Apr 19 2008
Michelle Malkin Balks At Her Own Handy Work
It is rare when I take on the far right. It is usually a waste of time since they refuse to listen and then I get a bunch of blow back for daring to point out their mistakes. But I am a glutton for punishment, and I have to point out things that are just blatantly misguided.
When the far right tanked the last chance for immigration reform last year I went on record that they now OWNED every result of that short sighted act. If there was something in the laws they blocked – like the immediate deportation of aliens who commit violent crimes -those acts are now on their shoulders. I have posted on this responsibility shift forever – it is no longer a Bush or Congress responsibility for these problems, they had a plan in place and heading for passage.
So when I see Michelle Malkin holding up an example of a problem with immigration which she and her Amnesty Hypochondriacs are responsible for, I have to point it out.
WRAL reports on a new statistical breakdown of illegal alien drunk drivers in North Carolina. It’s a blood-pressure-raising look at the deadly revolving door, catch-and-release, the deportation abyss, and the danger of sanctuary policies embraced by those sworn to defend and protect the public:
And the deportation abyss is because the laws did not get passed and there will be no new laws for years to come. This is as much Michelle’s fault as those she lambastes – she just won’t admit her efforts to stop the legislation kept the status quo in place. I want to remind people why I call Michelle and Tancredo and their ilk Amnesty Hypochondriacs:
The far right literally 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.
As people know I will not debate on false pretenses and lies. As the comprehensive immigration reform got closer to reality some panicked and started to believe exaggerated and extreme theories. They became invested in myths just as the left has invested in myths that Iraq is a defeat.
I have no choice but to remind people that actions have results, and you better take responsibility for all the results of your actions, not just the ones you wanted but all those you did not think through. That is the essence of law and order: ignorance is not an excuse. You cannot say I had not realized that would happen and get a pass on vehicular manslaughter. You can only get the lowered punishment for negligence verses premeditation.
Michelle and the Amnesty Hypochondriacs traded endless drunk drivers for the opportunity to try one more time to deport the illegals, either directly or through coercion from lost wages, etc. There never was going to be the removal of 10-20 million people who have lived here for years, but they were not thinking straight, they had to stop the bill which would not have provided the punishments they wanted. They did not care the vast majority in this democracy did not agree with them, and therefore they should have accepted the fact they did not have the numbers and let as much reform get passed as was possible.
The fact is we had two choices and they gave us the worst of the two. Choice one was (a) comprehensive reform passes with its imperfections, (b) the long term illegals get a process to prove they should, and then pay, to stay, and (c) we get to deport the violent criminals without minimal resistance from the judicial branch (there would be some test challenges, always are.
The second choice is where we are: (a) no immigration reform, (b) long term illegals get to stay and (c) we still cannot deport violent criminals. The lie back then was we could fix our problems with current law. I have many posts on why that was a lie and is a lie. So when Michelle holds up these examples of what she and others wrought last year when they killed immigration reform I can only shake my head and ask “what were you thinking?” Remember Michelle, all those dead children might have been alive if the Immigration Reform package had passed and these criminals would have been deported instead of given a second chance. You all own this issue now, since you left us with this mess.
Update: Pam over at Right Voices is hosting a neutral debate corner – I suggest folks also comment there as well as here and at Michelle’s site. As Pam notes, it is a debate worth having.
62 Responses to “Michelle Malkin Balks At Her Own Handy Work”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you’re a talking head it’s a lot more fun to have something to bitch about than to ever do anything to actually fix it – especially if fixing it requires that nasty word “compromise”. Who gets excited by reading articles about compromise? That’s something only weak people do.
The Illegal Immigration Debate We Need To Have…
AJStrata and Michelle Malkin are two bloggers that I have a great deal of respect for. I don’t always agree with everything either one says, but I do listen to them, and in this case, both are making valid points:
Michelle Malkin:
WRAL reports o…
I know people who have worked with “illegal aliens” for generations. There is a ranch nearby that has used farm labor from the same village in Mexico for literally three generations. That ranch family made sure the women had medical care when the women had babies, he made sure the kids got baptized, and would even help out with education and other issues. For three generations. People in that town in Mexico speak with nothing but respect for that ranch family in California and when the old man died many years ago, “illegal aliens” came from miles around to pay their respects. Many still drop by to this day to simply check in on the old man’s wife (who is now well into her 90’s), thank her for all she has done for them and to inquire if they can do anything at all for her.
My point is to show people who don’t live out here than in many cases the relationship between a rancher and his labor is more than just an anonymous job, in many cases we are talking about families working together for generations. We are talking about real human relationships between people.
