May 31, 2007

Paul Gigot & WSJ Editorial Board: The Right Is "Not Even Rational" Anymore On Amnesty Bill, Motivated By Anger, Hate, And Bigotry
— Ace

NRO's editors, called "foaming at the mouth" by WSJ in the above clip, offer them a debate to air the actual facts -- which of course WSJ will cowardly refuse to do.

The Washington Examiner wonders why the Republican establishment is so quick to disrespect and demean their base.

My two theories:

1) This is how they view us all the time; it's only in this particular context are they excitable enough to express their genuine opinions.

2) This is how they deal with any political opponents.

And on that latter point, I'm starting to wonder if the Bush Derangement Syndrome we see in so many liberals might have a vector of dismissiveness traceable right back to the White House.

Via the Corner, Laura Ingraham unloads on President Bush.

"The good news is that President Bush has finally taken the gloves off... the bad news is he's chosen to take them off to beat the hell out of us." (A paraphrase.)

Oh man. She is brutal.

She notes he goes out of his way to not question the patriotism of Democrats voting to de-fund our troops, but extends no such courtesies to his own voters.

Hey, President Bush? Fuck off. You are going down in history in a neck-and-neck battle with Jimmy Carter as worst president of the twentieth century.

And you know what? You are, pretty much, a fucking moron.

All that time we've razzed the left about claiming that? Oh, you're not diagnosably retarded or anything, but you're a fucking dim bulb, and you've got some nerve of accusing opponents of the amnesty bill (which you surely haven't even read, genius) of not being smart enough to support it.

And... Here's Bush claiming that with amnesty, we won't even need a fence! Which isn't very reassuring, because the only way that statement would be true would be if we had absolutely open borders and no concept of a American citizenship at all -- were that the law, then we wouldn't need a fence, as we'd have no laws whatsover regarding the border and immigration.

Is that the direction Mr. Smart Stuff is pushing us in?

Michael Chertoff continues arguing that border security will be increased now that his entire department will be giving up any border security duties at all.

And here's Bryan Preston, predicting that Bush's legacy will be the destruction of the GOP.


Message To The Left: I'm not saying you should impeach him, I'm just sayin', you know, go with your hearts.


Not The Twentieth Century: Damn, I'm still writing "the twentieth century" on all of my checks; takes me at least a couple of decades to get used to writing the new one.

Mark points out that Bush can't be tied with Carter as worst president of the twentieth century, as all of his presidency has taken place in the twenty-first.

So, on a technicality, Bush misses out on that distinction.

Posted by: Ace at 07:57 AM | Comments (233)
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.

1 WSJ Editors are generally OK, but when promoting their pet cause, forget that this is a democracy, and the will of the People is more important than the views of snobs sitting in their ivory towers.

Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:03 AM (IlgNp)

2 Our elite disdain us, and have for a long time.

They've attacked us with a fury they wouldn't dare touch the left with. We need a Kos-type enforcer wing to let these assclowns know how things in this country work.

Posted by: Sinistar at May 31, 2007 08:07 AM (1Wvre)

3

"The good news is that President Bush has finally taken the gloves off... the bad news is he's chosen to take them off to beat the hell out of us."


And that's the damn truth. If he had shown that type of balls when it came time to stand up against the criticism of troop numbers or war planning then maybe that ballsyness would have shown up in his war planning before he needed. Small footprint war planning? He doesn't seem to care about the footprint size he's trying to press on the throats of the people that got him in office now, does he?


Posted by: Rob B at May 31, 2007 08:08 AM (opyeT)

4

The thing that most worries me about this is that the Moonbats may have been right all along.


Bush is a tard and everything they said about him being 1) a moron, 2) a Big Business shill, 3) an autocrat "holding court" in the White House, and 4) having only a nodding acquaintence with reality...


What if it's all true?


Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 31, 2007 08:08 AM (zZy28)

5 Here's what needs to be done (in addition to anything else we might do): Pick 1 pro-amnesty squish up for re-election in '08 and tank his ass in a national-spotlight manner with no ambiguity about why.

Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 08:09 AM (m6c4H)

6
Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 01:09 PM (m6c4H)


Excellent idea.

Here are the Senate Republicans up for re-election in 2008.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 08:11 AM (R8+nJ)

7 Love how "bigotry" is thrown there just for kicks.  How liberal of Gigot.  Is this about anger?  You betcha.  One can only be lied to so many times before they just won't believe a damn thing told them anymore.  Words mean nothing from Bush, the Republicans, or the Democracts on immigration.  Visible action is what will convince people they are telling the truth this time.  Build the friggin' wall FIRST and then we can talk about the rest of the bill.

Posted by: John at May 31, 2007 08:12 AM (QC96i)

8 Personally, my pick is Lindsay Graham.  I think we should figure out who can beat his ass in a primary and donate as a group to that candidate.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 08:12 AM (R8+nJ)

9 Welcome to the club, kids. Orientation will start right after lunch.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 08:14 AM (aoDq0)

10 I have no problem with allowing people from other countries LEGALLY imigrating here as long as they go threw the paperwork and as long as once they are allowed in they can prove they can get a job, pay taxes and be good,law abiding American citizens. If not, out you go.

Now if you sneak across the Southern or Northern USA borders than i have no mercy or use for you and i dont care where you came from, what religion you worship, what color youre skin is. Out you go. With a boot to youre ass if needed. And that will be repeated as many times as needed to you get tired of being kicked out the door. No being nicey nice and kindly showing you out. A kick to youre ass, so you wont want to sneak back across and will find it better for youre own health to go threw the LEGAL process of coming in.

Posted by: JoiseyMafia at May 31, 2007 08:15 AM (6l2pd)

11

I'm really getting sick of not having some populist firebrand pander to my pet issue of law enforcement.


I mean, besides Bill O'Reilly.  His support is worth negative points in any debate. 


Posted by: Some Guy at May 31, 2007 08:16 AM (lPxkl)

12 2) This is how they deal with any political opponents.

Considering the absurd claims and abuse heaped on Ron Paul by this site, you're not allowed to complain about that.

Speaking of, I heard Walter E. Williams say on the "Rick & Bubba" show this morning that from what he knows of Fred!, he likes him as a candidate, and that the only candidate that would be better is Ron Paul. His only complaints are that Paul has no chance to win the primary, and that he doesn't like his foreign policy notions.

Posted by: rho at May 31, 2007 08:16 AM (8eBMH)

13

and that he doesn't like his foreign policy notions.


You mean the thing that a President has the most power over? It's like saying John Murtha is the best congressman possible, I just don't like his voting record.


Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 31, 2007 08:22 AM (zZy28)

14

Slu,


I read your first post, read through the list, and said, "Slu would surely like to draw a bead on Lindsay Graham". And I was right!


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:22 AM (IlgNp)

15 I'd like to see Lindsay Graham's political career ended. I think we (as a movement) could make it happen. Let the purges begin!

Posted by: Sinistar at May 31, 2007 08:25 AM (1Wvre)

16
Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 01:22 PM (IlgNp)


I was praying he was up for re-election.

Gang of 14, campaign finance reform and now this?

It's time, folks. 

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 08:25 AM (R8+nJ)

17

Fred Thompson should pick a fight with Bush.  Then we'll see if Fredmania is what it's cracked up to be.


Unless, you know, it turn out not to be, in which case, we'll be doomer sooner and much more than we are now. 


Forget I said anything.


Ever.


Posted by: Some Guy at May 31, 2007 08:25 AM (lPxkl)

18

>>Gang of 14, campaign finance reform and now this?


Not to mention his personal charm.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:28 AM (IlgNp)

19 I always was a very big Bush supporter, and now I am starting to have doubts about him. It takes something special to propose an Immigration plan so bad, that it turns an immigrant into an anti-immigration guy.

Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:34 AM (IlgNp)

20

>>that it turns an immigrant into an anti-immigration guy.


I shoudl word that better. I am turning anti-immigration reform. Not anti-immigrant.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:36 AM (IlgNp)

21 Why shouldn't the Dems impeach him? Personally, it wouldn't bother me in the least. Hell, I'd donate to the cause.



Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 08:36 AM (gNyUT)

22 So you righties are finally feeling the other end of You are either with us or against us! 

Posted by: aric at May 31, 2007 08:38 AM (ud1tF)

23 Now you're talking.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 08:38 AM (aoDq0)

24 Jimmy Carter only gave away the Panama Canal; Duh Bya wants to give away everything including the Erie Canal.

Posted by: Haile Tsada at May 31, 2007 08:39 AM (WOguX)

25 it turns an immigrant into an anti-immigration guy.

Tush, please don't fall into that lefty talking point (and for purposes of this discussion I include Bush, Chertof, et al as part of the left).  The overwhelming majority of people who have issues with this plan oppose illegal immigration, not immigration in general. 

Most of us welcome skilled people who play by the rules.

One of my biggest issues with this plan is it affords low skilled, illegals preferential treatment over skilled legals (look at the benefits of the proposed z- visa over the H-1) and jams the processing system making it harder for legal immigrants to come and stay here.

Oh Hell, I see you already clarified but I think the points still stand as to why those of us who welcome immigrants should hate this bill.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 08:41 AM (gNyUT)

26

Aric, R.L Page.


We are becoming hostile to President Bush because of his latest policy positions. We do not hate him like you guys do. What you have is pure hatred, venom and bitter bile. We will never be like you. We will never be able to hate Clinton, and even Carter with the same fervor with which you hate Bush. Because contrary to common wisdom (spread by your side, ofcourse), we are not the evil people you think we are.


Now FOAD.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:42 AM (IlgNp)

27 Can we all just agree to never again vote for any Bush at any time for any thing?

Bush Mach 1 broke the back of the Reagan revolution and Republican power with his "no new taxes" flip.

W. was supposedly motivated to run for Pres as a way of restoring the Bush reputation. Who knew the reputation he hoped to restore was Chief Doofus and Destroyer of the GOP?

Posted by: rinseandspit at May 31, 2007 08:44 AM (q9jq7)

28 Can we all just agree to never again vote for any Bush at any time for any thing?


It's a good thing Jeb (also an amnesty guy) doesn't want to be President. Never going to happen now.


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 08:46 AM (gNyUT)

29 The left hates Bush when he's effectively good for the country, we hate him when he's not.

Posted by: just thinking out loud at May 31, 2007 08:47 AM (ATbKm)

30

Drew, I never accused, or even suspected opponents of these "reforms" of being anti-immigrant. That was careless wording.


And it grates on me how legal immigrants like me have to suffer because the ICE is busy catering to illegals.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:47 AM (IlgNp)

31 Yep,  he's destroying this party.  Even Allahpundit has started checking his pockets for "ameros."

Posted by: ro-ro at May 31, 2007 08:48 AM (8xCvb)

32 dammit

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 08:48 AM (ATbKm)

33

Karl Rove is a genius.


Ok, why you ask? Bush is in the shiter. Nothing he does is ever going to get a fair shake in the press, whether our victories in Iraq, the exploding economy, whatever. So instead of trying to get out of the shitter, he dives in. He goes hard left. This gives Republicans a chance to run away from him.


It gives Republicans an excuse to run against an unpopular president. In effect because everyone hates him, it takes Bush away as an issue, and forces the race to focus on real issues. Real issues are where Republicans can win, if they stick to their ideals. And Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority is assured.


 


...or at least I hope that's the plan.


