Centerfield

At this point, the right question is not "Is this a good solution?" Rather it must be: "Is there a better solution which has any prayer of being enacted?" Because the current excuse for a system is simply horrible.

Personally, I find all kinds of things not to like in the current bill, not even including all the pork that it got larded with. But I do not see any real prospect of something else passing into law. Which, to my mind, means that we should get it done -- and then go to work on changing the parts that need changing.

Part of the joy of democracy is that you end up with compromises, and taking a lot of small incremental steps to make a major change. Make no mistake about it. We need a major change in our approach to immigration -- and this bill isn't it. But it looks to be the best first step available. And only a fool (of which be have far too many on this issue) insists on making the perfect the enemy of the better.

In form, that's always a defensible argument. The question, of course, is whether in such instances opponents really are insisting on perfection and thereby sacrificing substantial improvement (your argument).

The equally defensible viewpoint is that reform for its own sake may not be a virtue. What seems at a glance to be missing from this bill is much of anything that consoles folks who want our immigration policy to be substantially different from these days forward. Is there going to be a substantially stronger enforcement component going forward? Are employers going to face serious sanctions if they hire illegal undocumented workers? Or are such provision merely token attempts, without teeth? Window dressing.

In other words, is this a law that addresses only a small part of the problem and avoids any of the sticky issues that can't be addressed without upsetting powerful constutiencies? I can't help but think back to the model of such craven legislation, the prescription drug bill which led to the government assuming large new costs without making any substantive attempts at addressing cost growth.

In the wake of this bill, is the ani-amnesty crowd going to be right in saying this is more of the same? is this just another of the periodic spasms of granting citizenship to immigrants, one that doesn't REALLY make a serious attempt at reducing the illegal flow by upping border security and discouraging illegal employment?

In the opinions of most americans, does this bill make things "better" if it addresses the status of immigrants substantively but does not substantively address the issue of the rate of flow of illegal immigrants?

I don't want to be the person holding out for perfect at the expense of real improvement. But neither do I have much respect for legislation that addresses just enough of the problem to fractionally lower the volume to a level Congress can tolerate while it trumpets that it did something to address the issue. IMO, many legislators have not shown much respect for the views of folks who want secure borders and who don't want jobs going to folks who came here in contravention of our laws.

IMO, the democrats are on the verge of handing the GOP a powerful wedge issue for use in the 2008 election.

Speaking as part of the "Anti-Amnesty" crowd, I think what we want is first and foremost for the government to demonstrate that it has ANY sort of resolve WHATSOEVER to ENFORCE the EXISTING LAWS which are ALREADY on the BOOKS.

The government has historicaly passed a whole host of past immigration legislation which was supposed to address the problem and promptly abrogated ANY responsibility for actualy enforcing them.... the only portion of that legislation which they have ever attempted to enforce is the amnesty offers.

Frankly most of the people on my side of the arguement see the current legislation as FAR WORSE then actualy doing NOTHING about the problem. Not only does it grant (in practical terms) effective amnesty to people who have already circumvented the current system but it makes it INFANITELY more easy to circumvent that system in future.

One small example, under the current system there is a staff of about 3,000 persons tasked with adjucating immigration requests. They currently have MONTHS of backlog work on thier plates. Under the new proposed legislation... these same individuals would be tasked with approving requests for temporary residency by current illegal aliens .. all the illegal alien need do is present some sort of bill, bank statement, pay-stub dated before the date the legislation goes into effect.... the adjucater, under the legislation, has just 24 HOURS to investigate the claim, perform a background check on the individual and approve or reject the application... OR IT IS AUTOMATICALY APPROVED BY LAW. The proposed legislation provides for an increase in the current staff of 3,000 adjuducaters (already with MONTHS of backlogged workload on thier plates) of only 100 PER YEAR, for 5 years.

Now, does anyone NOT think that in practical terms this will have the effect that practicaly EVERY single application filed will be automaticaly approved without any verification attempt whatsoever? That means that not only every single person in the country illegaly today will be approved regardless of thier criminal history, background or real elligability.... but EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO WISHES to enter ILLEGALY IN FUTURE and has access to a copier to crudely forge a phone bill or pay stub will ALSO be given automatic legal status.

Let's call this legislation what it really IS... A CRASS ATTEMPT BY POLITICIANS TO PANDER TO A CERTAIN ETHNIC DEMOGRAPHIC IN RETURN FOR VOTES.

What really needs to happen is that the government needs to demonstrate that it has the willpower to enforce EXISTING laws and get control of the borders.... THEN and ONLY THEN.... can we talk about what to do about what today with people already in the country.