I also know people who volunteer with “migrant outreach” and try to take care of migrants who have been abused (happens often, particularly with hotel maid labor. The women are often beaten or worse and told to keep quiet or they will be reported to immigration). Anyway, yes, a good number of the people are no longer going home to see their families over the winter and during holidays. Just as I expected would happen, most are deciding to simply stay here now rather than risk going home and not being able to get back. They are also more fearful of reporting crimes which facilitates those who would prey on them. Illegals are more often the targets of crime than the perpetrators of it because those who would prey on them know they can not report the crimes now without possibly being sent back home … so now they simply don’t report them or report them to the neighborhood gang who attempts to keep order.
The far right is creating an absolutely barbaric situation. And another prediction of mine is coming to pass too:
Torches, bungee cords used to breach border fence. Costing millions to build and costing less than 100 dollars to breech, the new fence is turning out to be useless as it is cut in hundreds of locations. What can take weeks of time and millions of dollars can be brought down in seconds by anyone with some mining skills and a few bucks worth of dynamite. Sometimes the right is just so foolish. The extremes on both the left and the right are emotional. They don’t think. Their position is based on feelings not intellect.
The “Far Right” wants the border sealed and no incentive for further border incursions.
The Globalist Open Border folks are the real slave masters.
The “Far Right” wants the border sealed and no incentive for further border incursions.
The Globalist Open Border folks are the real slave masters.
The Globalists want their slave labor wages in the US, and the vile Democrats want their future voting blocks.
If being against that makes me Far Right, then so be it. I think you’re so emotionally hyperbolic about this you border on irrational.
Cross, this quote in the article stood out to me:
“What we’re talking about is our fences are designed to deter people, discourage them from coming in,” Romero said. “Combined with the rest of the infrastructure, it’s supposed to buy us more time to make an arrest. Even an extra five seconds helps. The goal is, at the very least, it buys us extra time.”
The problem, of course, is that as you get away from population centers like El Paso the response time to any breach is going to be measured in hours, not minutes. If not days. (people who haven’t seen areas like Big Bend have no idea how remote they truly are)
And here the agents on hand acknowledge that no fence can actually stop someone who’s determined to get it. It’s just supposed to be a deterrent.
In other words, for people on BOTH sides of the border, it’s all just for show.
WWS: Actually, I favor the “virtual fence” approach where there isn’t a physical barrier just for the reason you state. Any can breech the fence in a remote area and be gone long before anyone gets there.
If I were not born in this country, I would probably risk life and limb to get here too. And I really wouldn’t care what the bigots thought of me for it, either.
And people who think that migrants work for “slave wages” have their head squarely in a very dark place. Around my house most of the roofers, drywall hangers, and painters are foreigners.
The fastest growing illegal alien population currently in the US are people from India. Where exactly should we place THAT fence?
Go to agricultural towns such as Watsonville or Salinas and you will find that most of the residential houses are owned by “illegals”. They aren’t slaves living in poverty in many cases. They are people who have been here for decades that are roofers, carpenters, etc.
A “Virtual Fence” (a concept that I think shows contempt for the basic intellegence of the average person) requires , amoung, other things, that the Federal Govt operate in a competent and efficient manner.
Anyone who thinks that is sustainable must be joking
Crosspatch,
“If I were not born in this country, I would probably risk life and limb to get here too. And I really wouldn’t care what the bigots thought of me for it, either.”
Since this really is the greatest country on earth I understand your sentiment and theirs. But to equate those of us who want some alternative to open borders as bigots in unfair. As a matter of fact it’s the same hyperbole used by the radical left open borders crowd to try to silence others.
If I want welfare folks to get off their butts and start working it doesn’t mean I don’t have compassion for the poor. I have great respect for many immigrants and what they have achieved in this country including some who have come here and are here illegally.
Wanting the laws followed that are currently on the books does not make me or anyone else a bigot.
I believe we need control of the border. I also believe that we came very close to that with the Senate compromise bill. It seems pretty clear to me that there are certain people who do not want anything short of keeping all foreigners out. Anything that would allow easy to obtain work permits that does not extract a pound of flesh from people already here is called “amnesty”. The last bill wasn’t amnesty. The moment I hear someone use the word “shamnesty” I know they are not thinking with the brain that God gave them … they are following the herd and following their emotions.
We need a bill that provides a mechanism for people to get in here easily for work. It is important that it be easy so these people can go HOME when the work is done. If it is too hard, they won’t go home because it will be too hard to get back. The harder you make it to get in here the more LIKELY you make it that the “permanent” illegal population will increase. You actually end up causing what you are trying to avoid. Make it easy to get in here to work, and they will go home when there is no work.