Posted by: Iblis at May 31, 2007 08:48 AM (9221z)

34 Iblis, I like the way you think dream.

Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:49 AM (IlgNp)

35 No. People to the Left of you (otherwise known as the majority of Americans) have been against Mr. Bush for his insane policies and inability to govern. You can pretend it's something less substantive if that makes you feel better.

Anyway, look into 'Battered Wife Syndrome' ... it may help you understand your situation.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 08:50 AM (aoDq0)

36 Ace, how bout, Bush is neck&Neck with Carter for the worst prez in the last 100 years?

Posted by: Sinistar at May 31, 2007 08:51 AM (1Wvre)

37

Let's just hope he's the worst president of the 21st century and find out who Lindsay's opponents are.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 08:52 AM (m6c4H)

38
Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 01:50 PM (aoDq0)


Yes, that's why he was elected and then re-elected.

Get this: just because we dislike Bush doesn't mean we're embracing your particular strain of insanity.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 08:55 AM (R8+nJ)

39 Tushar,

Sorry, you were speaking about yourself not others, I read it too quickly.

And it grates on me how legal immigrants like me have to suffer because the ICE is busy catering to illegals.

That's what pisses me off about how the amnesty crowd has stolen the idea that they are the 'compassionate' ones. Did you see they are raising the fees on legal immigrants because those fees fund the agency?  Well, when this shit hits the fan who is going to be their top priority? The until recently illegals and they aren't going to pay those fees.  That'll get knocked out about 20 minutes after the bill is signed.

So the people who have been paying and waiting will now pay more for the privilege of getting worse service and shoved to the back of the line. 

Ah, compassion.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 08:56 AM (gNyUT)

40 I'm not sure why Bush is out of the running for Worst President of All Time.

Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 31, 2007 08:59 AM (zZy28)

41 Another thing: it doesn't matter which Republican is nominated to run in '008. If the Republican candidate takes the White House in the next election, he -- (no point in adding /she ... after all, we're talking about Republicans here) -- if the Republican candidate wins in '008, he will do exactly what Mr. Bush is doing on illegal immigration -- nothing.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 08:59 AM (aoDq0)

42

>>Did you see they are raising the fees on legal immigrants because those fees fund the agency?


Yep. $15K till date and counting.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 08:59 AM (IlgNp)

43 To sum up the gist of the WSJ Editorial board:

"Republicans are irrational, illogical, and racist.  Oh, and they lie about their positions to try to seem less so... how can we get this across to our readers."

An interesting point of view, I wonder how well this will do for their distribution numbers...

Oh, and R.L. ; battered wife syndrome?  Would that be when you have a love interest like Chavez who crushes dissent, following a love interest like Mugabe whose policies on racial fairness become oppessive and cause starvation?  And the ongoing love of Cuba, who only jails every Journalist not willing to praise "The Castro"...  Is this the "battered wife" syndrome you want?  I think it fails to meet the exact criteria because the common thread here is the Left keep choosing abusive thuggish dictators for their heroes.  At some point, don't you have to wonder if maybe there's somethnig in your selection criteria of heroes and villains that is misfiring?

Oddly Bush hasn't grown quite that dangerous yet, which explains why the left never liked him.  If he does start truly crushing civil rights underfoot I'm sure the Left will fall in love with him as they do for all tyrants, right?  Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan, and many others would instantly love the Booosh if only he'd tyrannically overthrow democracy in order to place himself in a Dictatorial position of power... or at least that how the Left generally seems to pick their heroes.


Posted by: Gekkobear at May 31, 2007 09:00 AM (X0NX1)

44

It baffles me why the leftards are posting in this thread. Is it to remind us that there's a whole side of the political spectrum that's even more stupid and imperious than Bush?


We're not coming over to your side, lefties. You're on the same side as Bush on this issue, and it is this issue over which we are so vehemently opposed to Bush.


Might as well say your own — pro-Bush — orientation classes will be scheduled shortly. Sound good to you?


Posted by: Roy at May 31, 2007 09:01 AM (RNbCq)

45

R.L.Page, you're an idiot.


If Mr. Bush was doing nothing, we wouldn't have this thread.


Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 31, 2007 09:01 AM (zZy28)

46 sshh, he's rolling

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 09:02 AM (ATbKm)

47 You are beginning to sound a bit "shrill" and "unhinged." Time to switch to de-caf.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 09:04 AM (aoDq0)

48 Tushar,

You should just take a trip to Mexico and come back in illegally.  You'd have the functional equivalent of a Green Card in about 2-3 months. Why play by the rules if the people charged with enforcing them don't care and in fact, will reward you for not following them?



Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 09:04 AM (gNyUT)

49 Another thing: it doesn't matter which Republican is nominated to run
in '008. If the Republican candidate takes the White House in the next
election, he --
(no point in adding /she ... after all, we're talking
about Republicans here)
-- if the Republican candidate wins in '008, he
will do exactly what Mr. Bush is doing on illegal immigration --
nothing.


Yes, there are no female Republicans at all.

Not a one.

Could your stereotyping possibly get more crude?

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 09:05 AM (R8+nJ)

50 HA! Good one, Doc.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at May 31, 2007 09:07 AM (JefgB)

51 How many Republican women are running for the party's nomination ? How many Republican women did you see in their debates ? (Keep your eyes on your own paper.)

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 09:07 AM (aoDq0)

52 I was hanging on, but he's pretty much lost me.  The only thing he's been doing right is the war, and in that he hasn't been pushing for being agressive enough.  Until recently, he never met a spending bill he wouldn't sign, nor an unconstitutional position he wouldn't accept if "the will of the people" wanted it that way.

We need Fred.  There hasn't been a real Replican candidate in way too long.  Even if he loses, we need to let these idiots know that their base will not support blatant stupidity.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 31, 2007 09:07 AM (0cofO)

53 Which party was the first to have a woman's name placed in nomination?

Hmmm...

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 09:07 AM (R8+nJ)

54 How many Republican women are running for the
party's nomination ? How many Republican women did you see in their
debates ? (Keep your eyes on your own paper.)

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 02:07 PM (aoDq0)

Uh, huh...so the fact that no women have come forward to run in this cycle (we've had them run in previous ones) means we're all sexist pigs.

Keep it up.  I'm sure you can make yourself look more ridiculous.

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 09:08 AM (R8+nJ)

55 Liddy Dole for President !

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 09:09 AM (aoDq0)

56 Liddy Dole for President !

If that was an answer to the question posed in my 2:07 post, then you're wrong.

Try again!

Posted by: Slublog at May 31, 2007 09:10 AM (R8+nJ)

57 It looks like I'm advocating replicant candidates.  Dammit!  Again, completely sober.  My drunk commenting is spelled much better.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 31, 2007 09:11 AM (0cofO)

58 Liddy Dole for President !

Your google-fu is weak old man

Posted by: you're no match for my toadstyle at May 31, 2007 09:13 AM (ATbKm)

59

Personally, my pick is Lindsay Graham.


Amen Slu, Amen.


Posted by: sunny at May 31, 2007 09:13 AM (AJlZw)

60

As a lib, RL doesn't understand what a debate is. It just gets it's marching orders from KOS, and all is good.  


Hey Dr. Remulak, thanks to the Italians, it is possible that Hillary! could become a "woman". The question is whether or not Hillarycare! would pay for it.


Posted by: Iblis at May 31, 2007 09:16 AM (9221z)

61 I hear that Edwards paid $400 to have his vag trimmed.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at May 31, 2007 09:17 AM (JefgB)

62 her vag trimmed. sorry.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at May 31, 2007 09:19 AM (JefgB)

63

Cuffy,


Edwards has an artificial vag. It does not need trimming.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 09:20 AM (IlgNp)

64

Lotsa peeps up in here were hot for Condi! for Prez. before she went all "compassionate conservative" on us at State.  So, yeah.  Whatever on the tired charges of misogyny.  Snore.


Its cathartic to hate on Bush for a least a while, isn't it?  God, how I've tired of defending his runt ass on the War when we couldn't be bothered to defend himself from the most vile smack offered up by Democrat "leadership".  I've had my fill of defending his cronyism and his horrid speaking style and dismissive attitude.  Ugh.  Enough.  We would be quit of you, sir.  Bring on Fred!


Posted by: Fred at May 31, 2007 09:21 AM (ivbbD)

65

The thing that most worries me about this is that the Moonbats may have been right all along.


Bush is a tard and everything they said about him being 1) a moron, 2) a Big Business shill, 3) an autocrat "holding court" in the White House, and 4) having only a nodding acquaintence with reality...


What if it's all true?


 


Jesus Christ. If this keeps up, I'm going to loose my favorite site to a bunch of wack jobs. It's one thing to hate the guy for what he's doing, but what you're saying is fucking disgusting. The left is accusing him of alot more than you suggest and you're being totally fucking disingenuous for saying otherwise. They don't think he's the worst president in the 20th century, they think he's the worst president ever. They think he's Hitler II, that he's controled by "New York City Money Men", that he either caused 9/11 or let it happen. That he started a "War for Oil". I don't mind if people hate Bush, I don't agree but it doesn't really bother me. But if you want to suggest that the mmonbats were right all along, then I humbly suggest that your are a fucking pathetic moron.


Posted by: Max Power at May 31, 2007 09:23 AM (q177U)

66 Lotsa peeps up in here were hot for Condi! for Prez. before she went all "compassionate conservative" on us at State.

It was the boots.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 09:23 AM (ATbKm)

67

People to the Left of you (otherwise known as the majority of Americans


Why do you bother?


Seriously, do you enjoy being the resident jackass?


have been against Mr. Bush for his insane policies and inability to govern


Was that before or after he increased his popular vote total in 49 of 50 states in 2004? Or was that before or after his party increased their seat total in both houses in the same year Bush ran for re-election?


Just checking, dumbass.


Posted by: Jay at May 31, 2007 09:24 AM (VZ0Yh)

68 Sorry Ace, Bush isn't destroying the GOP. Knee-jerk anti-immigration reform types are. By replacing anger with rational thought you guys are taking away one of our primary moral distinctions from the left. Bush is no moron and you know it. Bush is not nearly as bad as Carter. Clinton was not nearly as bad as Carter. Why use that rhetoric? It just makes you look dumb (and I know damn well that you're not). Dial it back. Bush doesn't agree with you. He's not going to change just because you and your friends throw tantrums. He won the election; you didn't (and, he also has the distinct advantage of being right on the issue). It's time to grow up, unless you want to destroy the GOP. I can well understand Bush and company's growing frustration with a pack of one issue zealots who hear "Amnesty" whenever any immigration reform is suggested.

Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 09:29 AM (5E40L)

69 yeah, we won't need a fence because anyone and everyone in the world could become a legal immigrant within one business day.  Basically, to get around the concept of illegal immigration, we just threw away the concept of citizenship and/or illegal and/or country, depending on from what angle you view this steaming pile of shit.

Bush is not the worst president, stop saying that.  It was carter by a landslide.  W may be the left's least popular president, but that isn't the same thing.

However, with the passage of global US citizenship and the repopulate America with people who lived with the PRI for 90 years act, he will surpass Carter in his giving the Panama Canal away by essentially giving the country away.

If only we knew how Dick Cheney felt, it would be worth it.  I mean, come on, Plame's leak could have been a bad thing afterall.  Any number of Leftoid Cosplay fantasies can provide scenarios to give us Shooting Dick as our Pres.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 09:30 AM (za2Xz)

70

It's time to grow up, unless you want to destroy the GOP.


