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.”

“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.

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.

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??

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

Just what is this burr you have under your saddle for conservatives? Clearly it’s a sore subject for you.

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?

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?