Roger L. Simon: Thompson, bipartisanship, immigration and the war

The hugely well-received post by Fred Thompson on PJM has received a few caveats, both in the comments and elsewhere, regarding Fred's support for bipartisanship. Most of this seems to be a reflection of understandable frustration with the immigration legislation currently going through Congress, which has supporters on both sides of the aisle (Kennedy, McCain, etc.).

Although I have nowhere near enough time to read the voluminous legislation itself, my view on the subject tracks pretty well with that expressed by Rudy Giuliani the other day:

"I think the focus here has to be on the security of the United States. We should do nothing to compromise the security of the United States and we clearly need more security now after September 11th. If we need to be reminded of it, think of what happened in New Jersey at Fort Dix. Six who were apparently going to attack our troops at Fort Dix - three of them were illegal. ... We need to know everybody whoâ€™s in the United States. That's almost a basic of proper security. We need to know who's in the United States from foreign countries. A number of other countries do this. We should do it.

"So how do you get there? You need a tamper proof ID card, which anyone who comes in here from a foreign country has to have. It should contain identification criteria that is as tamper proof as possible. Second, you have to have a database in which all these names are entered so that they can be found easily and we can make the determination of who's good, who's average, and who's bad. ... And finally we need to have a border patrol that is capable of dealing with it. If you have that, if you have the tamper proof ID card and the database and you've achieved the objective of we know who's in the United States, then I think this idea of working things out between the Democrats and the Republicans and each side has to make some compromises in order to get there, then I can see a lot of flexibility there to get that accomplished. But if you don't accomplish, if you go through all of this and you don't accomplish a tamper proof ID card, a database in which we know everybody that is here, then you really haven't achieved making this country more secure ..."

In other words, it's about security. Which brings me back to the issue of bipartisanship. It doesn't take Fort Dix to remind us we are in a war against a world view that is radically different from ours. The adherents of that world view seem to be growing in number. We need everyone our side, most everyone anyway, to defeat them. You don't win a war with half your troops. That means some degree of bipartisanship, like it or not. I think that's what Thompson was driving at when he advocated talking across party lines in an evenly divided society. I can't see that we have any choice.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I agree. I think people sometimes forget that Thompson and McCain are friends and even though Thompson has a gift for getting to the point, he spent enough time in the Senate to know that sometimes you have to meet the other side halfway.

The hardliners do not want to budge and yet I have to wonder just what it is they want. They say they just want to enforce the laws, but obviously it is not that simple. Not when cities can call themselves sanctuaries and we have millions of people here we can not begin to identify. They say they do not want mass deportations, but they do not want to make people legal either. Well it seems to me that just complaining about the situation while maintaining the status quo is a sort of defacto amnesty.

We need to start keeping better track of who is here and where they come from and how they got in. Just bulding a fence will not be enough. I read that over half the illegals in the country did not even come across that border when they entered the US.

So I agree, just because Kennedy supports it is no reason to have a knee jerk negative reaction. Obama and Coburn can work together so surely the left and right can compromise for the good of the country and pass an immigration bill.

One thing I would like to add is that we have to remember we are not the whole world here on the blogs. I know more people read them than ever before, but even blogs like Kos and Instapundit can not compare with the old dead evening news when it comes to loyal fans. I know more poeple who watch Katie Couric than I do people who read Instapundit or Kos. For now.

I know some people think that the government should take their cue from the blogs, that we have some special knowledge of what the people think. Over at Instapundit Glenn said something to the effect that when it came to Dubai and Harriet Miers and immigration the blogs were an indicator of public opinion. {I paraphrase}

I am not so sure if that is really true. I think the blogs went off the deep end about Dubai. The idea that Bush was selling our ports to terrorists should have struck someone like Michelle Malkin as a tad paranoid. But nooooo. We were off to the races.

I think the treatment of Harriet Miers was embarrassing to watch. It was in fact, tacky. Highschool with a vengeance.

And I think the reactionary and shrill response to any kind of immigration reform has been depressing. I am not so sure it is indicative of what the masses think, it is indicative of what the people on the blogs think. We should remember, we are not the world. Hubris can make people too cocky. Just because there is screaming and yelling on the blogs does not mean the electorate will agree one way or the other. Ask Kos. Ask Ned Lamont. This constant complaining and finding fault and second guessing and assuming the worse and whining about past wrongs have become so much a part of the blogs that I don't even read a lot of them anymore.

one thing to keep in mind is that well educated folk from Europe are lining up to immigrate into Canada and Australia (and parts of London are loaded with French immigrants!); this cohort will increase as Europe becomes Eurabia.

At the same time, such places as Singapore and India are also becoming magnets for that sort of person; and are no longer exporting those highly educated techies/medical doctors/ etc..

Now, lots of education is not the only necessary thing for North America's well being in the future. Mark Steyn and John Derbyshire are both anglo immigrants who have a lot of negative things to say about the American (legal) immigration system.

Note that Teddy Kennedy has been in charge of America's immigration laws for the past generation. At one point, the Economist noted that (I think back in the 70s) the change in the law at that time meant that you had priority if you were (1) a nurse; or (2) Irish. Right now, your politicians are sweating over the Mexican vote (present and future.)