Who says that's a bad idea.  When the party becomes the cancer it's time to run the chemo through the body.


Posted by: Editor at May 31, 2007 09:31 AM (adpJH)

71

WisdomLover


can you explain this sentence better?


he also has the distinct advantage of being right on the issue.


Thanks in advance


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 09:32 AM (IlgNp)

72 Max,

I agree that Bush's enemies on the left are loathsome but I'll be damned if I'll defend the bastard from him anymore.  You correctly point out the left accuses him of starting a war for oil, remember Ted Kennedy's claim that Iraq was "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas"?  Well now Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security calls Teddy 'awesome' and says those who oppose the plan won't be happy until illegal immigrants are executed. Meanwhile Bush calls his supporters fear mongers who don't want what's good for the country.

Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. And if the left wants to accuse him of all sorts of vile things, well Bush has decided who he wants on his side and he can have them.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 09:35 AM (gNyUT)

73 The first sentence in the above should read:

I agree that Bush's enemies on the left are loathsome but I'll be damned if I'll defend the bastard from him them anymore. 

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 09:39 AM (gNyUT)

74

Why not worst of all time? Because Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson between them did the best they could to turn this republic into a feudal / racial-caste society a la mediaeval India, and were willing to risk civil war to do it. Buchanan "wins" that contest because, under him, the war happened.


If Carter had won in 1980, Russia would have had the option of invading Iran and definitely Pakistan. Much more of Latin America and South America would have gone Communist; Burma (already national-socialist) would have signed up as well. Thailand would become the new Cambodia, dealing with insurgents supported by the Thai speakers in Laos. Over in Europe: Italy, Spain, France, Austria, Greece, Yugoslavia, Portugal, and Sweden would be seeking separate terms with the USSR. By the mid 1980s, Carter would have been impeached and successfully thrown out of office. President Mondale would be withdrawing his troops from Korea to shore up what was left of Europe and the Near East.


That's the kind of bad a Cold War prez would have had to be in order to join the ranks of Pierce, Buchanan, and A.J.


Posted by: David Ross at May 31, 2007 09:40 AM (Mi7Wp)

75

Actually, Tushar, when Drew said 


You should just take a trip to Mexico and come back in illegally.  You'd have the functional equivalent of a Green Card in about 2-3 months.


I's skip that. It seems that according to US law, and they have this posted at the website for Big Bend National Park amoung other places, if you cross over into Mexico and then back into the US you are subject to jail time and a $10,000 fine. So I guess Our border laws work but only for the people of the US.


On th plus side, they should be able to use our border as a prime example when they are trying to teach kids about "selectively permiable memberanes" in biology classes.


Posted by: Rob B at May 31, 2007 09:43 AM (opyeT)

76 Exaggerated hyperbolic rants will destroy our two party system!

Posted by: selfreferencially ironic at May 31, 2007 09:45 AM (ATbKm)

77 It's time to grow up, unless you want to destroy the GOP

WisdomLover,

I am a conservative and only care about the GOP in as much as it advances conservative principles, so this is not so much on the top of my worries list.

With that said perhaps you could explain how letting in larger numbers of new, predominately Democratic voters while pissing off the existing party base  isn't going to destroy the party?

If Bush, McCain, et al want to destroy it, surely it's not our job to go along with that destruction, is it?



Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 09:47 AM (gNyUT)

78 79 Exaggerated hyperbolic rants will destroy our two party system!

Posted by: selfreferencially ironic at May 31, 2007 02:45 PM (ATbKm)

We can only hope you're right.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 09:47 AM (aoDq0)

79 Rob G, I am not going to use that option anyway. Wall Street is kinda finicky about not hiring illegals to run their zillion dollar trading systems. They have better regard for laws than the US Federal Government.

Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 09:48 AM (IlgNp)

80 I want to see you guys get into a heated debate over the worst President of the eighteenth century.

Posted by: Sobek at May 31, 2007 09:48 AM (6GK9U)

81 Oops, I should have addressed Rob B, not Rob G.

Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 09:48 AM (IlgNp)

82

Exaggerated hyperbolic rants will destroy our two party system!


NO THEY WILL NOT!! SHUT UP AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR 'MURICA!!


Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at May 31, 2007 09:48 AM (JefgB)

83

Rob G, I am not going to use that option anyway. Wall Street is kinda finicky about not hiring illegals to run their zillion dollar trading systems. They have better regard for laws than the US Federal Government.


If this law DOES pass, you can probably just call up and apply for a "Z" visa without breaking any laws. And get it.


I have no idea - you tell me if that puts you in a better visa position then where you are right now with regard to ease of renewal, time you can stay, and costs.


What are you doing here anyway Tushar? Are you just working and plan to someday go back to India, or are you looking for perminent residency/citizenship?


Depending on how long you've allready been here, the Z-visa may well be the quicker route to the latter. Or even a cheaper route to the former...I have no idea though. I don't know nuttin bout no normal visas.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 09:54 AM (m6c4H)

84

Entropy,


Like all immigrants, I am torn between wanting to stay here and wanting to go back. The career is here, and the heart is back home.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 09:56 AM (IlgNp)

85 I won't become a US Citizen though. I would rather lose an arm and a leg than my Indian citizenship.

Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 09:58 AM (IlgNp)

86

 Max Power at May 31, 2007 02:23 PM


Whatever. Sometimes even the craziest lunatic is right, and in many cases the moonbats are being vindicated by Bush himself. Have the grapes to admit it.


Bush may not be firing hurricanes out of a cannon or eating puppies with the dark sorcerer Karl Rove, but the facts are lining up and the points I made were true. Bush is a fucking moron. Republicans in Washington are shilling for Big Business. Bush is destroying Today hoping he'll be seen as a visionary Tomorrow. Bush is detached from Americans. Bush is a stubborn stranger to reality.


Of course Bush is generally right on Terrorism and Iraq (even though he bungles those as well). Nevertheless, it's not that difficult to begin thinking that perhaps Bush's "having it right" on terrorism and Iraq may have just been a happy coincidence.


Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 31, 2007 09:59 AM (zZy28)

87 what the fuck?

Why can't I try to preserve the traditional definition of country, you know borders, shared sense of community.  If that's being nativist, then fuck you, Chertoff and company.  Its our country.  We get to choose who comes in. 

Some countries suck because of their history, wars, or bad leadership.  Its not our fault that Mexico has walked down the well lit path to kleptocracy and grinding bureaucracy.  Fuck 'em, we worked hard to have a worthwhile country.  So, what, now we have to apologize, give up our stuff? 

But that's not the worst of this.  The bill is so poorly written that it just gives up the whole farm.  Its not amnesty, its universal legal status for the whole world.  Its caused so much anger because for 20 years, everyone has clamored for stronger enforcement and tougher laws on border crossers.  And we get this? 

So, yeah, great. Bush and Kennedy want this piece of shit to pass without a debate.  Fuck, forget that W is strong on the war, has a great economy, is fully committed to helping AIDS in Africa, revising the school system, tried changing social security, got an American loving president in France, told Europe to fuck themselves with respect to Kyoto-type stuff (which is a good thing), and (eventually) got us Alito and Roberts, because this thing is a country killer.  Its not just Mexico, its every country.  There are no limits, no attempt to enforce a law or control the borders.  Just come in, apply for a Z card and enjoy your new life here.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 10:02 AM (za2Xz)

88 Entropy, a good point there.

Are there any penalties for lying on your Z-visa?

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2007 10:03 AM (za2Xz)

89

He's not going to change just because you and your friends throw tantrums. He won the election; you didn't


Oh I see.  So the will of the People means nothing anymore.  We don't get to question the wisdom of the elites who rule us, let alone protest any of their boneheaded ideas.  Why bother even voting anymore, after all they're not accountable to the People right?  Bush won because a majority of the voters supported him and the Dems were idiots in picking Kerry.  Winning the election does not mean he no longer has to listen to us.  Moron.


Posted by: John at May 31, 2007 10:04 AM (QC96i)

90 For right now, the only way to advance conservative thought is through the GOP. Is it perfect? No way. But shouting that Bush is a moron, or the worst president in history isn't going to help anything. To advance a conservative agenda, the conservative party (the GOP) has to win elections. We can't do that if we eat our own. I'm not saying that you can't argue against Bush's policy. And I'm not saying Bush always gets it right (prescription drugs and campaign reform come to mind). But when you disagree, you've got to recognize two things. First, he and his team are conservatives who have thought hard about the issue and are not incompetent. Second, he won the election, so don't be surprised if he keeps his own cousel even though you disagree with him.

Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 10:04 AM (5E40L)

91

Well, he got his Supreme Court picks right, after the base kicked that runt ass around a bit over Harriet Miers.  That's a big one for me, but even there, it feels like a mixed bag.  I like him less than I should on this because it feels like he had to be dragged to doing the right thing on the Roberts pick.


He's been OK on taxes.


His instincts are right on the War, but his execution of it and his defense of it domestically, perhaps the single most important thing he had to do, has been piss poor.


And those are the positives. 


He's looking like Tricky Dick II, this time without the Watergate scandal, but with all the "centrist/liberal" tendencies.


Posted by: Fred at May 31, 2007 10:05 AM (ivbbD)

92 The career is here, and the heart is back home.

Not that I am trying to get rid of you Tushar but aren't there lots more opportunities back in India than ever before? I think I mentioned one of my best friends is from India and he's finding himself in the opposite position. He's excited by the business opportunities back home but his heart is here (he just became a citizen). He hadn't been back there in like 10 years or so until last year and was blown away by the changes and opportunities.

It's odd that after finally working through the immigration maze, he's thinking of moving back and apparently so many people are doing that India has set up some special category for people who have taken other citizenships and their families to allow them to fit back in.



Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 10:06 AM (gNyUT)

93

Hey, President Bush? Fuck off. You are going down in history in a neck-and-neck battle with Jimmy Carter as worst president of the twentieth century.


I can't decide whether this is stupidly ironic or ironically stupid.  Or next-level sarcasm.


Posted by: marchand chronicles at May 31, 2007 10:07 AM (K1oGb)

94 The Moonbats were right. This guy's head is up the corporate ass.

Perhaps we should march. I know it's not in our nature, but I'm pissed. Fuck this guy.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 31, 2007 10:08 AM (h7C/i)

95 The worst thing about this is that the Democrat that will succeed Bush will most likely get 3 SCOTUS picks, which will go to Ramsey Clarke, Gloria Allred, and Al Sharpton (or their equivalents).  Which will inflict decades of demented legal rulings on this country.

Thanks a lot, George.


Posted by: OregonMuse at May 31, 2007 10:09 AM (efWVJ)

96 But shouting that Bush is a moron, or the worst president in history isn't going to help anything.

Its apparent that we must shout to be heard.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 10:11 AM (ATbKm)

97 Somewhere, Michael Weiner Savage is smiling.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 10:12 AM (aoDq0)

98

First, he and his team are conservatives who have thought hard about the issue and are not incompetent.


Debatable, but not really an issue for me.  I leave such musings to the Left.


Second, he won the election, so don't be surprised if he keeps his own cousel even though you disagree with him.


Great and he shouldn't be surprised when those who elected him tell him to fuck off and oppose this deal.


Posted by: John at May 31, 2007 10:13 AM (QC96i)

99 "So, on a technicality, Bush misses out on that distinction."