Let it BUILD the 800 miles of security fence already approved in legislation (The current proposed bill reduces it to 300, as I understand)..... what has it built so far... 11 miles? Let it increase the staff of the Border Patrol so they aren't hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned by the smugglers on the Border. Let it use the National Guard and millitary on the border to augment the Border Patrol...and not just in a support role...but in a border security rule. Let it get serious about investigating and PROSECUTING major employers of illegal workers... people need to be serving actual jail time for that. Let it also put REAL PRESSURE on the government of Mexico and other Latin countries to reform thier corrupt government and economic systems. With thier natural resources, climate and geographic position... there is no way those nations citizens should NEED to turn to crime or illegal emmmigration to escape a life of poverty.
We aught not to be propping up the decrepit and corrupt governmental systems which foster such conditions with a flow of illegal dollars south.

Start getting serious about all those things and a LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM will go away on it's own. THEN we can talk about realistic and fair ways to deal with the people ALREADY HERE ILLEGALY. Don't address that stuff first and your simply trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a teaspoon... it's just not gonna work.

IN SHORT, we don't need any STINKIN new legislation. What we need is the political WILLPOWER to enforce existing legislation. Passing more sheets of paper that no one does anything about is NOT a solution.

"At this point, the right question is not "Is this a good solution?" Rather it must be: "Is there a better solution which has any prayer of being enacted?"

WJ .... I think the more pertinant question is... "Does this legislation actually make things WORSE not BETTER??"

Many people on my side of the arguement actualy see the proposed legislation as making things WORSE then the current situation.

I'm not requiring a "perfect" solution, or even a "good" one.... I just require one that doesn't make things SUBSTANTIALY WORSE then they already are.

Furthermore I contend that the idea that nothing better has a prayer of getting passed is an illusion fostered by those currently in Congress and by the cadre of people who actualy want Open Borders. Last numbers I saw was that something like 80% of the American public favors Strong Border Enforcement as a first step in the immigration debate. Where you have those kind of numbers ..... political will is sure to follow...even if it takes a few election cycles and some bloodletting among incumbants to do it.

Right now the politicians want to have thier CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. They want to be SEEN to do something to satisfy thier base, the average american voter....while at the same time they don't want to ACTUALY DO ANYTHING to STEM the flow of illegals... because THAT WILL HARM thier standing with the special interests they wish to court.... Major Employers of illegals... and what they percieve as a large and growing pool of potential new hispanic voters.

What we have to do is make it clear to them... that they CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. They've got to either choose US or THEM.... and if they don't choose us...then they can go HANG come election time.... and consequences be damned.

Once that message gets through loud and clear... you won't believe how quickly the impossible suddenly becomes possible.

Because quite frankly, this is one issue that transcends PARTY lines.... it's not just us GOP rednecks that are fed up with immigration.... the traditional base of the democratic party...blue collar labour are getting royal screwed by the flood of illegals... thier getting fed up too.

I have no problem with those who think that the existing laws ought to be enforced vigourously first. I just don't see any prospect of this happening any time soon. Do you?

Likewise with the suggestion that this bill avoids all the hard questions. Any signs that a bill which addressed all (or even most) of them would get to first base?

Two points:
1) The current situation is intolerable. Bad for the economy. Bad for respect for the law. Bad for the people who have snuck into the country. Bad for companies who can't get the workers they need (both those with specialized skills and those who are simply willing to do the grunt work). Etc. And it shows every sign of getting worse rather than better over time.
2) Even a small improvement is worth doing, especially given the evidence that nothing more can be accomplished at the moment. Would doing more be good? Sure. But is there any evidence at all that it might happen? Nope.

Now does someone want to argue that the current bill would actually make things worse overall (not just in some spots, which is what simply crying "amnesty" amounts to IMHO)? I haven't heard that argued convincingly. But it would at least be a valid reason to oppose it.

Cengel,

OK, you think this bill makes things worse. That's a valid point (although I disagree). And you are absolutely correct that unhappiness with the current mess extends actoss all parties and ideologies (albeit with different ideas about what is wrong with it).

But if you think something good could be passed, where is it? The problem is hardly new -- it's just getting worse. Has anyone actually submitted a better bill? Did it get out of (or even to) committee?

While we may agree that a major problem is the desire to politicians to have things both ways, those are the politicians we have got at the moment. And we're a couple of years away from throwing the rascals out -- even if we make the optimistic assumption that a replacement batch would be noticeably better in that regard. And until some people actually lose their seats to opponents over their stance on immigration, I don't think the message will get thru.