We need to make it easy for those already here to come “above board” and get completely legal and fully taxed. Beware of people who would pretend to be far right anti-immigration bigots but who are really drug dealers or people smugglers who don’t want the system to change. It has to change. Keeping things as they are now is the worst possible outcome but that is exactly what people like Malkin are causing. By shooting down things such as the Senate compromise legislation, they prevent anything at all from happening. It is like a 4yo having a tantrum, really.
America ignores its own borders while building walled off slums in Baghdad against the Iraqi’s will.
We’re also building a border wall between Gaza and Egypt. Funny how they didn’t choose to go with a virtual fence there.
Reading your post AJ, I couldn’t help but think you must have been talking about another bill than the one we discussed at the time. That bill was not REMOTELY about deportation of illegals, or enforcement measures etc. It was about the economics and economy of scale of getting those people into our system legally. That was the main thrust of that bill. In fact, we had to fight tooth and nail to even get any enforcement measures (which people pushing the bill were opposed to by the way), put in the bill to try and garner more support for it.
That bill was about how to keep illegals here in the workforce and given them legal status, get them in the system and on a path to citizenship. The problem was, it didn’t deal with any of the issues about how so many people “get here” illegally. All that bill said to illegals or people outside this country who were thinking of coming here, was get here illegally, any way you can; that this is the best way to deal with the system. Once you get here and in the system, you have a direct path to citzenship by paying some fines (less then they paid to get here), etc.,
In fact, if I were here legally and had been waiting for a decade to get my citzenship, spent 10s of thousands of dollars, and they passed this bill, I would have simply left the country, come back illegally and signed up through the new system to go right to the front of the line. It was an express-lane to legal status, benefits, rights, and ultimately citizenship for anybody who can get here. That’s why I didn’t support it.
We must be talking about a different bill. With open borders, visa programs and other systems broken, and no way to control who comes here, we have lost complete control over our own immigration policy here in the US. That bill did NOTHING to address those issues….but instead….would have made those problems even worse by any account. Beyond that, none of “us” are against any enforcement measure (like deporting law breakers automatically). That obviously was not the argument in the first place.
I have no problem or issue with you blaming me for these things that have happend as the result of my opposition to that abomination of a bill. I will gladly call my local authorities and pressure them to do their job and /or work for new, more effective laws and law enforcment. I will call my senators and congressmen to work for a new bill that can address these issues without giving away our control over immigration policy—which is what I did during the debate over this bill….which for whatever reason proponents of this bill did not see fit to address. That’s not a problem for me as it is what I have always done. And I gladly accept that in trade for what we WOULD have had in passing that bill that was nothing more than an incentive for millions more people to come here illegally anyway they can, and a give-a-way of our soverignty and rights and control over our own immigration policy and system—replacing it instead with a free-for-all…first come first serve, gift package at the door for anyone who can get here illegally.
Since you are suggesting that this could have been prevented had we passed that bill…I ask you…”at what cost”? What would we have traded..for it? Our soverignty? Our borders? Conrol of our immigration policy? Or perhaps the issue is that you have never seen that? Yes, I’ll take responsibility for this drunk driver….if you’ll take responsibility for how he got here in the first place?
For more immigration blowback, you might find this link at Strategypage.com interesting:
http://strategypage.com/qnd/mexico/articles/20080402.aspx
Seems that the increased security has made it profitable for the violent drug cartels to get into the business of smuggling people.
Of course, this must all be President Bush’s fault. /sarcasm
AJ, just couldn’t let it sleep, could you? I was under the impresson that you wanted to drop the “conservative/moderate” debate altogether. It’s nice to see you are not only human but persistant as well.
I read the other day that people are cutting right through parts of that border wall. I told some guy that a wall in the middle of nowhere would not stop people crossing the border unless there was more people and more technology to back it up. He told me I was an open border fanatic and a traitor.
That is what Michelle Malkin brought to this debate. Mean spirited vitriol and no solution.
I agree with you on this issue AJ and if some of these guys want to know why they lost in 2006 and McCain is the nominee, this issue is one of the reasons. They ranted and raved and refused to come up with reasonable solutions.
Now we might get a president like Obama who supports drivers licenses for illegals. Thanks a lot Michelle.
BTW, I hear that Tancredo is giving the Pope hell because the Holy Father called for a humane solution to the problem. Tancredo just had to jump in there and tell the Pope to mind his own business. Oh well, so the Republicans run off the Catholics along with the Independents. who needs em, right?
Actually Dc, AJ is right about this. BTW, exactly what has Michelle and her fan club done about this? Run people from Oklahoma and Arizona to Texas and Arkansas. Wow. The truth is the economic slowdown will probably do more to slow down border crossings than anything else.
Good God Vince, our borders are thousands of miles long and the Gaza border is 7 miles long. How can you reasonably compare the two? Besides, I thought we were supposed to be allies of Israel.