But in so doing he gets the chance to be the worst president of the 21st century, now that Carter's out of the field.

And if he has his way with the Amnesty bill et al, he's going to be pretty hard to beat.

That said, if we're going to save the party, Bush needs to be written off now like a retarded embarrassment whose time is ending, and the conversation needs to focus on how the various new candidates can/will undo the damage Bush has done.

If we allow ourselves to continue with this fist fight Bush obviously (finally) relishes taking on, we are only going to hurt ourselves.

And an impeachment is wishful thinking - the dems know he is now far more useful to them as a human shield than any damage caused by having him removed.

Posted by: Scott at May 31, 2007 10:16 AM (FAHM2)

100

 First, he and his team are conservatives who have thought hard about the issue and are not incompetent.


No they aren't, no they haven't, and yes they are.


Second, he won the election, so don't be surprised if he keeps his own cousel even though you disagree with him.


Yah, it's not about consensus. It's not a whole party behind him. There's no coalition. Just him. All about him. He gets what he wants because he was voted Da Man.


Moron.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 10:17 AM (m6c4H)

101 And by the way for anyone mistaking my comments for BDS - I like many voted for/supported him right up till the Amnesty nonsense.  And I consider his work on the GWOT and tax cuts to be at minimum big steps in the right direction - both efforts worth preserving, refining, and carrying forward.

What we need now is someone able and willing to carry the GWOT to its next logical step which is (rational) security efforts back here; Iraq is and to some extent always will divert an appreciable number of jihadis into our troops, but over time a few will wise up here and there and get back to engaging us back here.

When that time comes, we need someone better intellectually equipped than Bush and Chertoff manning the homefront, or we're going to be in some real shyte.

Posted by: Scott at May 31, 2007 10:22 AM (FAHM2)

102 Just to be a pedantic asshole, Bush is the worst president of the 21st century.  He is also the best president of the 21st century.  He has the distinction of being the only president who held office in the 21st century.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 31, 2007 10:23 AM (0cofO)

103 Doesn't anyone else find it weird that R.L Page named his junk Michael Weiner Savage?

Posted by: Rocketeer at May 31, 2007 10:26 AM (GFaLW)

104 http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods.10594237?zoom=yes

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 10:26 AM (aoDq0)

105

I worked in IT for over a decade. Not surprisingly, lots of my coworkers came from overseas: India, Turkey, the UK. They all had to -and still have to- jump through hoops to keep their work visas up to date. A fair number of the Indians that I worked with used to go back to India each year to do the paperwork, using up all of their vacation in the process. For the record, none of the ones that I know are in favor of this illegal immigration promotion program. In fact, they're all pretty pissed off about it. These are educated, skilled, law abiding people, many of whom have decided, or will decide, to become citizens. And what's their reward for working through a tedious and lengthy process? Getting to watch unskilled law-breakers get moved to the head of the class. Now THAT'S the way to recruit more GOP voters. If, of course, you're borderline retarded.


For the record, I'm not a registered Republican. I'm a libertarian leaning conservative. The only political home for me has been the GOP because, frankly, the Dems have gone completely batshit insane since they lost the House in 1994. And now the GOP is essentially giving me the finger and people like Gigot, Chavez, Graham, Bush and Chertoff are calling me a racist who soils himself at the thought of more brown people nearby. Fuck them. If that's what the GOP has become, it's time to start over. Burn the house down and rebuild completely.


Posted by: physics geek at May 31, 2007 10:29 AM (MT22W)

106

Doesn't anyone else find it weird that R.L Page named his junk Michael Weiner Savage?


Seeing how he has no one else to talk to, not really.


Posted by: Iblis at May 31, 2007 10:32 AM (9221z)

107

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States


Hmmm...strange how they put that bit right up at the top of Section 8.  It's almost as if those racist, foaming at the mouth, irrational nativists thought that ensuring national defense was one of the most important functions of the federal government.


And what's that thing about the welfare of the United States doing there?  Surely they meant the welfare Mexico or big business or something.  When is someone going to fix that?


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 10:41 AM (Mo8Oa)

108

Drew,


if you want to be a just a Techie, India has a lot of opportunities. But if you want to spealize in tech for a specific industry (Investment Banking, in my case), then the best careers are still in US.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 10:44 AM (IlgNp)

109 Iblis: I wish I could say that Rove was working his political voodoo again, but I doubt it. This looks like Dubya following his heart instead of his head, going along with Beltway Republicans, with disastrous consequences for the Republic.
WisdomLover: Just 'cause I want to see the law enforced, and the immigrants of whatever nation play by the rules, especially  in the post-9/11 world, I am a paleo-con Buchanon-lover? I don't think so. I know Dubya liked his Mexican maid, but that's not the same thing as letting millions of people who flouted the law get rewarded for not obeying it. Ditto for all the employers who give them jobs & pretend it's not hurting anybody. Some of those people who flouted the law are terrorists or potential terrorists, I am certain of it. Some of the illegals just want American dollars, not American citizenship and the true American life that comes with allegience to the Red, White, and Blue. It's bad enough that patriotism has been diluted as thin as it stands today, without adding people who are under no compulsion to become true citizens and participate in the working of the Republic. (No, I don't consider voting for the next candidate that promises payouts from the public treasury true participation.) If Bush & company are supporting amnesty, they are supporting the long-term weakening of the Republic, and I won't stand for that.
joeindc44: I agree with your post a great deal. It's not that Dubya has been a 100% bad Republican, he has done well by the Party & the Nation. Shoot, he is the reason I voted Republican in '04, and changed my party affiliation likewise. But you are right, this illegal immigration issue is a deal-breaker, and a nation-wrecker. We are entitled as citizens to protest actions taken against our wishes, up to & including voting down the people engaged in said actions. It would be a sad thing for Dubya's record to be scarred by the result of this popular, grass-roots level protest, but it looks inevitable. One thing is for sure, all the Republican Senators involved in this deal need to get rotated for other Republicans ASAP. (Voinovitch is so DOA here in Ohio next election time.)  Ditto for the Democratic Senators, although there is not much hope for that right now. The Democrats LIKE having their people in DC give away the farm. As Republicans, we demand more from our people.




Posted by: exdem13 at May 31, 2007 10:49 AM (I4jEf)

110

I think righties are being shortsighted and, yes, too emotional here in essentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  The bill has problems, but your energies might be better spent identifying loopholes and making sure they get closed.


Because with no bill, things ARE going to get a lot worse, and by simply campaiging against it we're likely to end up with a horrible bill that does pass.


The biometric ID is promising, as are the border security triggers.  That Jawa video points out what looks like a scary loophole in the "next business day" language that should be slammed shut.


Posted by: Jamil Hussein at May 31, 2007 10:52 AM (oyQH2)

111 The above poster, who is my boyfriend in Brazil, makes a good point.

Posted by: TallDave at May 31, 2007 10:54 AM (oyQH2)

112 Top Three Most Unreal Immigration Pundits:

1. Tamar Jacoby, Manhattan Institute
2. Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal
3. Larry Kudlow, CNBC and National Review

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 10:57 AM (GLMrI)

113

I do seriously hate and despise Voinovitch and if I saw the man walking down the road, I would do everything I could think of to try and scare him and make him cry...which probably wouldn't be too hard. Like I just do the "I'm not touching you I'm not touching you!" thing and he'd bust into tears.


Seriously - anyone who CRIES because they're afraid of.....John Bolton?


Let's not just replace this pansy ass little girlscout, let's exhile him to France.


Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 10:57 AM (m6c4H)

114 The base didn't start this fight and I'm getting irritated at those who suggest we should just let it go.  There was no need for this party destroying legislation now.  Pass things we all agree on like border security.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 11:00 AM (ATbKm)

115 To advance a conservative agenda, the conservative party (the GOP) has to win elections.

Uhh, but what good is it if they win elections and don't advance a conservative agenda?  Why should we support the creation of an ever growing, ever intrusive government just because there's an R after the guys name?

he won the election, so don't be surprised if he keeps his own cousel even though you disagree with him.

Fair enough to a point but don't you think maybe he could do it without being more dismissive and insulting to his supporters than say the people who actually enabled him to win the election? If he's going to cut himself off from us, I see no reason why we need to continue to support and defend him. He's ruining the party not us.

You didn't address my question about how it's those of us who oppose amnesty are destroying the party when it's Bush who is letting in millions of new Democrat voters....


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 11:00 AM (gNyUT)

116 Jamil you grossly, catastrophically underestimate how useless and terrible this bill will be.

Posted by: Entropy at May 31, 2007 11:00 AM (m6c4H)

117 WisdomLover,

Sorry Ace, Bush isn't destroying the GOP. Knee-jerk anti-immigration
reform types are. By replacing anger with rational thought you guys are
taking away one of our primary moral distinctions from the left. Bush
is no moron and you know it. Bush is not nearly as bad as Carter. Clinton
was not nearly as bad as Carter. Why use that rhetoric? It just makes
you look dumb (and I know damn well that you're not). Dial it back.
Bush doesn't agree with you. He's not going to change just because you
and your friends throw tantrums. He won the election; you didn't (and,
he also has the distinct advantage of being right on the issue). It's time to grow up, unless you want to
destroy the GOP. I can well understand Bush and company's growing
frustration with a pack of one issue zealots who hear "Amnesty"
whenever any immigration reform is suggested.


If this immigration bill passes, Bush will be far worse than Carter.

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 11:02 AM (GLMrI)

118 Get a grip, people. Laura Ingram is an elitist bitch. Yes, I said it. She can kiss my Texas ass, and I am sorry she has to look at a few Mexicans in New York.

Where was she 20 years ago, because now I don't give a damn about immigration.

Bush is just going the Reagan route, and all the conservatives hating on Bush, hated just as much on Reagan. Blah, blah, blah...he's not conservative enough.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court is rolling along with Alito and Roberts kicking ass. Sorry if I do not care about the pet issue of the day.

For the last time, you can't fence a moving river.





Posted by: Stormy70 at May 31, 2007 11:08 AM (7WJsV)

119 For the last time, you can't fence a moving river.



You mean dams don't exist? Well I'll be . . .


Posted by: Hoover at May 31, 2007 11:12 AM (76WpT)

120 Stormy70,
So fine. We don't need a bill then, right? Why should we make legal what was illegal so that those who broke the law now have greater rights? Why not just leave the current system in place, allow illegals to flow into this country as they choose -- without background checks -- put downward pressure on wages for the least skilled among us and work the live long day?

Answer: This bill won't improve the situation so no bill would be less costly. If they want to accept the bargain that is "living in the shadows" then I say let them have the benefit of that bargain and nothing more.

P.S.
And we could stop people from, you know, crossing that river illegally if we really wanted to do so. But then I'll bet you knew that.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 11:17 AM (gxYF3)

121 Yes, and I am sure all the ranches full of livestock will appreciate your glib tone with their livelihood. Just because you own private property since before Texas was part of the US, don't take it so hard when a bunch of cry baby yankees want to steal it from you.
All because a few hispanics happen to show up in Iowa.


Posted by: Stormy70 at May 31, 2007 11:17 AM (7WJsV)

122 I think the House will kill the bill. Sorry if a bunch of hard working Mexicans don't get my hide all up in a bunch. The Southern border has been a sieve throughout the entire history of the US. Somehow we have survived it.

I say we close down the State Department first, as they are the real enemy here.