In other words, the Immigration laws and regulations in the US have are a ramshackle conglomeration of local politics and history, exactly like the income tax system.

Which is fine, in a pre-global, pre-jihadist world; but ridiculous with MILLIONS of people entering illegally from Mexico; and the not inconsiderable issue of loose oversight of jihadi groups in Canada.

Last: in regard to Mexico, I really think the US should take over Mexico, instead of the reverse.

Most are uneducated. Most are poor. Most will rely heavily on public services. Most will vote Democratic.

In an age where elections are determined by minute percentages, this will give the Democrats a lock on the Congress and the White House for generations to come. This is the calculation being made.

Regarding the economic impact, it will be tremendous. Just think about the impact on the Social (in)Security system, which is already broken. Most of these folks don't have healthcare and can't afford it given the low wage jobs. They will vote for the Democrats who will give them nationalized healhcare. It's just what the Democrats want - bigger government with more government dependent people who will vote for more of the same rather than bite the hand that feeds them.

One estimate is that each person granted amnesty will cost the government $500,000 NET. That is after any taxes paid by these folks.

This is the most ill conceived legislation of the past ten years. Amnesty is a huge reward to those who broke the law. This is the beginning of the end of America.

Just as the amnesty of the 1980's for about 3 million illegals led to the current tidal wave of illegal immigrants. This will just encourage more to do the same.

Yes, Rudy is right. First, we need to secure our borders and determine who is here. Only then does it make sense to discuss alternatives.

Meanwhile, hugely punitive fines need to be levied on employers of illegals. Once the economic incentive to come here is gone, maybe the influx will stop. Maybe some will even go back to Mexico.

I feel for these economic refugees, but this is not the answer nor do I believe it is my obligation or the obligation of America and her citizens to support them.

Barrett, I think you are partially correct: the Dems want these people in the U.S. because they want to get elected. Period. They do not give a hoot what is good for the USA.

What Giuliani wants, in my view, is horrible. If one has to provide a foreigner with tamper-proof ID cards, why not citizens, as well? It is completely obvious that this will lead to the government tracking its citizens -- just look at Merry Ol' England, which has become an honest-to-God police state in the span of 2 decades.

Deportation: There are many who say it simply cannot be done. This is complete rubbish, for once one starts deporting large numbers of illegals, many more will race back to Mexico. For illegals from other countries, they'll flee to Canada. Such an exodus actually occurred shortly after 9/11/2001, as many Pakistanis illegally in the U.S. fled back to Canada because of concerns about being apprehended by U.S. authorities.

Finally, any immigration 'reform' must revert to county-of-origin requirements. Under current conditions, the U.S. should simply ban immigrants from largely Muslim countries. It is truly idiotic not to do so. If it were legal, we should simply ban Muslims from entering the U.S. The idea that there is a large majority of 'moderate' Muslims is completely incorrect, as 70% of Muslims refuse to condemn what the small minority of radicals do.

I can remember reading speeches given on the floor of the House by Republicans back in the 20's about how we had to start keeping out European Jews and Catholics, because they would not ever assimilate and they multiply. The end result? Republicans lost the Jewish and Catholic vote. And are the Jews and Catholics all uneducated today?

I can remember hearing Goldwater come out against the Civil Rights Voting Act. The end result? Eisenhower got 45% of the black vote and Goldwater got 6% of the black vote, even though Congressional Republicans supported the bill in large enough numbers that it could pass. The damage was done. Rhetoric matters.

Besides, where do people get these numbers? Sometimes it is 11 million, sometimes 20 million and one day we are giving them work permits and to hear people tell it the next day they are all voting. Sounds kind of hysterical to me. I mean if you want to levy fines on employers it is helpful if they know who is and is not legal and it would also help if Americans got off their butts and did more of this work themselves if they are so upset about these people being here. I know people do not want to hear that, but believe it or not 4.5% unemployment has a few down sides. And one of them is that people get picky. And they are getting pickier all the time.

And if it means higher food prices and lost jobs to south of the border if businesses relocate then Americans should accept that and not complain about it. We are talking about a significant part of the work force here and Americans gave them the jobs. Not politicians, not Republicans or Democrats but regular Americans. The same people who drive down highways and see these people out in the fields working. They see them in construction laying brick or roofing houses. This has been going on for decades and it is just silly for people to act as if they woke up one morning and low and behold there were Mexicans in California!

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 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.

I keep hearing this stuff about no amnesty, but what is the viable alternative to a plan like this? Ed Morrisey made the point over at Captains Quarters that if we found a way to process 10,000 of these people a month it would take a century to deport 12 million. Nor is there any indication that people will just self deport.

So if we do not mass deport them with the help of the military and if we can not give any of them legal status then what is left? Ignore them and complain? Just keep kicking it down the road while more and more come? And if we do not deal with the people here then there will be no way to keep track of new people. They will just blend in to the communities. Even if we do a better job at the border as long as people know they can come in and get some fake documents they will keep trying to find ways to do it.

Surely there is a way to deport the dangerous people, give some people temporary worker status and some people legal residency while requiring that they pay fines. I read that in this plan new people will have to either show they can provide health insurance for their families or not bring them.