And besides, what do globalists have to do with that border? A century ago Pancho Villa crossed that border into New Mexico and Pershing was sent down there to run him out. Of course he was gone by the time that the Army got there, but our government did not build a wall then or place a lot of people on the border even then. It has NEVER been guarded like some people on the right demand today, not ever in our history. If it was just about globalization why weren’t people demanding it be sealed a hundred years ago?
Malkin didn’t give us McCain. She’ a conservative who supports conservatives. You can whine all you want about “vitriol” but a harsh message doesn’t necessarily mean the message is wrong.
“Republicans reject conservatism at their own peril”…a lesson moderate republicans fail to learn over and over again. Too bad, too…this was a golden opportunity wasted.
Crosspatch,
“And people who think that migrants work for “slave wages” have their head squarely in a very dark place. Around my house most of the roofers, drywall hangers, and painters are foreigners.”
Obviously, you haven’t seen the incomes of some of those roofers, drywall hangers and painters. Those who aren’t paid cash “under the table” and actually receive a paycheck are paid pretty poorly and those paid cash even less. Many of these people work 2 and 3 jobs to make the incomes that we would consider subsistance levels. When compared to what they would make in their countries I’m sure they’re happy as can be…but for this country…pathetic.
Good plumbers and good roofers around here can make 6 figures if they’ve got a good client list, and they’re always in demand. And you can almost *never* find a good drywall hanger who isn’t spoken for, so when you do he can name his price.
Painters *would* make more except I’ve used a bunch over the years, and they’re all nuts. (with a very few exceptions) Must be the paint fumes or something.
LOL! 75 it is a golden opportunity and it is not being wasted. It is just out of the far right’s clutches. Which is what I predicted would happen if they did not stop their purity wars on fellow conservatives. But why listen to an independent conservative – what does he know?
I argued at the time, and I still argue, that thee were multiple problems with the bill. First, it was crafted in the dead of night and the proponents rewrote in the dead of night and really didn’t want anyone to see the actual internals. Secondly, I argued there was not a convincing, good faith effort, to prevent further border crossings. While I have notproblem with amnesty or a path to citizenship, I was against doing little or nothing to prevent us being in exactly the same situation. The immigration bills starting with Kennedy in, what, 1966, and the second one in the 1980’s did nothing to prevent a reoccurrence of the the problem. This bill also did nothing.
My belief was that if we allowed that bill to pass, nothing would be done for another 20 years and we would face exactly the same problem. And, it would have been the third bill (at 20 year intervals) that, once agian, failed to address the accumulating problem. It was better to reject this bill and hold the politicians feet to the fire to produce a bill that would give full measure of attention to preventing a continuation of the problem.
AJ, in all your pontificating and name calling, you failed to ever address the fact that this bill did little or nothing to stem the continuing stream of illegal immigration. Even, this last screed ignored that problem. I am guided in my opposition to the prior bill by Milton Friedman: “you cannot have open borders and a welfare state”.
Let me know, when you have managed to withdraw the welfare state and I will be happy to reconsider my opposition. But, failing that, name calling is still nothing more than name calling.
Rick C,
If you are waiting for perfection in legislation give it up – never happens. And the legislation would have put a lot of good ideas in place. Not only did all the long term illegals here have to come forward, pay back taxes a fine and prove they were free of violent crime convictions, all recent arrivals were outta here. Also, all new temporary workers were going to have to register and could not overstay their visas, to that end had to check in regularly. And, there was no path to citizenship for these short term workers. And there were increased penalties for employers who violate the law. And there was a registry of valid temp workers so employers could check so they had no more legal excuses. And any alien (legal or otherwise) who committed a violent crime was booted ASAP. And there was plenty of money for border enhancements and border agents. And there was more.
Perfect? Get real. Better than what Malkin and the Amnesty Hypochondriacs left us – without a doubt. It was a disaster and everyone knows it, which is why hyper partisans on immigration have lost their political power. Duh.
WWS,
The drywall guys or painters that you know who make 6 figures…Are they the owners of the company, either here legally (Other than born here a citizen of course) or illegally or the workers they pay to work.
Have you actually seen their paystubs or tax returnsor financial records or met with them in an environment where their actual financial situation needs to be disclosed truthfully? I’ve been seeing them for over 20 years and it’s a very rare circumstance to see what you describe…and when I do see it it is always the owner, not the workers.
Rick C: I had the same concern. The vile Democrats were more than willing to throw in the appearance of border security even though their objective was to secure their future voting base.
Who honestly believes that the Democrats would stand by the committment to defend the border? if you did you’re a fool.
Didn’t Congress vote late last year to remove authorization or funding for major parts of the fence?