Posted by: Stormy70 at May 31, 2007 11:20 AM (7WJsV)

123 Stormy...

Bush isn't going the Reagan route. Here's what Reagan wrote in his diary at the time about the '86 immigration bill:

I’ll sign. It’s high time we regained control of our borders and this bill will do this.

Well, he was wrong but at least he wanted to control the borders. Bush? Not so much.

Sorry if we don't want to buy this same pile of steaming shit twice.


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 11:27 AM (gNyUT)

124

Stormy's got a point.


This issue sure brings out the worst in us, not excluding myself. I have never seen such hyperventilating and circlular firing squadd-ing until this came along. Schiavo, Miers, that was family squabbling.


FTR, I have never been a Republican and I have no financial interest in cheap labor since I mow my own lawn. I differ from you guys in that I don't want illegals currently living here to go home. I don't think they broke a law of much consequence since it was obvious we didn't intend to enforce it. I don't have a higher standard for obedience for Mexicans than kids smoking dope in Greenwich Village--you can only expect them to respect the laws you respect. Nothing more.


Most of the objections seem to hinge on the belief that what triggers are in the bill won't be enforced. I would suggest that is what elections are for--you elect the guy who says he will enforce the border. Good issue for the GOP, bad for Donks.


Big business's influence here is overstated. Most free-market'eers like myself believe the flow of humans will continue no matter what we do as long as financial incentives remain. (I suspect Bush, besides being a softy on beaners, sees this the same way and wants to take a pragmatic approach.) Sure, Big Chicken wants to keep their cheap pluckers, but one way or the other the chickens will be plucked and we'll pay for the new and better American pluckers, not Big Chicken.


Also, beaners do not go to the front of the line. This is apparent from reading the bill, so I would appreciate a link to anybody who is claiming this so I can see how this misconception got started.


I don't think you can begin to get a handle on border security while you're running around screwing with 12 million immigrants already here. It makes sense to me to accept the status quo as it regards them and pursue those without these new visas.


Go ahead, rip my ass off. What's new, right?


Posted by: spongeworthy at May 31, 2007 11:29 AM (uSomN)

125 So Stormy 70 is on the "All you guys are racist" team.
That's good to know.
Oh, and fuck you sideways.

I'm sure all of those ranchers are fucking overjoyed at the respect the Mexicans coming across the border have for property rights, eh? Did I mention fuck you?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 11:35 AM (gxYF3)

126 Sure they have respect for property rights. It's their property and you should respect it.

(Wait for it ... 3, 2, 1 ... )

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 11:36 AM (aoDq0)

127 RL Page,

I'm not sure for what you are waiting. Your comment was inane.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 11:39 AM (gxYF3)

128

>>I say we close down the State Department first


Hear Hear!


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 11:39 AM (IlgNp)

129 Spongeworthy,


The illegals "don't go to the front of the line" as you put it for Green Cards or citizenship, that's as true as it is irrelevant. 

They get there very own brand spanking new type of Visa (the z-visa) which enables them to work anywhere (unlike current H1B visa holders who are tied to a specific employer) and they can leave the country.  The only difference between the z-visa and a Green Card is that the z has to be renewed every 4 years where Green Cards are permanent.

Oh and they do go to the front of the line in one sense...people wanting H1B visas have to wait at home, illegals get their z visas in one day.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 11:40 AM (gNyUT)

130

>>Also, beaners do not go to the front of the line. This is apparent from reading the bill, so I would appreciate a link to anybody who is claiming this so I can see how this misconception got started.


spongeworthy,


everytime there is a move to do something about the illegals, the INS (ICE, DHS whatever the fcuk they call it today) resources get diverted there, and another 3-4 years are added to the legal immigrant's woes. So, yeah, beaners don't go to the front of the line, but the line stops moving for a few years.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 11:44 AM (IlgNp)

131 I think the House will kill the bill. Sorry if a bunch of hard working
Mexicans don't get my hide all up in a bunch.


How about a bunch of uneducated, highly criminal, highly welfare dependent native-born Mexican-Americans with high rates of illegitimacy and almost surefire Democratic voters descended from those illegal aliens?

The Southern border has
been a sieve throughout the entire history of the US. Somehow we have
survived it.


Maybe you didn't realize it, but most of that time, that sieve wasn't leaking much.

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 11:44 AM (GLMrI)

132

I'd be for this bill if John Bolton's moustache was sent to secure the border.


Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2007 11:46 AM (Mo8Oa)

133 Arguments about getting to the front of the line in the hotel lobby are irrelevant if some of the customers have already checked themselves into rooms.

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 11:46 AM (GLMrI)

134 In other words, Drew, we get to document them immediately, the guys who are already here for crying out loud. I understand that we are eseentially rewarding them for breaking the law and that does stick in my craw. But it's merely an acceptance of reality. And they aren't cutting the line for citizenship, which was my point.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 31, 2007 11:46 AM (uSomN)

135 Yes, and I am sure all the ranches full of livestock will appreciate
your glib tone with their livelihood. Just because you own private
property since before Texas was part of the US, don't take it so hard
when a bunch of cry baby yankees want to steal it from you. All because a few hispanics happen to show up in Iowa.


Glib tone indeed. 

Stormy: "Drunk driving illegal alien with previous DUIs who was not deported killed your kid?  Shut up and take it cry baby!"

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 11:53 AM (GLMrI)

136 we get to document them immediately

I don't get the big fucking deal about documenting them. Why do I care about that?
Even I will grant that the overwhelmingly vast majority of them pose no national security threat to us, so I don't care about documenting criminals. like to see them face justice (I guess I am funny that way. And no I
don't expect to round up 12 million people and deport them, but why not
deport the ones we do catch or the ones who break laws while here? Why not require that cops in every jurisdiction check immigration status on people they do arrest?).

And one day background checks (that won't be done) aren't going to catch or disuade a real terrorist.

I do care about securing the border and doing that doesn't require documenting the ones that are here, does it?

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 11:53 AM (gNyUT)

137 And they aren't cutting the line for citizenship, which was my point.

Because desperate and deserving refugees in the Third World can afford to wait to gain residency after all!

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 11:54 AM (GLMrI)

138 If you could enforce the borders and stop the flow, and then legitamize those who are already here, I could live with the compromise, though it punishes many good people who are here legally.  Any bill that smacks of any hint of deportation. either direct or through employer sanctions, will never pass, though that would be the just thing to do IMO.

The problem is this bill, if passed, will encourage a lot more to come in since legal status will be so easy to obtain.  I am old enough to recall the last amnesty, when it was only a few million.  This time it will be at least 12 million.  Next time?  50 million?  100 million.  When do we finally try to draw a line? 

If we aren't going to stop it, the smart thing to do would be to simply annex Mexico and make it part of the U.S.  Would we were the imperialists that so many accuse us of being.

Also, arugments that appeal to inertia are disengenuous.  Just because things have been a certain way for a long time does not mean they are either right or desireable.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 31, 2007 11:56 AM (0cofO)

139 I want one day, just one day, of amnesty for Grand Theft Auto. Not the video game. I want the government to promise me that I can steal any car I want (or multiple cars) and keep it (them) so long as I do it on or about some specific date.

Give me amnesty for GTA!

It's just one little law. And lots of cars go stolen all the time. This will actually boost the economy as people with nice cars will have insurance and be able to buy a new car anyway. It's what I like to call a win-win situation. And it'll stimulate the economy with all of those high end car sales when people replace their stolen newly appropriated ones.

Come on. Just reward my bad behavior this one time in this one instance. That's all I'm asking.

/rant

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 11:59 AM (gxYF3)

140 We get to document them immediately under whatever name they wish to give us.

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 12:04 PM (GLMrI)

141

Nom De Blog.


You are asking for a lot. I would be happy if they reduce the careless driving points on my license.


Posted by: Tushar D at May 31, 2007 12:06 PM (IlgNp)

142 I don't think they broke a law of much consequence since it was obvious we didn't intend to enforce it.

Ah, spongeworthy employs the Bill Clinton defense.  Remember how all the lefties told us perjury wasn't a big deal since it was only about sex. Breaking the immigration laws are okay because they aren't laws 'of much consequence'.

Out of curiosity, how are we to tell the difference sponge?


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 12:08 PM (gNyUT)

143 Tushar D,

To each their own, my friend. My truck has 100K+ miles and sometimes when the larger trucks pull beside me at a stop light I get a little "truck envy". I know size doesn't matter but I really want an extended cab with enough leg room in the back for the kids. And I need a Hemi engine.

But then I don't have any license points because I drive like my grandmother carefully in my small-ish truck. So I'm for your amnesty on driver's license points.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 12:12 PM (gxYF3)

144 I'm with you, Tushar.  I think it's still another year before a certain indiscretion involving my motorcycle is gone from the record.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 31, 2007 12:13 PM (0cofO)

145 Oh, in addition, I want the amnesty to go into effect in, say December.  That will give me time to do some more damage this summer.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 31, 2007 12:14 PM (0cofO)

146 Constructive suggestion:

One of you put your mad Googlin' skillz to use and post the phone numbers & email addresses for all the Republican Congressmen and Senators, and then let them know what you're saying here.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 12:20 PM (aoDq0)

147 "I have never seen such hyperventilating and circlular firing squadd-ing until this came along"

Exactly why pushing the thing was the worst idea of Bush's presidency.  It.  Must.  End.  And you're never, never going to convince the base to eat this shit sandwich.  Even Hugh Fucking B+ Hewitt is against it!

Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:27 PM (TXnhk)

148 "Most of the objections seem to hinge on the belief that what triggers are in the bill won't be enforced."

Wrong.  It's that THERE ARE NO FUCKING ENFORCEABLE TRIGGERS FOR THE Z VISA PROGRAM.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:31 PM (TXnhk)

149 Yes, and I am sure all the ranches full of livestock will appreciate your glib tone with their livelihood.

I've heard this said and have been baffled at the apparent lack of imagination it implies.  Are we unable to dig canals or tunnels beneath the fence to fill stock ponds on the US side?  I had supposed the government is obligated to mitigate the inconvenience of the border fence.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 12:32 PM (ATbKm)

150 Amnesty delenda est.

Posted by: someone at May 31, 2007 12:32 PM (TXnhk)

151

The one that stood out to me in this conversation is one guys who said that the truth was that we (on the right) don't want legal immigration either.


I have never heard or even gotten that impression from even the most ardent anti- illegal immigration person here. Am I wrong?


Also, why would WSJ put up this? It was so insulting. Good Grief! 


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at May 31, 2007 12:38 PM (ndZwv)

152 Frank J's IMMIGRATION BILL FAQ

I'm choking with laughter...and tears.  Its funny 'cause its true.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 31, 2007 12:40 PM (ATbKm)

153 Hey, lay off the WSJ!  You can see by that screenshot that Gigot and company are a crowd that knows all about the wonders and difficulties of ethnic diversity. Remember: they run the real world, you just live here.