First let me say that I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

This bill is as bad for those who have emmigrated to the US legally as it is for legitimate citizens. It just needs to be properly communicated by President that is not tongue tied.

The problem is too big so we have to give illegals amnesty argument just doesn't sit well with me. It is capitulation. (Are we going to do the same thing with the Islamists? Just convert? What color burka should you wear today?)

Then everybody should just cheat and make up a good reason if they get caught. This is what leads to lawlessness and anarchy.

First secure the borders. The resources spent to do so will be a fraction of what it costs society to have all these illegals here.

We need to make it punitive for businesses who hire illegals. The economic incentive to come here and the economic incentive to employ illegals must be broken.

We need to enforce the laws that exist today. Every traffic ticket, every application for employment, every school registration, every driver's license application, every request for the hook up of utilities, every hospital visit and so on needs to come with a check on immigration status. If you can show you belong here, see you later. Come back through a legal process.

Let illegals apply for legal status, but they will ultimately need to leave to get it. Give priority to those who have jobs. Do it in phases.

This is just a matter of our collective will. There are a thousand ways to do it. Be creative.

Meanwhile, the Democrats don't care about America, you or me. They just want power today. Who cares if they sell our children down the road to get it.

Regarding a national ID card, what do you think a passport is? I carry one to fly. I use it for identification in general.

I am all for freedom. I resent big government. I reject socialism. I value privacy. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been the greatest invention in the political history of mankind.

I do not want a police state. My in your face request for proving who you are does not come with the idea of creating a police state. However, we need to do something if we want to get our arms around this problem and get people who are here illegally out.

This bill puts legals at the front of the line and illegals at the back of the line. It also has a merit system for immigration.

And if people kill this bill and don't get another there will be no border security enhancements. And why do they think Pelosi will give them another shot at it? I know it is a shock to the hardliners, but they don't run eveything. Every now and then they have to compromise, if they want a solution. But I am beginning to wonder if they really want a solution or if they just want to demagogue the issue.

They seem to think that while they have principles no one else does, so if they just rant and rave long enough eveyone else will cave and give them what they want. The nutroots thought that too. They thought that since people were tired of the war that meant everyone wanted to surrender. And hardliners think that since most people want to see border security they also agree want to deport all the illegals in cattle cars or whatever. Well have you noticed where Tancredo is coming in on National polls?

The truth is people pick someone like Bush or Gulliani to get their party into power because they can appeal to a large number of people...but then when the Bushes and Gullianis are actually loyal to their own convictions rather than pandering to the self anointed, they turn on them. And they will turn on Fred Thompson too if he gets too independent. But they might wait until after he gets elected.

I am beginning to wish these people would just nominate someone like Tancredo, get their butts kicked and get it out of their systems.

BTW, how do you show you belong here? There are bogus documents all over the place. Do we kick in doors and demand birth certificates? Get rid of the fourth amendment? Ignore our own laws concerning processing people for deportation?

The thing that pisses me off is that it took years to get to this place and now after allowing this to come about we want to get Stalinist on these people. Talk about irresponsible. 140 years of open border. We have city governments, state governments, county governments, as well as the federal government and all of them let this situation get to this place. It has nothing to do with surrendering, it has to do with being rational.

And no, I don't want to surrende to the Islamists, but after the Republicans get through eating their own I am afraid we will be left hoping that Fred Thompson is right about bipartisanship, because it seems to me that people are more concerned about the evils of a guest worker program than they are the mad mullahs.

You are right. It took years to get here. Now we are trying solve a gigantic problem in a week with a bill that will be so long no one will know what is in it.

Let's take our time. First secure the borders. We need to do this anyway from a basic security perspective. Begin to enforce the laws on the books today.

I am in no rush to implement Stalinst measures. My point is that there are a thousand ways to find out who is here illegally. Use economic pressure to help get the desired results.

And killing this bill will accomplish what exactly? Other than making Republicans look as if they are incapable of compromise and governing. Incapable of doing anything other than bitching about an issue they themselves say we must deal with.

No bill is going to make everyone happy. It is not possible. The left thinks this bill is too tough and the right thinks it is not tough enough.

I am no fan of law breaking. I think it has a corrosive effect on society. But then again I see people buying and selling drugs, their bodies, I see people not paying taxes and pirating music and buying guns on the black market and lying on their tax returns. We do not round them all up and send them to jail. Not only would it not be right, it would be impossible. And so is rounding up all these people. Now we can either accept that and deal with the problem or we can go complaining about amnesty.

I know I have about worn myself out on the issue. Too many posts and now I find myself like Rhett Butler, I just don't give a damn. I give up.

Immigration is a tricky issue, Amnesty or Border control? Losing the Congress for a generation or let the Dems fight for the issue in 2008?

What should be done is not rush through from Thursday to Monday, but have committee hearings, let the voters look at the bill. If there is support, live and let live. If not, it will go the way of the Dubai Port Deal.

The way Mccain and the Dems are acting over Immigration is the same way the European Union tried to force an over bureaucratized "Constitution" to their public. Trying to pass something through the dark of night, hoping the public will go along.

There really is no border security, there's too many loopholes.
It's a figleaf for us peasants.

