill on it’s face. Your intentions are clear; to ram a bill down the throats of people who realize this bill is a travesty. The fact that you would even quote the paper of treason, The NYTs, is just more proof of your blindness to this issue.
Then instead of attacking the bill, why don’t they provide ideas to fix the bill? Submit amendments and get them passed. Stop the name-calling and start behaving like Shadegg. Only he need to provide suggestions.
Doing the job of environmental distruction that Americans won’t do and the “back end” costs to the American taxpayer:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603bordertrash-ON.html
Read the whole article for one of the hidden costs of illegal immigration.
R05: that’s a great article, and notice the open-border activist at the end, who basically says it’s OUR FAULT for the trash, because the Govt has keep the ILLEGALS from crossing in the cities!
THAT’S the type of ATTITUDE right there, that just plain drives me friggin bananas…
Dale,
Yeah, but it has nothing to do with the soon to be passed immigration bill becuase, as I said, those of us for the Bill fully support the border elements AND the worker program. The article is another in a long list of irrelevant articles. Supporters of the Bill are not for open borders.
Right now it is the immigrant hypochondriacs and the far left who support real amnesty and open borders and citizenship for all who oppose this Bill. The supporters exist in between the two extreme camps left and right. That means of the 44% who oppose the bill only half, 22% come from the right. The other half come from the left. 22% of the country means around half of the conservative coalition that elected Bush. Same thing on the left, they represent less than half of those who voted in a Democrat Congress.
Neither fringe has the votes and both have split from their partners. Allowing a new centrist partnership to be created which repudiates the fringes left and right. All the horror stories left and right keep pushing the purists farther and farther away from the center because they are simply incoherent now.
The open border types are now aligned with the immigration hypochondriacs! This is the law of governing coalitions. The fringes always, for their own reasons, oppose the consensus of the middle when the middle hits the sweat spot in between both ends of the spectrum.
This is why this Bill will pass. Each party is bleeding members and they need the center if they have any hope in the future. The party which panders to the fringes and lets the other party take the moderates will be damaged goods for a long time.
Thus the war funding vote ending in sanity, and the immigration vote ending in sanity. Those who stayed home to teach everyone a lesson in 2006 accomplished their job. The partisan fringes are being marginalized. I said this would happen. Don’t shoot the messenger…
AJ said –
What is stupid is people saying fines and back taxes are the same thing amnesty. They are penalties.
Myself and others have repeatedly pointed out to you that there is no provision in the bill that requires paying “back taxes”. And yet, you continue to claim this falsehood.
I have repeatedly asked you to point out the page and paragraph number to substantiate your claim on back taxes. You have steadfastly refused to do that.
Here is Section 601(e)(6) of the draft immigration bill. Page 265.
–begin quote–
(6) Fees and Penalties-
(A) Processing Fees.—
(i) An alien making an initial application for Z
nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay a
processing fee in an amount sufficient to recover the
full cost of adjudicating the application, but no more
than $1,500 for a single Z nonimmigrant.
(ii) An alien applying for extension of his Z
nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay a
processing fee in an amount sufficient to cover
administrative and other expenses associated with
processing the extension application, but no more
than $1,500 for a single Z nonimmigrant.
(B) Penalties.—
(i) An alien making an initial application for Z-1
nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay, in
addition to the processing fee in subparagraph (A), a
penalty of $1,000.
(ii) A Z-1 nonimmigrant making an initial application
for Z-1 nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay
a $500 penalty for each alien seeking Z-2 or Z-3
nonimmigrant status derivative to the Z-1 applicant.
(iii) An alien who is a Z-2 or Z-3 nonimmigrant and
who has not previously been a Z-1 nonimmigrant,
and who changes status to that of a Z-1
nonimmigrant, shall in addition to processing fees be
required to pay the initial application penalties
applicable to Z-1 nonimmigrants.
(C) State Impact Assistance Fee- In addition to any
other amounts required to be paid under this
subsection, a Z-1 nonimmigrant making an initial
application for Z-1 nonimmigrant status shall be
required to pay a State impact assistance fee equal to
$500.
(D) Deposit and Spending of Fees.—The processing fees
under subparagraph (A) shall be deposited and remain
available until expended as provided by sections
286(m) and (n).
(E) Deposit, Allocation, and Spending of Penalties.—
(i) Deposit of Penalties.–The penalty under
subparagraph (B) shall be deposited and remain
available as provided by section 286(w).
(ii) Deposit of State Impact Assistance Funds.—The
funds under subparagraph (C) shall be deposited and
remain available as provided by section 286(x).
–end quote–
There is nothing in the bill that requires the paying of back taxes. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Opposition to amnesty pays off for state GOPs:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070603-074328-2304r.htm
I guess all us Republicans in Texas are “immigration hypochrondiacs” and “far right-wingers”. Not to mention all those bigots in all the other states that opposed this bill.