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 12:44 PM (GLMrI)

154

I really wish we conservatives could have a policy discussion without all the rhetoric about how bad a president Bush is. I'll guaran-damn-tee you that things would be way worse had Gore and Kerry won. I'll guaran-damn-tee you that things would be a lot better if Bush 41 beaten Clinton or Dole had beaten Clinton. Not one of those guys are what I'd call ideal conservatives. My point is that rage and the overblown rhetoric that flows from it does not become conservatives. It does not help the conservative cause. BTW I'm pro-fence, pro-border enforcement. And I'm in favor of doing those things before doing anything else. I wish that the Congress were voting to just build and man the fence without any reference to other policies. But my wish doesn't change things, and I don't see any reason for intemperance based on the fact that my wish is being frustrated. As such, exedem13, I do not think that someone who endorses those policies is a "paleo-con Buchanan-lover". I do think that many of my fellow right-wigers are becoming irrational and childish about this issue. (If this thread keeps going, perhaps I'll have the chance to explain why I support Bush and the current bill, in spite of what I wish were the case.)


Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 12:54 PM (5E40L)

155 157 Remember: they run the real world, you just live here.

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 05:44 PM (GLMrI)

Don't get too comfortable. Obviously, you "morons" (as Ace so affectionately refers to you all) have outlived your usefulness.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 12:55 PM (aoDq0)

156 I'm pro-fence, pro-border enforcement. And I'm in favor of doing those things before doing anything else.

perhaps I'll have the chance to explain why I support Bush and the current bill,

WisdomLover,
Please do. I for one am dying to hear how you reconcile these positions. BTW- you may want to consider paragraph breaks. It would make it a lot easier to read.



Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 01:04 PM (gNyUT)

157 Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 01:12 PM (aoDq0)

158 RL Page,

You're a fucking ass munch. Learn how to embed a link.

HINT: It's the symbol just to the right of the paint bucket. 5th one over from the right.

Shit head.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 01:18 PM (gxYF3)

159 Ace, can you fix what RL Page hath wrought?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 01:19 PM (gxYF3)

160 Geeez, you guys are cranky. What's the matter ? Reality beginning to intrude on the dream of a "permanent Republican majority?"

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 31, 2007 01:23 PM (aoDq0)

161 Nice to see a group of people express such diverse ideas and question each other's assumptions so vigourously!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at May 31, 2007 01:41 PM (gIsEJ)

162

Meanwhile the Supreme Court is rolling along with Alito and Roberts kicking ass. Sorry if I do not care about the pet issue of the day.


And as much as I so do appreciate you stopping by on every immigration thread so that you can remind us how uninteresting you find this whole outrage to be, I'd like to remind you, for about the 27th time, that all of the issues you do purport to care about are objectively less important than this one.  Get it yet, Stormy?  Is there another way that I or any other poster here who has the clue that you clearly lack to explain to you that our anger derives from the fact that this bill, when implemented, will fundamentally ruin our nation?


See, Stormy, once the whole of the Third World (a good chunk of which lives to our immediate south) is given carde blanche to assume legal identity and all of the wonderous welfare benefits that entails, you can rest assured that two unavoidable realities will materialize: (a) conservatism, which relies on individual initiative and independence from government, will be forever dead politically, and (b) the SCOTUS, tax policy, entitlement policy, even the fucking ranchers' rights you keep bringing up (and you accuse us of focusing on trivial issues) -- all of them will be re-oriented by the newly invincible Democratic Party to appease its brand-spanking-new slavishly-loyal, gimme-gimme-gimme voting block.  We will transform from a naturally conservative nation of cart pullers to a welfare state of cart riders (i.e. a corrupt, economically unviable shithole like Mexico).  And the quality of your life, whether you're sentient enough to realize it or not, will go down in flames with the rest of ours.


If you don't care about this issue, the least you could do is stop commenting on it.  Your cluelessness to the far-reaching effects of this impending disaster is infuriating.


Posted by: VJay at May 31, 2007 01:44 PM (qEool)

163

Geeez, you guys are cranky. What's the matter ? Reality beginning to intrude on the dream of a "permanent Republican majority?"


About the only thing satisfying about watching this nation deteriorate into a Third World toilet is the schaudenfreude of knowing that jackasses like you are not only going to have to suffer through it, but the tenets of your idiotic, fails-everywhere-it's-been-tried ideology are going to be primarily responsible.


Thanks FDR!


Thanks LBJ!


Thanks GWB!


Posted by: VJay at May 31, 2007 01:49 PM (qEool)

164 Meanwhile the Supreme Court is rolling along with Alito and Roberts kicking ass.

Do you think it would be rolling along so nicely with Roberts and Miers
Sometimes the base needs to enforce some discipline on the leadership.
Strangely enough, the party and the conservative movement don't revolve
around your preferences or even those of Bush.


Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2007 01:52 PM (gNyUT)

165

Drew. You've asked a couple times, I think, why I think Bush is, roughly speaking, on the side of the angels. It's time to answer that question.


Let me begin with what I take to be the perfect solution. The following three objectives should be achieved in order:


1. Build the Fence.


2. Man the Fence.


3. Relieve pressure on the border through a fair and effective guest worker program.


4. Deal realistically with the millions of illegals already here.


5. A national ID card, needed by citizens and aliens alike, for all formal employment arrangements.


Now, I contend that for many of Bush's opponents on the right, just these words (in particular 3 and 4) constitute an endorsement of amnesty, and I've identified myself as a traitor just by uttering them. That's what I mean by jumped up rhetoric that needs to be set aside.


As far as I can tell, the current bill, co-authored by John Kyl, and endorsed by President Bush, imperfectly achieves these goals (except for 5).


On 4 in particular, we need to get a reality check. If we deport one sixth of the twelve million illegals already here at the impossible rate of 1 a minute, we will be deporting illegals for the next 4 years. The "deport-em-all" crowd is smoking crack. Hells bells, the "deport a sixth of em" crowd is smoking crack.


The only realistic solution is to get illegals to voluntarily deport themselves with the hopes of re-entering under a guest worker program. That will work if employers have very little incentive to hire workers apart from the guest worker program. Since guest workers will have virtually all the advantages to the employer as the illegal workers currently have and the bill provides for stiff penalties on the employers.


What about clause 601(h) provisional visas?


What the law says is that you may apply for a Z visa right away. If there's not an immediate hit that precludes the issuance of a Z-visa, you'll get a provisional visa. This is not just a matter of giving your name and getting a visa. You've got to provide your criminal background, your fingerprints, 'biometric' data (not sure what that is...do they take a mouth swab or something). In any case just to apply, you're well and truly in the system. All this talk about ever-renewing provisional visas seems to me to be off base.


But the Z-visa program depends on all those triggers that may never get met! Won't you just keep getting provisional visas until the triggers trigger?


You can't have it both ways. The 'trggers' simply express the fact that the govt has to enforce the border before the Z-visa program kicks in. Isn't that what everybody wants? (And in the meantime, we've gathered fingerprints, biometric data and so on for all the illegals who will ever be regularized under this law.)


So, tell me why I'm soft on illegal immigration.


Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 03:27 PM (5E40L)

166 Because your #1 and #2 above will not be accomplished.

What do I win?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 03:40 PM (gxYF3)

167

R.L.


Your polite language notwithstanding.


You have offered nothing to any discussion, in at least a week's worth of my observations, except childish nana nana booboo.


Prior to that, you rubbed "aceisfaggitry" lotion on your nipples.


It's cute.  I'll give you that.


But seriously, if this is fulfilling for you, how creepy sad.


 


Carry on, rainbow warrior!


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2007 03:44 PM (FXakj)

168 Guys, I've gotta be honest, there ARE a lot of people on the anti-immigration side that are...interesting. I attended a local discussion with my Congressman on the issue a year or two ago. 90% of the people there were 90000000000 year old curmudgeons who literally screamed about "those damn Messican wetbacks comin' over here!" So it's not really surprising that the anti-immigration proponents rub people the wrong way.

And I have to admit as well that a lot of people aren't being reasonable here. Businesses aren't evil for wanting to hire cheap labor. I'm sick of hearing this, from supposed Conservatives of all people. When the Left gets upset about bussinesses making a profit and calls it evil, we jump all over them. And rightly so. But a bunch of landscapers and construction companies don't want to do the government's job for them and all of a sudden they're Adolf Fucking Hitler. Come on.

Posted by: jhc at May 31, 2007 04:26 PM (IL3Gd)

169 jhc,
Try reading this thread. Or just jump in and write the statement you want to make without regard to what the rest of us are saying. Your choice, really.

There's not much of a "businesses who hire illegal immigrants are evil" line of thinking here. We think the laws should be enforced first. And then we can deal on those who are here and entered illegally. Priorities.

Oh, and Godwin is holding on line one for you.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 04:47 PM (gxYF3)

170 Nom, I've read many threads just like this. On this very blog. They're full of comments about "damn corporate interests" and "throw every businessman that hires illegals in jail and throw away the key!" I expect better from people on our side.

I don't think the laws should be enforced. I think the laws should be repealed--because they don't fit with reality. You can't complain about people breaking the law and make it impossible for them to obey the law in the same breath. The quota system is Socialist bullshit and anybody with a shred of intellectual honesty knows so.

By the way, you do know that "Godwin's Law" simply states that, as a heated discussion continues, the probability that Hitler or Nazis will be mentioned approaches 1, right?

Posted by: jhc at May 31, 2007 05:34 PM (IL3Gd)

171 Yeah, and you're the one who mentioned him, dumb ass. Great job keeping the rhetoric to a high standard. Really fucking high standard.

So you're just in favor of repealing the law that people don't follow, eh? OK, fine. Tomorrow there's no speed limit because people won't follow that law. And tomorrow there's no shoplifting law because people steal. And the law against murder is right out the window because people kill.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Blah, blah, mother fucking blah. I'm not on your side if you think the laws simply don't fucking matter. Not whether you're management breaking laws or whether you're the employee. Not whether it's chemical waste dumping or fucking littering. None of that shit matters. We're a nation of laws, not of men, and as soon as that's not true we're not much of a country. YMMV.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 05:40 PM (gxYF3)

172

Hey, lay off the WSJ!  You can see by that screenshot that Gigot and company are a crowd that knows all about the wonders and difficulties of ethnic diversity.


What?  The token black guy sitting off to the side?  I mean if the WSJ is going to go all liberal on us, I think we can point out their hypocrisy...


Posted by: John at May 31, 2007 05:42 PM (QC96i)

173

I do think that many of my fellow right-wigers are becoming irrational and childish about this issue. (If this thread keeps going, perhaps I'll have the chance to explain why I support Bush and the current bill, in spite of what I wish were the case.)


So how else do we express our displeasure?  Tell them politely they are being naughty and hope for the best?  Sit quietly like good lil' conservatives and wait for them to ram this bill down our throats?  No, getting pissed off and expressing your anger is the only way to get their attention and make the bastards understand that they do this at their own political peril.


Posted by: John at May 31, 2007 05:44 PM (QC96i)

174

Seriously, the same pro-Amnesty guys like Spongeworthy and Stormy come to every thread, throw out the same canned and discredited cliches, get refuted on every point, and then leave. Then they just come back to the next one and throw out the same nonsense.


Posted by: MlR at May 31, 2007 05:49 PM (OkL2K)

175

Let me begin with what I take to be the perfect solution. The following three objectives should be achieved in order:


1. Build the Fence.


2. Man the Fence.


3. Relieve pressure on the border through a fair and effective guest worker program.


4. Deal realistically with the millions of illegals already here.


5. A national ID card, needed by citizens and aliens alike, for all formal employment arrangements.


Now, I contend that for many of Bush's opponents on the right, just these words (in particular 3 and 4) constitute an endorsement of amnesty, and I've identified myself as a traitor just by uttering them. That's what I mean by jumped up rhetoric that needs to be set aside.