AJ,
You are assuming that the new law, had it passed would have been enforced. Considering there are already laws pertaining to illegal immigration on the books that have now been enforced why do you believe that by adding 10-20 million illegals to our citizenship roles now would prevent 10-20 million more in 10-20 years?
Yes Whippet1 because people want solutions. And it would have been enforced.
What is wrong with today is there are no stiff laws to enforce. They are all weak and full of holes. I have a post from Malkin were she laments the same problem – before she went on her propaganda run.
And for you are anyone to assume the laws would not be enforced is ridiculous and a slap at our law enforcement and security people who have been begging for laws with teeth.
Prove to me the laws would not be enforced. Don’t rationalize. And BTW – once the laws were passed we could hold people accountable who did not enforce them. Now they are not accountable because the rightfully note current laws don’t do what we want.
If people have no faith in our government then they should have let it pass – what harm would that have done? None! As it is we are left with repeat criminals able to game our system legally and kill our people. Wow – now there’s a solution!
Don’t try and impress me with talking points. You will find I have little patience or respect for them, and I will let people know it. I am not shy as you must have guessed by now.
This is slightly OT however it fits nicely into everything we have talked about over the last few days and it also addressed immigration and sums up some of our feelings nicely. By the way, I’m sure it will surprise no one but I really liked what DC had to say.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192366.php
AJ, w’ve discussed this before. And I know you find it funny but it’s hardly a laughing matter. History certainly doesn’t support your case. Gerald Ford, George Bush the first, and Bob Dole were all moderate republicans. All three lost to leftist Democrats which cost or country dearly. It seems the only thing moderates have learned over the years from rejecting conservatism is to blame them for that very rejection. Shooting the messenger is hardly a sign of wisdom on your part.
AJ,
“Prove to me the laws would not be enforced. Don’t rationalize. And BTW – once the laws were passed we could hold people accountable who did not enforce them. Now they are not accountable because the rightfully note current laws don’t do what we want.”
Sorry, AJ the proof is in the history. You would have to give me some proof that the laws would be enforced. You’re being optimistic that they would be. I’m being realistic that they would be ignored by many just as they are now. Sactuary cities come to mind. Not many conservative sanctuary cities now are there. I wonder why those liberal cities like to thumb there noses at the law…it’s called re-election.
And exactly what did I say that you consider a “talking point?”
Laws full of holes? Give me an example of any law that some lawyer doesn’t poke full of holes when it suits him. And it works. Sad but true…
Whippet1,
Your mind is closed so I will only do this one more time. The laws on the books have been weakened by challenge cases and precedence. It happens. The new laws would have limited the ability of the judiciary to ‘interpret’.
But of course you knew that, right?
AJ,
“Don’t try and impress me with talking points. You will find I have little patience or respect for them, and I will let people know it. I am not shy as you must have guessed by now.”
First of all, I do not care to or care if I impress anyone. I care to state my opinion as the rest do and that is all.
Tell me exactly what you mean by me repeating talking points. If it is my experiences that I described to Crosspatch and WWS then please give me your email address so that I can prove to you that I am speaking from experience… I do not make up stories to support my position.
Whippet1,
I cannot give out someone’s email address and clearly I was not talking about your experiences but the talking point that the laws, if passed, would not be enforced. It is a bogus statement.
Whippet1,
I cannot give out someone’s email address and clearly I was not talking about your experiences but the talking point that the laws, if passed, would not be enforced. It is a bogus statement.
AJ,
Elaborate, please.
Until Immigration is taken seriously as a morale, economic, and legal issue rather than as a political football, it is going to continue to be a major problem in our country. Democrats and to some degree, independents have always seen it as a political fight. Conservatives, of course, have always seen it as something much larger and until you understand that it’s not a tax cut or an earmark that you can wheel and deal for, the closer you’ll be to understanding and solving the problem. Apparently, with these candidates, you’ve opted for the status quo.
and AJ, please don’t change my words. I did not ask for “someone’s” email address I asked for yours. If you don’t want to give it out I understand completely.
AJ,
“The new laws would have limited the ability of the judiciary to ‘interpret’.”
First of all ” limited” opens up a lot of possibilities, however you say my mind is closed and I’ve asked for the information. I was unaware there was this type of provision. Where is it found in the bill? I couldn’t find it.
“new immigration laws” will be roughly as effective to our immigration problem as “new tax codes” are to our convoluted federal tax structure. AJ, as an “independent conservative” (whatever that is), should have know that long ago. But that aside, I’m curious why AJ thinks that enforcing current law isn’t a solution but new law is? You’ll have to explain that one to me.
After careful review, anyone with a even a modicum of logic can come to no other conclusion: illegal immigration must be halted, illegal immigrants here now must be deported and legal immigration needs decreased from the approx. 2 million allowed in per year currently.