Seems that the coffers are filling in states that have come out against amnesty (the real back end of this bill) while AJ continues to claim there will be back taxes and only sane people support this bill while us nut cases oppose it.
Apache,
Get to the chase. If back taxes are in the Bill (which they will be) then will you back it?
Of course not. LOL!
Silly game.
As the bill is currently written, an applicant for a Z-1 nonimmigrant visa will pay $1,500 in penalties. And he/she will pay an additional processing fee of “no more than $1,500”.
The total cost will be something between $1,500 and $3,000, depending upon how much the “processing fee” turns out to be. So, a worst case scenario for the initial application of a single Z-1 nonimmigrant visa will be $3,000
So, theoretically, a person who has lived illegally in this Country for 10 years and who may have been using someone else’s SSN, could pay as little as $2,000 and walk away with a clean slate.
That might be a tough sell for some people.
Apache: Yes, I think you are correct!
As I understand it, it WAS in the bill; President Bush found out about it, and asked someone in Congress to remove it; they did.
John McCain, one of the supporters of the bill, actually thought it STILL was in the bill, and did not KNOW that Bush had it taken out!
McCain found out about that, when he was on a call with Bloggers, including Capt’n over at Captain’s Quarter’s Blog! (he’s posted about this there, check it out!)
In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it was Capt’n himself who asked McCain, why Bush had taken it out, and McCain seemed unaware and actually stunned it was gone; he said he’d check up on it and did.
He then, attempted to reinsert it into the Senate version of the bill, but by doing so, according to Capt, he may in fact have torpedoed the entire bill.
Again, according to Capt, ONLY the “House” can include fines and things related revenue/funding or something like that.
By McCain putting that in, he actually makes the Senate verision not valid!
I’m explaining this poorly, because I read it quickly over the weekend!
Check it out, it will make sense when you read it, and maybe you can come back and put it into ENGLISH for ME!
PS: go to http://www.douglasfarah.com
You’ll find some posts over there from me. From that, you should be able to figure out my email address.
Apache, as I have pointed out many, many times. There is no provision for prosecution for identity thieves. NONE. So the slug who stole my SS# and is using it all over the country will be given a free pass. No prosecution, no fine for identity theft, no punishment. In the meantime, I am out legal fees and my Excedrin bill is off the chart. Of course, all this inter agency cooperation that AJ seems to think will happen doesn’t work for me since the SS administration claims they cannot share information with law enforcement but had no problem sharing it with IRS so I could be billed for the additional taxes.
Yeah, this is a great plan the President and Drown-em Kennedy has dreamed up.
AJ said –
Get to the chase. If back taxes are in the Bill (which they will be) then will you back it?
I am trying to help you salvage what little credibility you have left. You should stop making a claim that is false. Especially after people continually point out that the claim is false.
To answer your question. If the only thing about this bill that changed was the addition of a requirement for back taxes, then no, I would not back it.
I have told you before. My big issue is National security. This bill does nothing but “promise” to secure our borders. And the very fist sentence on page one has a giant “exception” clause which completely negates all of the triggers. That is unacceptable to me. The exception clause would have to go before I would even consider this bill. And I would like an addition to the bill that mandates that anyone who is suspected of using another person’s SSN would not be eligible for anything except a lengthy jail term. I can live with people who have used a fake/false SSN, even though that is a felony. But I can not live with rewarding people who have used someone else’s SSN. That is deplorable and completely unacceptable.
What are your thoughts on this?
Apache,
My credibility is just fine, as shown by how quickly I was able to expose your hypocrisy in worrying about my credibility. Your question was an attempt to show me wrong – not right. Don’t insult my intelligence with your faux concern. The back taxes will be in the bill since they are a key element of the compromise. The fact you cannot find them is not evidence they do not exist. It might simply be an novice trying to parse congresional legislation-ese.
You know, like all those silly claims there were no funds in this bill. Which is clearly the norm. When creating statute and infrastrcucture bills only hint at funding – since that comes in appropriations bills. Everyone who missed that simply exposed their ignorance on how legislation is enacted in Congress – they did not score points. B TW, this distinction is WHY this can begin in the senate and not the house – Doh!
AJ said –
The fact you cannot find them is not evidence they do not exist. It might simply be an novice trying to parse congresional legislation-ese.
I have repeatedly asked you to point out page and paragraph to prove that “back taxes” is in the bill. You have not. Consider this an open invitation to prove me wrong.
Apache,
And I have repeatedly offered to not to oblige. Why prove you wrong when the bill will come out and do it for me? I am not wasting my time on that nonsense. You will have to wait and see.