Jul 27 2007
Current Immigration Laws Cannot Fix Our Problem
The far right litterally lied when they claimed all we had to do was exercise current law and we could fix our immigration problems. They crafted this lie because there was a chance the comprehensive immigration bill would pass the senate, and those here illegally for a long time would only be punished by a fine and back taxes, and held to the promise to stay crime free and register with the new immigration system. They called this less-than-deportation punishment “amnesty”. That is why I call them the Amnesty Hypochondriacs. There never was Reagan-style amnesty on the table – but they lied about that too.
But the current laws will not fix the problem, as is shown in this court case (among many others over twenty years of legal batterings which have neutered our immigration laws):
A U.S. judge on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional a local law designed to crack down on illegal immigration, dealing a blow to similar laws passed by dozens of towns and cities across the country.
U.S. District Judge James Munley said the city of Hazleton, 100 miles north of Philadelphia, was not allowed to implement a law that would fine businesses that hire illegal immigrants and penalize landlords who rent rooms to them.
“Federal law prohibits Hazleton from enforcing any of the provisions of its ordinances,” Munley wrote in a 206-page opinion following a federal trial in which Hazleton’s law was challenged by civil rights groups.
Welcome to reality folks. The far right thought they were being clever when the labeled punishments ‘amnesty’. They thought they were being clever when they said ‘just enforce the laws’. There is a line between ‘clever’ and ‘deception’. The far right crossed well over that line. The best that can be said is they were clever liars. But ‘clever’ doesn’t include instantiating the same busted system for another 5 years or more lengthening and deepening the problems we have. No, ‘clever’ is not a word I would use for that kind of disaster. And the voters will know not to trust the far right when they start getting ‘clever’ again. Reputation is everything in public policy debates. Once a party loses it is nearly impossible to get it back. Ask the Democrats.
RLQ:
Does the Senate agree with hypochondriacs?
It seems to me that the government was already increasing security on the border before people started yammering about the Illumaniti and it also seems to me I remember hearing people say the Senate would never ever ever do anything real about the problem because they were all traitors and had sold out to Mexico.
And now that the Senate which had already said it would increase border security border by more than 4 billion up front in the last bill and was called liars and frauds and traitors for their trouble…says they will increase it by 3 billion and the hypochonidriacs declare victory.
Go figure.
Merlin:”
Malkin said that the Bush administration told border agents to stand down. I remember her talking about on her blog, that is why I stopped reading her blog.
I heard McCain called a traitor, I was called a traitor.
This is the problem, the right could have been respectful and honest in the debate, or they could have been obnoxious and dishonest. They were the ones who decided on the latter.
patrick:
You are amazing. The deal they turned down offered more additional enforcement provisions and more money than the bill they passed.
What exactly does “operational” control over 100% of the border mean? Do the chest pounders even know? Who decides if it is under control? The traitors like Kyl or the patriots like Tancredo?
In other words, patrick, why is it all of a sudden you can trust the government when you could not do that before?
terrye you still don’t get it and you never will. i’m not going to even waste my time, again, trying to explain the obvious to you.
89 to 1 for border security first–as predicted.
Terrye – Think real hard, Border Security First and NO AMNESTY.
WASHINGTON
– U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today said he was very pleased the Senate accepted his amendment to provide $3 billion for increased border security and interior enforcement measures. The vote was 89-1.
“The term ‘operational control’ is a military term, and I look at this effort to secure our border as a military operation,” said Graham. “We are serious about border security and this again shows the commitment to do whatever is necessary to regain control of our borders.”
If allowed to proceed, the Hazelton case will get reversed — nothing unconstitutional about it, other than a dimwit judge.
And AJ mis-characterizes the opposition to the lousy “comprehensive” immigration bill that was defeated. No one ever claimed enforcing current laws would fix everything, but it would be a good start.
Gee, I remember when “operational control” was considered a code owrd for open borders. Maybe you guys should call and complain and shut down the Senate switchboard.
The point you are ignoring is that the same security measures were in the shamnesty bill you were frothing at the mouth about. Now, does this bill call for mass deportations? Or is the present form of defacto amnesty to continue?
terrye, get some counseling. it will help.
With de facto amnesty, “border security” remains a fiction. Real amnesty might have made identification possible. All the “border enforcement” windbags can congratulate themselves on a fictional solution.
I am not the one calling people like McCain and Bush traitors while I babble on about paranoid conspiracy theories. The other bill said that the security provisions would be done and would come first, you chose not to believe that, now you do. Same Senators, same government, same president, but all of a sudden you believe.
yeah, I am the one who needs help, not the people who think Bush sold us out to Mexico and the reconquista.