Please review the following report on the FISCAL COST OF IMMIGRATION by economist Edwin Rubenstein just released this past week:
http://www.esrresearch.com/Rubensteinreport.pdf
A partial summary of the report:
The Fiscal Impact on 15 Federal Departments surveyed was: $346 billion in fiscal related costs in FY 2007.
Each immigrant cost taxpayers more than $9,000 per year.
An immigrant household (2 adults, 2 children) cost taxpayers $36,000 per year.
Legal immigrants were not separated out from illegal immigrants for the fiscal impact study, but if they had been, the fiscal cost per ILLEGAL immigrant would be even more shocking than the figures quoted above.
The most extensive and authoritative study, prior to economist Edwin Rubenstein’s “The Fiscal Impact of Immigration” (April 2008 ) , is the National Research Council (NRC)’s The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997).
The NRC staff analyzed federal, state, and local government expenditures on programs such as Medicaid, AFDC (now TANF), and SSI, as well as the cost of educating immigrants’ foreign- and native-born children.
NRC found that the average immigrant household receives $13,326 in federal annual expenditures and pays $10,664 in federal taxes—that is, they generate a fiscal deficit of $2,682 (1996 dollars)per household.
In 2007 dollars this is a deficit of $3,408 per immigrant household.
With 9 million households currently headed by immigrants, more than $30 billion ($3,408 x 9 million) of the federal deficit represents money transferred from native taxpayers to immigrants.
Our national immigration policies have to work for the United States. While improving the plight of the world’s poor is a laudable goal, the finite resources we have available to fulfill that goal would be swamped if there wasn’t some orderly and manageable system in place to limit entry into the United States to what this nation can actually support. The more illegal aliens that are permitted to subvert the immigration system, the fewer immigrants we can accommodate who might actually produce a positive benefit for our country.
The more we become a nation of illegal immigrants, the deeper we fall into anarchy.
I’m curious why AJ thinks that enforcing current law isn’t a solution but new law is?
Plus lets not forget that Kennedy authored the law… he’s the one that authored the older laws too.
Is he suddenly writing immigration laws that dont make things worse?
For those who naively think current laws can be used to deport illegal aliens I turn your attention to one Michelle Malkin who admits the opposite is true (my post on it):
it is obvious that we cannot use current laws to deport illegals, even ones who commit crimes. This used to be openly admitted by the Amnesty Hypochondriacs when they were pushing for mass deportations – this was the barrier to their dreams. They needed stronger laws to be able to deport the immigrants.
But when the Comprehensive Bill was going to pass all of a sudden the laws they said needed fixing for years were just fine and we could do what we needed under current law. Sort of a strange shift in views since nothing new was passed in the interim.
You’re being so Democrat-like in the way you talk about this. It’s sad.
No Vince,
I am just not being far right – which is a small, small minority. Bush, Kyl, Grahm, McCain – all good conservatives who don’t buy into the heated immigration BS. All I have done is shown why Malkin is not being honest with herself, the conflict in her own arguments, the illogic of her shifting positions. I don’t bow down to any one – and if they are on an emotional tirade of illogic I will point it out. Too bad for them, not for me.
What is sad is the far right have become the elitists. They are the ‘pure’, above the riff raff. They are the ones who have belittled others for not agreeing with their narrow views. They are the ones looking for pure true conservatives. They are the ones in-sighting the mob.
I am not a democrat – but you definitely have your nose up in the air when you compare me to one. Which is worse? An elitist who turns on his allies or people who sit down and hammer out progress. Purity is for the insecure, not for me.
AJ,
I didn’t ask for perfection. I asked the root of the problem be addressed: an end to continued illegal immigration or at least a reduction. You seem to feel that any old bill was good regardless of whether of not it addressed the root problem. In other words, let’s do it all over again in 20 years (for the 4th time).
I am forced to conclude that you prefer to do nothing to prevent continued illegal immigration and concentrate on those who are already here. That is not perfection, that is abandoning the problem. Should we now call you an immigration abandoner?
Sorry Rick, you asked for a fantasy. The comprehensive bill, as I noted in the list of things it covered, would have eliminated illegal immigration because workers would fill the need or not be able to register. Illegals are mostly those who entered legally and overstayed. Some are illegal simply because the annual quota set by congress is too low for the demand for workers.
Your silly effort at projection is quite hillarious. I was for broad, historic reform and you and your ilk gave us the status quo – so I am for doing nothing? It is idiotic conclusions like this which led me to conclude the Amnesty Hypochondriacs had lost their minds and all ability to reason.
You do grasp how silly your statement is in the light of what I have championed and you have championed – right? Or did you just make up a lie to hide behind?