What's interesting is Harry and Nancita might be getting pressured from the independents, there's absolutely no reason for them to hold off. Dorgan's getting a lot of heat, too.

Harry Bowman, you amuse me. If you have a driver's license, if you have credit cards, if you use email, you are already being tracked. That horse left the barn decades ago. We live in dangerous times. What Rudy is after is tracking coming into our country who want to kill us and end our civilization. If you have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.

I think some pundits including Malkin and Allah have become completely irrational on the subject.

Everyone ignores the fact that this did not pop up over night. It is not the fault of either party. We all let it happen.

Like Roger said, the horse left the barn years ago. Now the hardliners want to lock the barn, burn it down and hang the farm hand. All the while ignoring the people sneaking in the bad door of the house.

That should be back door. And what difference does it make if Nancy and Harry get pressured? If the hardliners kill this compromise the Democrats are off the hook. They will say we tried but those crazy people on the right screwed things up. Like Dafydd says, we are not in the majority anymore.

One thing I have always wondered about: If the hardliners really represent the majority of the GOP and the country for that matter, why is that Tacredo gets no real support, even from his own party? Where is the groundswell?

Well quite apart from the 'theoretical' aspects of the situation, there are the practical realities.

From my review of Roman History I don't recall them being very successful at keeping the 'borders secure' from peaceful invasions of those seeking a 'better life' within the confines of the Empire. Even with the MAJOR advantage of being indifferent to the methods used.

What needs to occur is a situation where the influx is 'managed' in a way that preserves the 'essential' nature of the host, and ensures that the incoming masses are a net contributor to the host. The Republicans are of course welcome to stand on the seashore and command the waves to turn back, but I think they might be rather disappointed at the final results.

If you are going to have a bumper crop of lemons anyway(used for purposes of ANALOGY only), then you had best both learn to like lemonade and work to have the best damned recipe for the stuff in the World. Handled 'properly' the influx of a hard-working, family-oriented, 'conservative', social group is very likely to be a 'good' thing. Especially given some of the debauched and debased aspects of the current 'culture' model.

I don't know if this Bill handles things 'properly', but I do think that the Republican 'base' is shooting itself in a very painful and debilitating place with the type of opposition it is mounting to the proposals.

That is absurd. I am so tired of hearing people rave about how we are doomed. Back in the 1850's we were doomed by the Chinese coming. Then it was the Irish who doomed us. Then the Catholics and the Jews etc.

The thing is Republicans do not have a majority anymore and they have to face the fact that compromise might be necessary sometimes.

Now maybe we could do what the communist did in China and tell the Catholic Latinos {some of whom have families going back generations in this country} that they can not have more than 2.3 children because the Anglo Protestants are sure they will never assimilate or whatever. But to say this means America is doomed is just so hysterical.

My God, people, where was all this over the top the sky is falling we are doomed stuff ten years ago?

We already let in 2m/yr we're looking at at least 3m/yr - legally, we're not ready. Use the time to upgrade the tech and put it in place.

People still remember 9/11, the response got Nancita and Harry's attention - what makes everyone think it's just the RW?

Especially since I recently recall one of the MSM saying/writing that if Gore gets in the race, he should think about getting to the right on immigration, I think it was the NYT.

The cheapest way out of this is to regime change mexico and apply anglo-saxon market based solutions.

On the bright side, they all have to live somewhere which will help the housing market.

Also, I remember reading that the grape/wine growers want this so they can hire people to pick their grapes.

France uses machines to pick their grapes. But our wine growers don't want that. They must be hand-picked.

Once again, the rhetoric turns to immigration phobias. Not so. Legal immigration is fine.

Yes, you can say we all let it happen and therefore we should give illegals amnesty.

What is being doomed is the rule of law. That is the basis of America. We are letting ourselves be overrun without nary an objection.

I object to the need for "comprehensive" reform. This took years to create. There are many issues and not all need to be opined on in one incomprehensible bill.

First, secure the borders. Part of that could be Rudi's card idea. This is the first step on the critical path.

Then we can begin to sort out the rest of the mess. The we could have the time and the sunlight to debate the issues rather than rush something through in the dead of night. For God's sake, the very people who are working on the bill don't even know everything that is in it. How will the average American know?

I never said I did not want to tighten the borders. That is what makes me mad about the hardliners, you either agree with everything they say or want the southwest to revert back to Mexico.

If you want to negotiate in that bill that the enforcement measures be met first fine. Try it. But negotiation is necessary. That is just a political reality.

My point is you have two extremes here and neither side wants a solution badly enough to give an inch to make it happen.

They would rather complain about the fact that nothing gets done. Let me repeat: Republicans do not have a majority and while there are hardliners in the GOP making lots of noise they are not even an overwhelming majority there. Do not confuse noise with numbers. The Democrats would not be in control of the House and the Senate if they were.

But I think the hardliners will kill this bill. I think they will raise so much hell that nothing will get done. They will demand the impossible and whine when they don't get it. If they want to change, they had better start winning elections.

I mentioned this somewhere else, but the next time someone complains about Iraqi politicians not being able to settle their differences they should think about this never ending, depressing, divisive debate.

Our congressvermin have a solution, let everyone in, no border security and let someone else deal w/it. The country cannot handle this.