In the same vein, how likely do you think it is that the government will suddenly start enforcing the laws on hiring illegal aliens? How likely is it that funds for enforcement will be allocated, even if they decide to actually do something? We can wish for it to happen, but I wouldn't want to bet the ranch on it.

" And until some people actually lose their seats to opponents over their stance on immigration, I don't think the message will get thru."

W.J., I believe that you are exactly correct in that. At the very least, there has to be the very clear perception among politicians that could happen. However, such public pressure has ALREADY had an effect on a number of politicians both in this current debate and on the previous debate on the security fence.

Right now, I believe the politicians are banking on the fact that the American public is too dumb and too fickle to understand the bill of goods we are being handed. If we make it clear to them that we aren't (and believe me they do pay attention to those sort of things)... then they are going to have to rethink thier strategy.

I do think, realisticaly, that the BEST that we can hope for is that NOTHING will get done until the next election cycle...or possibly even the one after. That's a livable solution for me....because quite frankly, the current Bill does damage that can't be undone... and (IMO) is worse then doing nothing.... If doing nothing and waiting a few years for the opportunity to do something meaningfull is the best we can get (and frankly I think it is)... then I'm willing to live with that.

As far as I'm concerned, what us GOP rednecks need to do is make it abundantly clear to our politicians that no GOP candidate who supports this Bill will get our vote....regardless of whether it hands a landslide to the Dem's or not.... that's the only way we are going to get candidates who are serious about addressing this out there.... we've got to convince them that this issue is too important and too central to what we want politicaly.... that they can compromise on a whole host of other issues if they need to (taxes, gay marriage, abortion, minimum wage, health care etc) but NOT THIS ONE. We also need to reach across the isles to blue collar democrats.... and let them know that while we disagree on alot of things....this is one issue where our interests converge.

Cengel, your tactic makes no sense. There probably will be a greater Democratic mandate after 2008 and possibly a worse bill will pass. The best hope is to tighten the bill now and push it through in a bi-partisan way. In order to do this, there must be real plans for border security and a limit on relatives who can join new immigrants. The background checks must take more time and a tough enforcement of the work place must follow any Amnesty. One can toughen the bill, but hoping a weak one won't pass in 2008 is not a great bet.

Nice to see you back Brian and thanks Jon for keeping it going.

I think I'm with Cengel. I'd rather have no law passed than tompass one that leads to any rubber stamping of applications. If we can't come up with a fairly rigorous review process, I'd prefer leaving all the illegal immigrants in the hellish limbo we have now. If it becomes easier for immigrants to become citizens, that going to increase the flow.

Leaving aside any judgement about precisely how intolerable the current situation is, an increase in the flow of immigrants combined with an unreviewed path to citizenship sounds like it would make things more tolerable.

I just don't see the good news at all.

I agree IF we can't IMPROVE the present bill. I wasn't clear. A bad bill will do much damage. The position The Democrats are staking is absurd. Linda Chavez (a Bush pick) calling those who oppose an open door, Nazis, is sad.

I just think the opportunity is better now for formulating a workable bill than waiting until the Dems have a bigger mandate for a worse bill. I believe they are banking on the Hispanic vote along with miilions of new supporters. Such a partisan take on national policy is irresponsible and par for their new direction. At what point will we agree that this abberation in Liberalism is more than a reaction to Bush? Real Liberals need to take a stand.

Again, I hope we can improve the present bill and pass a bi-partisan Amnesty. Just imagine what Amnesty will look like in 2008. What can be added to the bill that will satsify Cengel, or does he demand border security first which will create more than just booing from Mexico? There is a lot at stake South of our Border.

What can be added to the bill that will satsify Cengel, or does he demand border security first which will create more than just booing from Mexico? There is a lot at stake South of our Border.

How about a more exclusive and upward path to citizenship? I'm not convinced a majority of Americans supports anything that resembles a rubber stamp. How about a show of a serious committment to border security?

Why do we feel like we need to please Mexico anyway? Let them boo. Then when they are done, and ready to work on some sort of practical policy that benefits both nations and makes a nod to the US's needs as well as Mexico's, we have a seat at the table ready for them. Can anyone seriously deny that if this bill passes, Mexico's official response will be to complain anyway about the hardships placed on migrating Mexicans by the cruel and uncompassionate US government? Of course they'll respond this way. The Mexican government isn't going to take any responsibility for the domestic conditions that drive their people to migrate north. Then they'd have to do something. Instead of just blaming us, which is easy work, and good if you can get it.