Wisdom, I would be lumped into the same 'traitor' category as you, because I have no problem with a guest-worker program and some kind of amnesty for illegals here already (we can quibble about details on these another time).  I also do not object to your #5.  Yet the reason why I oppose this deal is because I do not under any circumstances trust Bush, the GOP or the Democrats to actually do #1 & 2 FIRST.  We have been lied to over and over again by politicians in Washington.  I'm just not stupid enough anymore to believe that an empty promise to do the first two will be done when they are tied to the rest.  No, build the damn fence and man the border FIRST and then the rest I'll come aboard on (assuming the details are acceptable).  Until then, I'm done with trusting Washington.  You see, for me this has nothing to do with Mexicans coming to look for work, but EVERYTHING to do with security.  How many years has it been since 9/11?  Almost SIX?  Yet not a damn thing has been done about the border?  We can invade two countries thousands of miles away yet for some reason cannot even secure our own damn border?!?  What the fuck is that all about? 


Posted by: John at May 31, 2007 05:56 PM (QC96i)

176

Yeah, and you're the one who mentioned him, dumb ass. Great job keeping the rhetoric to a high standard. Really fucking high standard.

You guys are the one crying for the death penalty for employers, who do NOT have the authority or the responsibility for enforcing our borders. WTF, do you expect your next door neighbor who runs a landscaping firm to determine the legal status of people who apply for jobs? Fuck that. It's the government's job to determine whether people are here legally and the goverment obviously doesn't give a damn.

So you're just in favor of repealing the law that people don't follow, eh?

When the law is not only in conflict with the laws of economics, but totally unenforceable, yeah. You're damn fucking right I want it repealed. It's central planning. Socialism. We never had a problem with this before 1921 when, in all its wisdom, Congress decided they could control labor markets.

OK, fine. Tomorrow there's no speed limit because people won't follow that law. And tomorrow there's no shoplifting law because people steal. And the law against murder is right out the window because people kill.

Laws are only worth anything when they're congruous with the will of the people at large and the basics of economics. When there isn't the will to enforce them and/or they begin screwing with natural economic processes (see also: minimum wage laws, price controls, tariffs), they aren't worth the hassle. And they're almost always ineffective in the latter case anyway.

There clearly isn't the will to enforce the quotas--otherwise, we would have shot everybody coming across the border decades ago. And bureaucrats in Washington think they know how many new people we need to fill the bottom tier of a population with increasing wealth. It's been disaster for 86 years and until that's fixed, this won't go away. You'll just keep complaining about corruption. And you'll keep being ignored. But whatever.


Posted by: jhc at May 31, 2007 06:06 PM (IL3Gd)

177

Nom De Blog and John. If we follow your line of reasoning, we shouldn't do anything. You guys definitely want #1 and #2, but you've declared them to be impossible. So now, what are we supposed to do? Sit in a circle and hurl invectives at W? Unfortunately, that's all I seem to see coming from some of the parties in this argument.


Here is a bill that proposes doing #1 and #2 before any guest worker program is established. That requires heavy fines for illegals. That requires that they return home and start the path to citezenship from the back of the line. That guarantees all of this by placing heavy sanctions on those who benefit most from the current illegal system. Can we do something more than seethe in distrust and suspicion?


This is what will destoy the GOP. Not George w. Bush.


Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 06:08 PM (5E40L)

178

This is what will destoy the GOP. Not George w. Bush.


Bullshit.  It was Bush and the Republicans that controlled all levers of power for most of the time since 9/11 that hasn't done shit on this.  I have reason enough to be pissed off at the GOP because of the Religious Right and security is the main reason they even get a look from me.  If they're too chickenshit or incompetent to handle that, than fuck 'em.  Let the party go down.  They are the ones who put that mistrust there, it's up to them to work around it not for us to give in and be screwed over once more.  I do not trust them on this.  Build the fence and man it FIRST then submit the rest of the bill.


Posted by: John at May 31, 2007 06:15 PM (QC96i)

179 jhc,

"You guys are the one crying for the death penalty for employers..." -- bull shit

"Laws are only worth anything when they're congruous with the will of the people at large..." -- And the people (READ: us, here on this thread) are clamoring for enforcement, dip shit. Why is that hard for your small brain?

*

Wisdom (Mrs. Malaprop would be proud.) Lover,

Let's do nothing. That's right. Let's do nothing instead of a bad something. I haven't said #1 or #2 is impossible. I've said I don't trust this government, as constituted, to do anything constructive. I especially don't expect them to start construction of physical barriers.

Otherwise, you're wrong about this bill. You're sadly misinformed. And it's not my job to help you.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 06:17 PM (gxYF3)

180

And the people (READ: us, here on this thread) are clamoring for enforcement, dip shit. Why is that hard for your small brain?

And I, another guy on this thread, am telling you you're not going to get it. The Powers That Be (Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter) aren't going to stop the extras coming across the border because they know that's what the economy needs and don't have the guts or brains to kill the bureaucracy that's fucking it up. That's not my fault. I'm just telling you you're tilting at windmills, that's all.

And yeah, the bill's a piece of shit. But they're all like that.


Posted by: jhc at May 31, 2007 06:24 PM (IL3Gd)

181 jhc,

So in your world it is the elected officials and not "We, the People..." who have the power?
Seriously, fuck that noise.
Go tell somebody who gives a shit what you think...

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 06:26 PM (gxYF3)

182

So in your world it is the elected officials and not "We, the People..." who have the power?

If you have the power, why are you so frustrated with what's going on?


Posted by: jhc at May 31, 2007 06:30 PM (IL3Gd)

183 What the law says is that you may apply for a Z visa right away. If
there's not an immediate hit that precludes the issuance of a Z-visa,
you'll get a provisional visa. This is not just a matter of giving your
name and getting a visa. You've got to provide your criminal
background, your fingerprints, 'biometric' data (not sure what that
is...do they take a mouth swab or something). In any case just to
apply, you're well and truly in the system.


But they only have one business day to find a reason to refuse you a provisional visa.  I'm sure that will not be enough to determine whether or not you have a criminal record here or abroad.  Additionally, as Debbie Schlussel has previously pointed out, since it takes one business day before you show up in the system you can go around to multiple locations applying and obtaining multiple provisional visas.  Fraud heaven!  Finally, having all that biometric data doesn't mean much if you have nothing to compare it against.  This provision of issuing a visa prior to completing a background check (and such checks will be massively backlogged, perhaps for years) is a disaster waiting to happen.

You can't have it both ways. The 'trggers' simply express the fact that the govt has to enforce the border before the
Z-visa program kicks in. Isn't that what everybody wants? (And in the
meantime, we've gathered fingerprints, biometric data and so on for all
the illegals who will ever be regularized under this law.)


My reading of the triggers clause is that it is up to George Bush to determine when those goals have been adequately met.  This is the same George Bush who promised a 700 mile fence and has delivered 2 miles thus far....and now is promising far less fence.  Color me a skeptic.

As a not-so-wise man once said: "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, can't get fooled again."  We've been fooled way too many times before on immigration.

Posted by: MikeX at May 31, 2007 06:41 PM (GLMrI)

184 jhc,
Elections, you dumb shit. Fucking elections.
I won't be manning the phone banks or mailing checks to these amnesty-first Republicans. And I won't be voting for them either.

What the ever loving fuck did you think we were talking about all over the AoS blog for the last two weeks? We're talking about not supporting these ass holes who are selling us a pig in a poke. That's what.

Now go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 06:47 PM (gxYF3)

185

What the ever loving fuck did you think we were talking about all over the AoS blog for the last two weeks?

Crying in your beers, mostly.

We're talking about not supporting these ass holes who are selling us a pig in a poke. That's what.

Fine. But they'll just send in a different set of assholes. Don't say I didn't warn you.


Posted by: jhc at May 31, 2007 06:53 PM (IL3Gd)

186 Michael Barone's analysis is remarkably similar to my own. And he has numbers.

Posted by: Irony de Blog at May 31, 2007 07:01 PM (gxYF3)

187 jhc,
Haven't you gotten the point yet that I don't give one mother fucking shit what you think? Do you really think I take the admonitions of some dumb schmuck on the Intertubes seriously? Fuck off.

You're an obnoxious prick, frankly. You'll excuse me for not wanting to drop my trousers and hope the President and Ted Kennedy are gentlemenly enough to pinch the head before taking me. Oh, and fuck off.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 07:05 PM (gxYF3)

188

Haven't you gotten the point yet that I don't give one mother fucking shit what you think?

For somebody that doesn't care, you sure reply a lot.

Do you really think I take the admonitions of some dumb schmuck on the Intertubes seriously? Fuck off.

Need I remind you that YOU are also a dumb schmuck on the Internet?

You're an obnoxious prick, frankly.

Something I've always taken pride in.

You'll excuse me for not wanting to drop my trousers and hope the President and Ted Kennedy are gentlemenly enough to pinch the head before taking me. Oh, and fuck off.

A delightful one, you are. For the record, I never said I agreed with Bush. I'm just agreeing with the WSJ editorial board that your argument is irrational. The government has laws on the books that don't make sense, so they ignore them. You think they should enforce them, I think they should scrap them and go with something else. But it doesn't really matter, since the government doesn't agree with either of us.


Posted by: jhc at May 31, 2007 07:13 PM (IL3Gd)

189

If it doesn't really matter who comes over our border....


Well, then shitcan the passport lines at international airports.  TSA checkpoints?  No need.  Border-crossing checkpoints?  Eh.  Who packed my luggage?  Who cares?


If the keel is out of the boat, it's silly to plug leaks along the waterline.


So if you aren't going to protect the US, at least stop jerking us of with all these "Homeland Security" measures.


Fuck you, GW and the GOP, and really does hurt me that it had to come to this.  Such a simple thing...


 


Posted by: Beau at May 31, 2007 07:16 PM (MBPGB)

190

So: If I refuse to semi-disrobe for a drooling idiot at JFK, I get a latex glove shiatsu.  If I sashay across the Rio Grande at Juarez?  Z-Visa!


As with all legislation, don't examine its' intended purpose, examine the incentives it creates.


Posted by: Beau at May 31, 2007 07:25 PM (MBPGB)

191

Well, RWS and folks, I'll say it proudly. I AM anti-immigration in certain areas:


1. "Refugee" status. Has been abused too often and the people who use it tend to become welfare junkies. Look up the Hmong people for a very sharp case in point. Sure from 1975-1990 they could claim justifiable persecution from the communists. But today, the Soviet empire is gone and Vietnam and Laos are trying to curry favor with the West. And even our vets are returning there for visits.


2. Family immigration "daisy chains". The result here was bringing in Grandma and Grandpa to get on SSI. (Recent legislation has tightened this up, thank goodness).


3. H-1B visas. Indentured servants for the tech industry. These are the least objectionable because they are skilled and English speaking. However, if you are an American student who studied your engineering and programming hard and played by the rules, doesn't it just annoy you that your hard work was just devalued? And they want American kids to work and study hard? When something pays less, you get less of it.


4. And frankly, culture does matter. The WSJ hacks themelves point this out when they speak disapprovingly of political opportunists like Mayor Villagarosa of Los Angeles, but they never cank make the connection that their own open borders policies brought people like Antonio the Asshole into power.


So yes, some of us ARE anti-immigration to some extent. And there is nothing wrong with that.