There's more via Instapundit and Powerline - in short, amnesty and no enforcement.

Read My Flips: No Back Taxes! ... If You're an Illegal Immigrant. President Bush in an address from the Oval Office a year ago:

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship ... [E.A.]

Forget that part about the taxes. The Bush administration actually asked that the provision requiring payment of back taxes be dropped from the bill, and it was taken out. Kennedy had it in! ...

Determining the past tax liability would have been very difficult and costly and extremely time consuming.

Try that "difficult and time consuming" excuse out on the IRS if you're a U.S. citizen and see how far it gets you. ...

These next 2 years are vital to the future of this country. For 2007 we must make certain that McCain/Kennedy or whatever it's called this year does not pass the House. It will pass the Senate. The President will sign it, followed by the Totalization Treaty with Mexico, which qualifies former illegals with just 6 qtrs(18 mo) even if worked illegally, the benefits that we had to work 40 qtrs(10 yrs) to qualify for.

It?s one of those bizarre issues where both parties agree, for the wrong reasons. But if you agree with the current immigration position, don?t you think it?s absurd for the State Dept to enforce regulations and visas which make life difficult for legal visitors? And where is the fairness? What about legal immigrants trying to get to the US? Shouldn?t they be fleeing to Mejico and flaunting the rules?

Well Sandy I have been told I am a RINO, a liar, a traitor and all manner of things just for thinking a comprehensive plan with border security first might be a good idea. I think people have lost all sense when it comes to this issue. They are becoming shrill, narrow minded, intolerant hysterical..

In the long run probably nothing will get done because people will not stop screaming at each long enough to come to any kind of a solution. They will just blame Bush. Standard default.

I was just informed that since Bush and Fox were "friendly" that means that Bush is part of a conspiracy to turn the American southwest back over to Mexico or something. I could not really get the gist of it. After all when Bush came into office the first thing he did was tear down that wall that had been built and maintained by previous presidents who were NOT friends of icky Mexicans. I am being sarcastic of course, but I am also getting tired of getting yelled at for not being outraged and hysterical enough.

And you know something I am always surprised at Kaus's stance on this issue. He supported John Kerry in the last election and we all know where Kerry stood on this issue. Maybe some people need to be reminded of that. Maybe Kaus has had a change of heart since he voted for the Jr. Senior from Mass. And I am sure that if Gore won that wall would be built by now. You becha.

Glad to know you enjoy being a subject, rather than a free citizen. I have a passport, but I chose to get it; I wasn't forced to get it (it is, as I recall, for my own protection when I am in a foreign country).

It's nice to know that you consider the American Ruling Class to be your masters. I choose otherwise.

there's an article on asianet how the muslims and hispanics are working together (and hispanics converting) in places like Miami because they have so much in common.

The Little Mermaid statue in Denmark's capital was found draped in a Muslim dress and head scarf Sunday morning. Police removed the clothing after a telephone caller reported it, spokesman Jorgen Thomsen said.

Employers, who helped shape a major immigration bill over the last three months, said today that they were unhappy with the result because it would not cure the severe labor shortages they foresee in the coming decade. In addition, employers expressed alarm as they learned that the Senate bill would require them to check a government database to verify that all current and former employees — aliens and citizens...

Jaime P. Martinez preached from the podium of a small chapel at Primera Baptist Church flanked by U.S. and Mexican flags, his message one of defiance — not of turning the other cheek.
"We must not sell out, and we must fight for the rights of our people that have been here!" he shouted, a crowd of 50 or so cheering and applauding as the short speech closed. "This is our land and we're going to fight for just and humane comprehensive immigration reform!"

I fail to see how the following approach can be characterized as shrill or hysterical. Yes, there is a problem. Yes, we need to begin to address it.

Third, it punitive for businesses who hire illegals in order to break the incentives for both employers and illegals.

Fourth, continue to allow legal immigration. Rudi's idea is to focus on security by using a tamper proof card.

Fifth, deal with the subsequent issues individually, realizing it will take time (just as it took time to get where we are).

There is no rational reason for an incomprehensible, comprehensive solution where no one can articulate the social, political or economic impact of the legislation. There is no reason to assume these risks - especially given the poor track record government has in designing and executing a plan in an efficient manner.

And Terrye, I do not think you are a liar or a traitor. I just think the approach to the problem should be different.

Well Barret, thank you for allowing me my own opinion. At least you did not accuse me of being hispanic or Catholic. Or an unprincipled b****. Been there.

I have read stuff on the net this weekend that makes me wonder how any Hispanic could vote Republican again if he honestly thinks this how people feel. For that matter reading someone say that McCain gave HoChiMinh a blow job makes me wonder if maybe this Independent should not contemplate a change in voting patterns. Nasty and stupid.