AJ, just “what” in current immigration efforts would you consider to be “broad, historic reform”? You’ve rejected the broad and historic ideals of conservatism for the usual give and take pandering of D.C.
Just what is this burr you have under your saddle for conservatives? Clearly it’s a sore subject for you.
LOL! 75,
The comprehensive reform package from last year was historic because it touched on all aspects of the problem (see my list of contents of the bill above).
What I have against the Amnesty Hypochondriacs is the idiocy the use to rationalize keeping the status quo – and then blaming others for their actions and results. This is one of a few areas where the far right (not conservatives – who are a much broader and more diverse group) lost their minds, insulted fellow conservatives and lost congress to the dems.
And you wonder why I give them no credibility and only scorn? Geez, anymore success like that and we will be living in a communist state.
Horse pockey. I work right across the street from the Homeland Security and INS office. There has been a tremendous upsurge in deportation proceedings where I live as the result of that last debate on the issues and pressure brought to bare on every level. There are “bus loads” of illegals being processed for deportation there every single day. Bus loads. How do I know this? They stop us (on both sides of the sidewalk) to bring them through nearly every day. Mostly, these days, it’s hispanics and eastern bloc.
The last attempt at a bill was like organizing getting a bigger, more efficient pump to pump water out of a bailing boat, and putting the intake hose near the hole in the boat. The more water you pump out, you get twice as much back in. And with us stopping you from using the pump and insisting you focus on the hole in the boat, you offer this lame argument that had we just let you pump, that at least it would have been something, a start. And what we are trying to do…is take your head with both hands…and shove it down to the hole in the boat and screaming IF YOU DON”T FIX THIS FIRST WE ARE GOING TO SINK ANYWAY. And you look up, and say….at least we could be pumping the water out better, that would be something?? Sheeesh.
It doesn’t matter that you can deport one person in obvious need of deporting quicker/easier/more efficiently, if you’ve got 2,000 more coming in right behind them!! I fail to see how the logic of that could escape someone who has a brain. The national problem we have is not that there are too many drunk driving alien criminals. It’s that there are too many people coming here “illegally”. The fix for this, other than having to deal with 12 million illegals and growing BECAUSE we have not fixed the real problem, is to address how people are getting here illegally and staying. NOT how to put them on a path to citizenship if they register once they get here and stay out of trouble. We have a fundamental disconnect on what the problem actually is. OR, as you have suggested before, you do understand the problem, but figure dealing with half of it is better than not chaning anything. That of course is making the VERY large assumption (that history on this issue does not support), that things will get better, not worse, with the new laws that primiarly focused on the people who were already here and put off issues of how they got here for another time.
Lastly, if the idea was to “start somewhere” and only address one part of this issue, they could have well just started with a bill that primarily focused on enforcement and legal obstructions to deportations, and they’d have HAD a bill they could have passed. And the reason that didn’t happen is because that’s not what the proponents of this bill wanted nor had in mind. That seemed clear enough to me at the time and I’ve found nothing since in further discussion about it that has changed my mind about that (despite some people declaring it so). We didn’t misunderstand the intent of that bill and what it was designed to do. We understood it perfectly, which is why we opposed it.
DC – get real. The deportations you see don’t even offset the new imports.
LOL! Believe whatever you want. Processing at INS is not getting them through the judicial hoops.
All your saying is the forces who wanted one thing couldn’t get the votes the comprehensive bill could because compromise was required in a dem controlled congress.
Well duh! Same lame arguments. We only wanted the parts we wanted and none of the parts the others wanted – who made it possible to get the numbers to pass! But hey, we have the hype-partisan victory and now everything is perfect. The hypochondriacs have the status quo they demanded – so don’t blame others for your results.
We are all awed with admiration in what you folks left us – honestly. We are just simply awed – with the same old crap we had for decades. And no control of Congress to boot. Stunning work there folks.
And if you want to make assumptions, then lets at least be honest about the probability here. Similar inititives have already been tried twice and resulted in exponentially more illegals here than ever. At least at the time, they recognized that they were not really addressing the core of the problem….but were leaving that for another time (that never happened).
So, the position that a yet “3rd” try at this without addressing the core issues of how people are getting here, is somehow going to have an impact on or reduce illegal immigration is …at best….at odds with the past and not likely to succeed in doing what it’s intended to do (like “most” gov legislation that requires gov oversight). Some would call that an assumption not based in logic or common sense.
The position that such an attempt would in fact cause increasingly MORE illegal immigration is not only a more objectively tangible position, but historically the most likely outcome. It would seem at that point, the argument is…yes…but at least as our boat sinks at the bow from the hole there, we’ll have perfected and instiituted a much better bailing process??