There's a bottom line realism to the views of the anti-amnesty folks, and its this.... we let immigrants come illegally and undocumented into our country in droves, without making a serious effort to stop them from coming or to find them and make them leave after they break our laws by coming. And then, every decade or so, one way or the other, we basically just let them become citizens.

If we want a bill that is going to get ANY anti-amnesty folks on board, include measures which convince these folks that a big part of the reform is that once the law is passed, things will be different in the future...that this pattern won't keep repeating itself....that we'll make our borders secure and commit to forcing immigration into legal and documented channels from the get-go. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Let Mexico sit and spin. They need us FAR more then we need them.... and quite frankly they exacerbate the problem significantly.

Perhaps turning the spigot of American dollars sent home off... and easy egress for thier own underclass... will force them to deal with the conditions (economic and political) which has created this problem in the first place.

The REAL long term solution to this problem is political reform in Mexico and other Latin American countries. However the governments of those countries won't EVER enact such reforms as long as they can use illegal immigration as a crutch to avoid doing so. They need to be FORCED into facing the issue.

At this point, I am pretty much going to demand that Border Security be enforced first before I consider any sort of process for the people here illegaly.

It does pretty much stick in my craw that we reward people who pay no respect for our laws... and move them ahead of all those immigrants who have respected our laws and worked to become residents WITHIN the approved process... sometimes waiting years patiently to be granted the right to immigrate....rather then crossing the border illegals. However, I would be willing to compromise on that and even allow amnesty for all the current illegals (save those convicted of non-immigration felonies).

However, I'm NOT willing to even countenance that until the government demonstrates in Actions, not EMPTY RHETORIC a serious commitment to enforce control over the border.

That should include:

- Construction of a security zone across the Entire southern border.

- A dramatic increase in the size and assets of Border Patrol agents, INS staff and CIS Adjucaters.

- Authorization for a millitary/national guard role in border security.

- A major campaign by the justice department to investigate and prosecute major employers of illegals.

- A provision which allows all private employers and federal programs and agencies to demand proof of identification of individuals and to be free to challange such identity when thier is a suspecion of fraud...without fear of legal penalty.

- An allowance for CIS staff to take as LONG as they deem sufficient to investigate and process immigration claims to prevent fraud (i.e. no 24 hr time limit or automatic acceptance)

Cengel, I agree with all of that. How would you re-allocate resources to pay for the border zone and extra security forces?

Would you agree to say sunset Bush's last round of tax cuts, or with a plan to scale down our overseas troop committments across the board, or maybe live with import or some other form of tax hike to finance some portion of it? IOW, are you passionate enough about it to be willing to go further than to default to the position that all that would be necessary fundingwise would be to find obvious waste elsewhere?

IMO, it makes great sense to have soldiers do part of their enlistment as a tour in border security. Reconceptualizing the military's roles and desirable areas of expertise makes a lot of sense to me in the post 9/11 world. Border security has to have counter-terrorism aspects to it anyway.

I wonder what other folks think about the extent to which drug law enforcment overlaps with border security and illegal immigration.Would changes in drug policy help us with policing the border?

Yeah, I feel not too different than like you do, BK.

What don't understand is, wouldn't it have been alot simpler and better policy to raise the numbers of immigration slots to reflect reality better?

No amnesty needed, less border pressure. If the numbers were actually chosen realistically, all of sudden it'd get a thousand times easier to enforce immigration, both because the problem would be down and because there'd be far fewer employers with illegal jobs lobbying the govt to look the other way.

Of course, it might've been harder politics to get through than this. Cengel, if you HAD to choose between this bill and enough slots to make real enforcement practical, which would you choose?

An allowance for CIS staff to take as LONG as they deem sufficient to investigate and process immigration claims to prevent fraud (i.e. no 24 hr time limit or automatic acceptance)

ISTR we used to have that and we ended up spending lots of money on inhumane, long-term concentration camps. Remember how slow bureaucracies are.

It is geopolitical suicide to ignore what is happening south of our border. Telling Mexioo and others to fuck off is stupid, as is having millions of illegals inside America in the shadow or threatened with deportation. We cannot really tighten up security to a sufficient degree to stop terrorism without a Mexican government willing to help. Once AQ has a latin face we are in deep shit.