Secure the borders...sounds simple but there are people with very different opinions as to what that means. For some people it means additional personell and the kind of technology the military uses. For others it means a wall around the entire United States with a moat, land mines and hot wire. From what I have been hearing there will be people who can not and will not be satisfied on this issue.

enforce the laws that exist today....so does this mean we arrest, process and deport 12 million people? If we managed 10,000 people a month that would take a century. Do we arrest and shut down all the businesses? I read in the WSJ that 47% of the ag workers might fit into this category. So do we call in the NG to work the fields? What about the mayors of large cities who have decided their cities will be sanctuaries? I am not saying it is good to ignore the law, just the opposite. But at this point it should be obvious that these laws are not working and they might need to be changed. We do not have the means to just enforce the laws.

forth, making it punitive to hire legals. This bill which all the hardliners are so eager to toss out the window has the strongest employer penalties to date.

fifth: deal with the issues individually. How? They would not be crossing the border if they did not know they could blend in once they got here. These things do not exist in a vacuum. If they know there is no kind of ID and that once they get in the country some bogus documents will cover them they will try to come. But the ID effects that....so the ability to identify directly effects their willingness to cross the border. Not only are the two not mutually exclusive they are interdependent. And if there is a legal alternative, such as a guest worker program it will make it less likely some people will enter illegally.

And the reason for a comprehensive program??? Well it is what will pass. It is a question of having the votes. The Democrats made concessions on this, more than Pelosi even wanted them to make. She is just looking for an excuse to either not bring up anything or bring up something worse. And the hardliners might be giving her that excuse. So the reason is....you do not have the votes to get what you want. That is the practical reason. It is the same reason the nutroots can not get the troops home. They have over estimated their political clout. Now the hardliners might be able to kill this compromise, but bullying the other side into giving them everything they want just because they say so might not happen. Give it a shot, but don't say there is no reason why when you guys say jump everyone else does not just say how high.

In truth, it makes more sense to negotiate for as much as you can get..but keep in mind that it is more important to get a bill that some people in both parties can agree to and support than it is to just reflexively reject every alternative out of hand. Otherwise this issue that so many say is so important will not be dealt with at all and the very people screaming the loudest will be to blame.

And Sandy, not all hispanics are like that and if the right continues to demonize all these people the Republicans will never gain a majority again. I have heard people in militias say things about the federal government every bit as scarey as anything these guys are saying but I don't assume every white man with a gun is Tim McVeigh.

By "that" I meant the quote from Lucciane. Speaking of that the other day I saw someone from there call hispanics brown drawfs who stank like refried beans. I thought then, if this is the kind of thing I have to give an amen to if I am going to be in this club, well like Kos said, Screw em.

As to name-calling, please. I'm on the short side myself, and have had to roll up my sleeves and blacken peoples' kneecaps for years.

there is no protection of the borders. We were supposed to have protection in 1986, Remember around 1996 and legalizing 1 million at a crack?

All the bills will be toast if the loud people don't get their way. The rest of us don't matter.

For instance, my brother is tough on this issue. He really is. He has friends in the military and they were talking about some of the surveillance and intel technology they have now and my brother said that he thought some of that would do as well in the desert as a fence, in fact it would probably do better in isolated areas.

So I tell someone that on another site and he accused me of Orwellian double speak and said I did not want to secure the borders and I was for open borders and on and on. It seems there can be no difference of opinion, no honest debate. No divergence from the party line. I felt like I was dealing with the Borg.

So yeah, I too do not believe that it is either or...but some of these folks do and they will do their best to kill any bill that does not meet their specifications. To hell with everyone else. And so I guess it depends of whether or not they can get Pelosi to go with that. And I see no reason why she would.

I have gotten to the place where I really don't care. I think a lot of these people are nuts.

Terrye, protect the border 1st, everything else will follow. What's so hard to understand?

Worked seasonally in agriculture for 3 years? 21 points. Up to a max of 25 for 5 years. In fact, nothing else scores as high as migrant farm work.

Reducing the cost of lettuce is more important than reducing the cost of health care? Brilliant!

As a side note, now that the dems have passed the largest tax hike in history by repealing the Bush tax cuts, what happened?

A separate amendment, 97-1 I think, keeping the childcare credit, making sure the marriage penalty doesn't come back and, if I read it correctly, not raising the death tax rates to where they were. (See, we can compromise.)

The problem for Conrad's pushing the tax hike is the deficit should be around -0- before the election. He doesn't think so, he's using some gov numbers which are usually off.

OTOH, when they kill the economy, there won't be as many low end jobs for all these new Americans as they think. But at least there'll be fewer illegals to undercut these new low-wage Americans - then really watch the budget deficit soar.

I recently went on a Museum tour in Cincinnati, Ohio. Their History museum is great and I highly recommend it to anyone who happens to visit the city.

At any rate, their museum focuses on History from the perspective of the people of Cincinnati... one of the areas they had several exhibits on was the Know Nothing Party. I found it surprising that many of the slogans, speeches, diatribes and comments made by those people are nearly identical to some arguments we hear right now about "illegal immigration". Really, the largest difference seems to be that it's Mexicans instead of Irish and no one has stormed a ballot box... yet.

It concerns me to see people write that "Democrats don't care about America". Not only does this make millions of good, hard working, loyal Americans out to be "anti-American", but it also seems as insane as people on the left that claim that Republicans don't care about the future of America (due to Global Warming, Globalization and the national deficit). Neither position sees any closer to the truth, and sadly appear much more as anti-American statements in and of themselves.