DC,
You want to be honest? Admit your success was a dismal defeat. Admit that all you did was retain the results of those previous failures. Admit this bill had things in never before seen (like no path to citizenship for migrant workers).
Don’t start spewing hypochondriac BS around here and expect anything less than being called on the BS.
You have no proof of your theory – none. You folks just make up myths to deny what happened. There was a chance for major change, but because there was no pressure to remove the long term illegals (thus the moniker “Amnesty Bill” something your side coined) the entire package of progress and you folks left us with the status quo.
Now you folks own the status quo since it was your efforts to keep us burdened with it. Not my fault you did this, not my problem you don’t like being reminded of what you brought this country – more of the same. You did congratulate yourselves when you did it – right?
LOL! And now you get to wallow in the fruits of your efforts. Those killed by criminals we could have deported are now your fault for not letting the new laws passed. You left them in this country. Not what I wanted.
AJ, The problem wasn’t created by “hypos”. And yes…we did in fact succesfuly defeat that bill (2x); it wasn’t hard….it did not have the support of the American people to pass. That’s why they tried to ram it through as they did…because it would have been the only way to do it.
I have NEVER argued that a migrant worker bill, etc., were “bad things”. That has never been the crux of my argument. That has been the crux of a disingenious response to our arguments (along with caling us bigots, etc.,). It has never been the cause that I have argued that we do not “also” need such inititives. But, even by your own admission, the bill was not focuse on, nor did it address the fundamental issues of how people were getting here illegally. That’s where the “it’s good enough” or better than nothing.
No, it’s not better than nothing if it actually serves to make the problem worse than doing nothing!!!! Which is exactly what the 2 previous “better than nothing” attempts did. We are BOTH assuming results here. You are basing your assumption on results based on a gov that is efficient, could oversee and mangage a 12 million and growing data base, and enforce written laws, rules and regs.
I’m basing mine on the history of legislation that never does what it’s intended, gets left behind unattended (Regardless of what it actually says), is not enforced, and is severely underfunded and undermanned to do the job. That and 2 previous attempts at “immigration reform” by only dealing with people that were already here…and causing the problem we have “now”.
What do you think the odds on that bet would be and who do you think it would favor??
And if you want to use BS statements as argument…..you let him in here illegally to start with….not what “I” wanted.
AJ,
I don’t read the views of those opposed to the reform bill as changing their views at all on the laws currently on the books. You’re missing the point…the laws on the books aren’t adequate and the laws that were in the new bill were not adequate (in their opinion) so why replace one bad law with another? They wanted definitive change and they didn’t see the new law as having that.
You never showed me where, in the bill “The new laws would have limited the ability of the judiciary to ‘interpret’.” Since I’ve yet to see any law that hasn’t been interpreted extensively I’d like to know what provision will prevent this.
AJ, just what makes you think it is the far right or conservatives who want the status quo? You’ve got your work cut out for you trying to sell that one. I’d say your failure to answer some key questions on this subject is more than enough evidence that you are out in the wind on the subject. And what’s with the LOL responses everytime? No offense but it conjures up images of the Hillary cackle……the nervous-I-don’t-have-an-answer-response we’ve come to know an love.
The proposed law from last year was all about securing the future voting bloc for the Democrat Party and the institution of slavery in the United States and that’s all.
AJ,
“Whippet1,”
“Your mind is closed so I will only do this one more time. The laws on the books have been weakened by challenge cases and precedence. It happens. The new laws would have limited the ability of the judiciary to ‘interpret’.”
“But of course you knew that, right? ”
Left by AJStrata on April 19th, 2008
I will ask again…Where is it stated in the Bill that “The new laws would have limited the ability of the judiciary to ‘interpret’.”
I have no other choices than to assume you either are too busy to provide the proof of your statement, that you have been unable to find it, or that it doesn’t exist.
Maybe RickC or DC can provide me with that information.
Physical border fence/barrier works. “Virtual” bullcrap does not.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ca52_hunter/project_28_terminate.shtml
“Even though Project 28 produced approximately 3,000 apprehensions since tests began last December, it is estimated that hundreds of illegal immigrants attempt to cross into the U.S. through the Tucson sector everyday. The number of presumed crossings in this sector, since the start of Project 28, clearly demonstrates the failure of virtual fencing as a stand-alone enforcement mechanism.
“Conversely, crossing attempts and apprehensions in the Yuma sector, where approximately 30 miles of physical fencing has been built since 2007, have significantly declined. In 2006, before fence construction, there were almost 119,000 apprehensions in the Yuma sector. In 2007, when fence construction started, the number of apprehensions reduced to approximately 38,000 — and so far in 2008, there have been fewer than 4,000 apprehensions in this particular sector.”