Imagine a false flag operation plotted by Chavez and Iran suing Latin gang operatives against a target in Texas. The polarization that will follow IS EXACTLY what Chavez and Castro want. How soon could a true security wall take? How much money and with how many illegals helping out? New York construction which puts new cost per sq ft at over $200 using many illegals will increase. We cannot wait for fantasy, nor can we accept a bad bill. We need to make the bill better now, before Democrats water it down after 2008 when Republicans will not have a President to veto. I agree with BK and Cengel about the weakness of provisions. They can and must be improved, but the opportunity exists now to resolve the issue. Our security, our hemispheric influence and our economy require it. I will elaborate more later when I'm less busy, but I wanted to object to some comments now. Telling the Latin nations to screw off is just as bad as letting Iraq go to the wolves. You are not applying one criteria to all and you completely discount that illegals have increased our GDP and not lowered it. Many here make it sound like we are the ones doing a favor and not that the mutual benefit of illegal immigration have trickled out to all. Do the math people.

P.S. excuse the language (I usually edit my profanity), but compared to SF, most of you sound Right of their general position.

Who said anything about telling Mexico to eff off? That's a lot harsher and unreasonable a characterization than what I said. The point is that we need to set immigration policy to suit OUR nations needs. There's no reason we have to bend over backwards to please the Mexican government, because they can be relied upon to complain even if we give away the store. IMO the best way to get a good deal for the US with Mexico on immigration is to move forward on a serious comprehensive policy of enforcement and driving immigration into legal channels. That's what's going to push Mexican leaders away from the podiums and press conferences and up to the serious bargaining table.

Once AQ has a latin face we are in deep shit.

It's hard to have a serious discussion when someone brings up such a fearful boogeyman. Who really thinks Mexico is prone to adopting muslim fundamentalism? I sure don't. If it gets folded into the mix as a flavor of convenience, that's to be expected. But IMO the notion that it will become a legitimate force in Central America borders on absurd. They have their own brand of anti-amercanism, which means that alliances of convenience are possible and even likely. But I don't think it makes sense for us to negotiate with Mexico from a position of weakness because we are afraid that otherwise they'll jump on the AQ bandwagon. It smacks of Jimmy Carter to me.

Warning, the rest veers off topic a bit:

I think at this point in history we have a pretty good model of the extremes of foreign policy don'ts between Carter and Bush 2. Bush's aggressive preemption appears to me to be a foolish and unrealistic approach. And taking the various over-the-top pandering rhetorical constructions of foreign politicians at face value as reasonable positions and negotiating in good faith from them a la Carter is foolish in its naivete.

I think Carter and GWB offer us 2 different models of the kind of naivete we ought to avoid:

•The operative lesson of the Carter years is that people will always be tempted to wipe their feet on anything with welcome written on it.

• The operative lessons of the GWB years? Well, number 1 is that "nobody likes Goliath." Not sure what to call the other one, but I think it has to do with the idea that America is not the only country that understands the Untouchables ethos that "if you send one of ours to the hospital, we'll send two of yours to the morgue." In other words, if you turn the issue into a d!ck-measuring contest, that's what you get. Or "don't start what you can't finish... ."

BK,

I'd be willing to see a tax increase to pay for that Border Security....provided they ACTUALY used it for that purpose....not thier typical bait and switch schemes. That being said....I still believe there is a ton of fat and pork and unneceesary programs that can/should be cut out of the budget.

Jon,

If people enter a country illegaly, they only have themselves to blame. Our immigration detention practices are ALOT more humane then about 95% of the rest of the world (including our neighbor to the South)... heck, in alot of countries you're lucky if you don't get FIRED UPON crossing thier border illegaly. I got no problem with people who cross our borders illegaly sitting in detention until their situation can be properly investigated.

Max,

"New York construction which puts new cost per sq ft at over $200 using many illegals will increase. "

Sorry, I happen to believe in the free market. Perhaps that's a clue that NYC really doesn't NEED anymore construction or population. Places like NYC and San Francisco are (for MANY reasons) too expensive to live and do business in as it is. They need an adjustmant (i.e. people and businesses moving away from them to drive down demand and hence cost).... not to have thier economies proped up with the 21st century equivalent of slave labor.

Construction costs in the rest of the country are alot more reasonable.

P.S. Yes, I know the arguement that prices for many goods and services will rise if we clamp down on illegals.... that is true (although I believe overstated... as cost of labor makes up only a small portion of the price of many products).... but it completely over-looks the counter-arguement that salaries for workers will INCREASE in most blue and white collar jobs.
Essentialy economic power for most people who WORK for a living should stay the same or increase. The people who will get screwed are those who make most of thier money from stock, interest on loans or upper tier management.... and frankly given the way the income gap between those folks and most of the rest of us has been going in recent years.... I won't be shedding any tears if Donald Trumps real economic power falls from 5,000,000 X the average workers to only 2,500,000 X the average workers.