A wise man once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Making insulting, exaggerated and biased devisive statements about our fellow citizens seems a great way to divide our nation. If you truly fear global jihad, if you are really concerned that Bin Laden intends to destroy America, if you honestly want to see America survive... then decide now. Decide if Abortion or Jihad is more important. Decide if the specifics of illegal immigration are as important as Americans working together. Choose the America you want to live in, divided and weak or united and strong. If you want a United America, then you must work for a United America. That means compromise, that means assuming positive intent on the part of fellow citizens, that means realizing that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are no more enemies of America than George Bush, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, you or me. Al Queada, Iran, North Korea, Syria and crazy independent jihadists like the fools at Fort Dix, are more than enough enemies, we don't need to have pretend enemies from within at the same time.

Debate, disagreement and discourse are good. America was founded by people that disagreed heavily on the details of the government. They got past those disagreements through compromise and a focus on the real challenges faced by this Nation.

If we can't do the same, we're undeserving citizenship in this nation. We're undeserving of the freedoms of this nation and we're undeserving of all the bounty of our great land.

Partisan bickering and inane political extremes are not what will protect us against threats from the outside. Bipartisan compromise and remembering that we are ALL Americans may.

BTW, it was Abraham Lincoln who pretty much did away with the Know Nothings. Different Republican Party.

The thing is the pundits and people like that can raise hell, the more contronversy there is the better it is for them...but when negotiating a compromise it is necessary to give up something. That is what negotiation is about and there are certain people involved in this escapade who have no intention of giving an inch. And they are in the minority.

So the Democrats want regularization for people who are here and do not have criminal records. The right wants more border security. Most of the people who are here will not be deported because of sheer numbers. If the right kills the bill...the people stay and the hardliners don't get the enhanced enforcement which they want. The Democrats on the other hand end up right about where they were and they lose nothing. Maybe for their next trick these guys will shoot themselves in the other foot.

The illegals aren't here because they want to become Americans. They're just looking for work, and their home governments don't want the kind of economy that would supply opportunity.

Enforce the law, made it difficult for the illegals to find work, and they'll stop coming. And many of those already here will go home. We don't have to try and deport 12 million people, we just have to remove the incentive that brings them here. Notice I'm talking about illegal immigrants here, legal immigrants are a whole different kettle of fish. Illegals are a serious problem, while legals are generally an asset.

We do need to take a deeper inspection of Muslim immigrants, for reasons that should be obvious. They're aren't any Buddhists, Christians, or Jews piloting civilian airliners into buildings.

Go ahead, Terrye and dclydew, go ahead and compromise it all away. Please get it through your heads that negotiation only works if BOTH sides compromise. Otherwise it's called 'caving in', which is what the clueless we call the Administration are doing.

You do not know your history. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill of '86 was another whiz-bang compromise (good old conservative compromiser Sen. Alan Simpson, R-WY) about which Ted Kennedy promised would affect us hardly at all, but opened the gates to the ignorant and unable.

Do you know there are towns (not cities) in the midwest where over 70 languages are primarily spoken, where Somalis from different tribes fight their perpetual tribal conflicts out in the high school?

What you are overlooking is that the Democrats of Lincoln's time drove us over the cliff into civil war rather than exercise bipartisanship. They maintained that slavery was the best system possible for the Negro, clutching at an obscene rationalization to maintain their wealth and power.

Today a great part of the Democratic party seems not to care about the carnage and enabling of the jihadists our precipitate departure from Iraq would unleash, despite the example of the aftermath of the Vietnam war. One can compromise with others of good faith, but I refuse to ride with someone who will drive the car into a wall, even if they are willing to compromise and do it at 80 mph rather than 160.

I know my history. I know that in '86 there was nothing in the bill that actually included the border security. This time there is. I also know that in the years since then no one has done squat about this but bitch. That is all. The states did not deal with it, no one. The same people who complain that the government did not enforce the laws seem to have forgotten they are the government. We all are. It is only a high priority when the hardliners think they might not get to deport everybody. As if that will happen anyway.

As for compromise, let me explain something to you, the Republicans do not have a super majority, they do not even have a majority...the Democrats control the Senate, that means they have no choice but to deal with Kennedy. It is the just the rules. Those pesky rules. A bothersome political reality.

I suppose the alternative is to kill the bill and then there will be no additional enforcement resources, and the same people who killed it without a viable alternative will whine about that too. They will wait hoping for the day when they have enough votes to do what? I mean why bother if you don't trust the government anyway, what difference does it make what bill passes?

I don't think anyone overlooked the fact that the South had a lot of Democrats. But you know what? Truman and Sam Nunn and Zell Miller also belong to that party. I think the point is that we need to think about the national security issues here because there are some really scarey people out there and to kill this bill and with it the money and men and resources for additional security would be a really stupid thing to do just because the Democrats are involved. We have a two party system and they are one of them. I have family members and neighbors and friends who are Democrats. I happen to think their leadership is abysmal...but they are not AlQaida.

Ahhh, now I get it Terrye, you think there will actually be added money and security.

I don't have a link but Michael Barone wrote an article in support of this and he is no dummie.

Now there are ways to put that money in there and if you don't believe that then it does not matter what anyone says anyway.

The economics [of the immigration "compromise"] are relatively simple. Low skilled immigrants are admitted in huge numbers driving down the wages of blue collar workers. Certain groups of professionals (doctors, engineers, and computer programmers for example) will also see their wages decrease. Meanwhile, the social costs associated with education, health care and welfare expenditures will explode and be largely socialized.
The primary beneficiaries will be social, economic and political elites who manage to reap the benefits of mass immigration while insulating themselves and their families from the consequences. They don't have their livelihoods, not to mention their children's education, threatened by mass immigration, but they will acquire the cheapest pool cleaners, house-keepers, and roofers in the Western World.
The moral of the story is that we no longer live in a country governed by its people. What the elites want, they will get. Open borders, "free trade," never ending war and interventionism, the melding of America into globalist political institutions and a "global economy" and the destruction of our laws, culture, and people.

And Stephen Douglas ultimately supported the war for the Union: "There are only two sides the the question. Every man must be for the United States or against it (hmm, where have I heard something like that before?). There can be no neutrals in this war, only patriots - or traitors". But he was one of the very few; if Harry Truman and Sam Nunn and Zell Miller were still in office I might feel differently, but the current crop can't hold a candle to those guys. My family have been staunch Democrats since my great-grandfather's day (one of the first Democrats elected in Oklahoma), but no longer. It's about substance, not labels. As has been said before, it takes two to tango, and if the current Democratic leadership has our country's interests at heart, rather than short-term advantage and slipping a knife into Bush, it isn't apparent to me.

One more point - It is in Mexican people's interest to solve the underlying problems that send the illegals north. Without the safety valve of illegal immigration, these industrious and good-hearted folks might demand some real reforms in their own country.

In "Senate Immigration Bill is Progress" Townhall, May 21, 2007, Michael Barone says the following:

“To regularize the flow [of immigrants], we also have to do something about the illegal immigrants already here. The bill, as I understand it, would provide them immediately with a chance to regularize their status without putting them on the road to citizenship. They would have to pay a fine and would be subject to deportation for criminal offenses, but if employer sanctions were known to be enforceable they would have an incentive to regularize.”
---

As to Mexico's socio/economic problems, what's going to be left other than the very old and very young?

Sandy P, I beg to differ re Mexico. We are not 'carving out' their center, we are carving out their impoverished younger men, ages 18-40 or thereabouts, more than women. At least 'twas so when I passed through many tiny rural villages in Vera Cruz state 3yrs ago--no men there, just women and clouds of young kids.

Mexico is exporting its social problem to us, the huge part of the population at the bottom. It is healthy for Mexico, especially if, as proposed, the new legislation lets their nuclear families join these men once they are regularized. The Mexican middle class has vigorously expanded, says the WSJ. The impact of this humongous demographic shift will only slowly be realized, and we'll wake up to barrios, many barrios, instead of banlieus.

Virtually overnight we've become a de facto bilingual culture; I've got both my kids taking Spanish, since the undocumented ain't hot to Anglicize.

I see, you are just assuming they are lying to you. Poor baby, you have been so badly used. Whereas the rest of us have lived happy lives in which disappointment and disillusionment never show their ugly faces.

They are still debating the damn thing. If they have some details people bitch, if they work on it in "secret" and then come out with information later people bitch. That is all some people do. bitch bitch bitch.

Speaking of betrayal, last year we had the first installment of the immigration temper tantrum and the hard right said stay home and teach them a lesson by God. So the Democrats won and now Kennedy is in the leadership. Some lesson.

I see from a post at The Anchoress that she has received an email about a google bomb designed to destroy any free thinkers in the ranks of the Republican party. Put that kind of stuff together with the usual slapping the President around and I would say the hard right might well help the Democrats to gain both the White House and a super majority in the House and Senate. By Golly, that'll teach those Dems not to miss with the Real Republicans.

I know hispanics who are not socialists, in fact they are conservative Christians. They are certainly not jihadis. These people are not all the same.

Jack,
What you are overlooking is that the Democrats of Lincoln's time drove us over the cliff into civil war rather than exercise bipartisanship.

Eh? How am I overlooking that? Anytime that the major parties don't exercise bipartisanship, compromise etc. BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

This is exactly the sort of Bullshit that I'm talking about. No Democrat wants to enable jihadists that's a lie. No democrat wants to see more carnage, that's also a lie. Democrats have a different perception of how to deal with our current issues and its one that I'm not sure I agree with, but that isn't enabling the jihadists or not caring about carnage. It's different approaches and different priorities, but its not EVIL.

Many Democrats would say that the Republicans drove us into a Brick wall over the past several years. Many will point to "pro-business anti-environment" actions by the administration and Congress and say "Republicans hate America"... yet that's also bullshit. Simply because people differ on how they want to solve problems doesn't mean that they are evil, or want the terrorists to win.

Now Terrye, I'm a tail-end boomer - I don't trust my gov and I trust the world even less.

Never, ever trusted Chappaquiddick, don't trust Soros' shill Maverick and these guys are heading it up. Geez, maverick didn't even stay around to vote on cloture.

Don't gang members get to stay if they sign a piece of paper and promise not to be a member anymore?

May 19, 2007: Thompson, bipartisanship, immigration and the war

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post