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 07:31 PM (XtdkR)

192 I reply because it's fun for me. This response "you must care because you keep responding" is silly. I care about my enjoyment and only my enjoyment. I give not one wet shit what you say.

As for being a dumb schmuck on the internet, I know I'm not. You? Eh, I'm not 100% on that proposition.

And yes, I am quite delightful. But I'm not so much into the pounding you seem inclined to accept from your Congressional betters.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 07:33 PM (gxYF3)

193

Here is a bill that proposes doing #1 and #2 before any guest worker program is established. That requires heavy fines for illegals. That requires that they return home and start the path to citezenship from the back of the line. That guarantees all of this by placing heavy sanctions on those who benefit most from the current illegal system. Can we do something more than seethe in distrust and suspicion?


This is what will destoy the GOP. Not George w. Bush.


And if you believe that, WisdomLover (sic), I have a bridge across the Bay to sell you....


What on earth is wrong with building and manning a wall fence--NOW, and tightening up the ICE to stop visa overstayers, and then coming back for other immigration reforms in a few years when we can measurably see progress?


Maybe we DO need many many more legal immigrants as some of the romantics suggest. Frankly, I am skeptical (see my examples of bad LEGAL immigration above) but at least we would have control over our own nation and we could calmly discuss the pros and cons. As it is, we are being stampeded into something awful, by people with romantic delusions, sinister agendas, or both. And they call us evil when we dare suggest we want control of our own country.


I know why some people want "comprehensive immigration reform" (sic)....because asshats like jhc let the proverbial cat out of the bag:


And I, another guy on this thread, am telling you you're not going to get it. The Powers That Be (Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter) aren't going to stop the extras coming across the border because they know that's what the economy needs and don't have the guts or brains to kill the bureaucracy that's fucking it up. That's not my fault. I'm just telling you you're tilting at windmills, that's all.


Never mind the dubious claim that this is what our economy needs (more illiterates who are net takers of social services?  more public school failures? more gang recruits, and then more prison inmates?), the very arrogance of so many of you "comprehensive reform" advocates is grating, never mind the duplicity. 


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 07:51 PM (XtdkR)

194 Mike X:
First, thanks for the very thoughtful response to some of my comments. I'd like to return the favor.
 
But they only have one business day to find a reason to refuse you a
provisional visa. I'm sure that will not be enough to determine
whether or not you have a criminal record here or abroad.


No, of course it won't be, at least not in every case. That does not, of course, preclude the authorities from revoking your provisional visa and denying you a Z-visa or any other kind of documentation when they find out about your sordid past.

Additionally, as Debbie Schlussel has previously pointed out, since it
takes one business day before you show up in the system you can go
around to multiple locations applying and obtaining multiple
provisional visas. Fraud heaven! Finally, having all that biometric
data doesn't mean much if you have nothing to compare it against.


Well...one thing that it occurs to me that you'll have at least one thing to compare your biometric data against: all the fraudulent applications you've made for Z-visas. Go ahead, apply once for a Z-visa as Juan Hernandez and a second time as Jose Martinez. You'll get your two provisionals, but they'll be very provisional, since your fingerprints will be matched on both applications. This isn't fraud heaven, it's fraud hell.

This
provision of issuing a visa prior to completing a background check (and
such checks will be massively backlogged, perhaps for years) is a
disaster waiting to happen.

As a conservative, I've gone way out on a limb to say that the govt can do instant background checks for gun purchases. I don't feel bad about going out on that limb, because I think that's true. I don't necessarily think that the govt will be able to do instant background checks for Z-visas, nor do I even think that the one-business day waiting period for a provisional visa will always be enough time. But I don't see any reason to think that the system will be backlogged for years.

My reading of the triggers clause is that it is up to George Bush to
determine when those goals have been adequately met.

My reading is that the Secretary of Homeland Security has to submit a written certification to the President and the Congress that the various border security and other measures are funded, in place, and in operation. The bill is quite specific about what these measures are, e.g. 370 miles of fence, 40 radar towers, 4 unmanned aerial surveilance vehicles, Catch and Return border enforcement, electronic background checks and so forth.

And how else would you proceed? If, as we conservatives have been
saying, we want border security first and only then a guest worker
program, then smeone is going to have to decide when we've got border
security. Who should that be? If not our elected officials and their appointees then who? Should we make the Minutemen the 'deciders'? Even if you separate the fence and the gwp out into separate bills, someone is still going to have to decide when the border is secure enough and it's OK to start with the gwp. We can, as this bill does, lay out some specific guidelines for our officials to follow, but at some point someone is going to have to be empowered to declare the guidelines satisfied.

Now, I suppose that the Secretary could lie in his certification, or W could say that he has the certification when he doesn't, but I really don't think that's likely in the information age. Furthermore, if you go down that road, then you should never do anything no matter how badly broken the status quo is. After all, the powers that be will simply lie to us and do as they please.

But, perhaps you have some specific criticism of W's credibility:

This is the same
George Bush who promised a 700 mile fence and has delivered 2 miles
thus far....and now is promising far less fence.  Color me a skeptic.

It could be that Bush 'promised' 700 miles of fence when the Congress was in Republican hands and that he was close to getting it until his plans were scuttled by John McCain and the 2006 elections. Now he is reduced to 'promising' less. Also, not to be too pedantic, but I suspect the only promise you'll find Bush making is the promise to argue for the fence in Congress...Politicians don't promise success all too often. He may well have predicted success, but that's another animal.

In any event, you are construing the events of the last two years as deception. It is surely your right to do so. I don't think that it's very constructive, but you have your rights. I construe it as W. and the Republicans losing a battle. The two are very different in terms of whether you think W will  even try to trick us into believing that there are 370 miles of fence when there aren't (for example).

Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 08:26 PM (3c7yl)

195 The Secretary won't need to lie Wisdom*heh*Lover. They'll just define success down until it's "achieved" and then go balls to the wall with the amnesty plan.

Have you always been this credulous?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 08:44 PM (gxYF3)

196 Nick:

And if you believe that, WisdomLover (sic), I have a bridge across the Bay to sell you....

Just as a stylistic point, the (sic) tag used as an ad hominem attack is kind of old. Also ad hominem attacks are generally effective with people who are already inclined to agree with you. But not very effective on those who disagree with you.


What on earth is wrong with building and manning a wall fence--NOW,
and tightening up the ICE to stop visa overstayers, and then coming
back for other immigration reforms in a few years when we can
measurably see progress?


Absolutely nothing is wrong with that proposal except that we didn't have the votes to get it when Congress was in Republican hands, we're sure as hell not going to get it now. What we just might be able to get is a bill that makes an imperfect but reasonable guest worker program and regularization of existing illegals contingent on the implementation of a number of solid border enforcement measures. Things will only get worse if we implode and lose the White House or (worse) give the Democrats stronger control of the Congress or (worst) both.

Maybe we DO need many many more legal immigrants as some of the
romantics suggest. Frankly, I am skeptical (see my examples of bad
LEGAL immigration above) but at least we would have control over our
own nation and we could calmly discuss the pros and cons. As it is, we
are being stampeded into something awful, by people with romantic
delusions, sinister agendas, or both.

I agree with most of the sentiment and much of the content here. I agree with you in not being so sure that American citizens and legal immigrants are naturally so uniterested in the jobs illegals currently snap up. If the federal government didn't make it so damn easy to suckle up to the collective teat, perhaps some folks would get off the dole and put an illegal out of work.

That said, there's one thing that's a whole lot more awful than the proposed bill, and that's the status quo. I'm afraid that a lot of my fellow conservatives are stampeding us into that awful result.


Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 09:13 PM (3c7yl)

197 "wisdomlover" which seems ironic somehow... anyway.

"
Sorry Ace, Bush isn't destroying the GOP. Knee-jerk anti-immigration reform types are."

Yep, us knee-jerk anti-immigration reform people.  Can't see how things should go.  Obviously this bill is a good plan.

1965 - Amnesty plus border reform, pledged to fix the problem forever.

1986 - Amnesty plus border reform,  pledged to fix the problem forever.

2007 - do I really need to type that again?

So, are you surprised when reading Peanuts and Lucy pulls the ball away?  Does it shock you that Wimpy never pays on Tuesday for his hamburger today?  Life must be a constant surprise if you don't consider that the same action, when applied to the same problem, tends to give the same results...

How many times do you try a plan after it fails?  Could we maybe try a different plan?  When you're making a "give and take" agreement, and never get your side; do you keep making the same agreements?

Basically, are you that stupid, or did you not know we do this every 20 years and always pledge border reform as part of the compromise, and never do it?

Fence first, amnesty after.  You'll split 50-70% of the "anti-immigration reform" back to agreeing with what needs to be done.  But after getting burned twice, a lot of us aren't willing to believe that this "compromise" will ever be lived up to.

Oh well, maybe in 2028 we'll do the fence first.  Although we'll probably just get called racist, irrational, foaming at the mouth idiots with knee-jerk policies for opposing amnesty for the new crop of 19 million immigrants (or whatever the new number will be then).   I bet we'll be the problem with the party too... unwilling to continue to repeat past failures and all.  It's so divisive and irrational.

Oh, but the border reform is part of the bill right? ... Like it was in 1986?  Well, since it worked in 1986 we don't have a problem.  Sweet, I'm going for drinks.  I thought we had a problem, but I guess not.  Nevermind guys, we fixed it in 1986, and since this plan will work, that one must have already fixed it.



Posted by: Gekkobear at May 31, 2007 09:17 PM (3O+FT)

198 Nom de Blog:
If you don't mind, I'll just ignore the leading ad hominem and closing loaded question and ask what you mean by having the Secretary 'define down success'? Do you mean that they'll decide 3 miles of wall is enough even though the law says 370 miles? Would 0 unmaned surveilance vehiles be defined as being equal to 4? Or perhaps the Secretary of Homeland Security will redefine the statute mile to be equal to 4 inches? How exactly would this 'defining down' work?

Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 09:23 PM (3c7yl)

199

Just as a stylistic point, the (sic) tag used as an ad hominem attack is kind of old. Also ad hominem attacks are generally effective with people who are already inclined to agree with you. But not very effective on those who disagree with you.


OK, fair enough. You have been decent, unlike others like jhc, I shouldn't tar you with the same brush. However:


Absolutely nothing is wrong with that proposal except that we didn't have the votes to get it when Congress was in Republican hands, we're sure as hell not going to get it now.


Three words: self fulfilling prophecy. The Bushyrovies, either out of sincere immigration romanticism or out of delusions of victory through Hispandering, thwarted Hunter, Tancredo and other border patriots at every step. With the Wall Street Journal cocoon cheering them on.


(Really, wasn't it shocking on that video how utterly out of touch those guys are in their Manhattan tower? Do they really believe that nonsense about the Latino vote? Two out of three vote against Republicans, election after election, with some fluctuation, but not much.)


And if we don't get it now? Then the Democrats, especially the monbat Demunists, take the blame. Add Pelosi's dithering to the mix, pandering to a moonbat base only to turn around and fund the war again, and I suspect that the Demunist majority in Congress evaporates quickly. That is, if the overwhelming majority of Republicans stand firm and do what is right. It needs to be made perfectly clear that this is a Democrat folly. Signing off on the folly only muddles the message.


What we just might be able to get is a bill that makes an imperfect but reasonable guest worker program and regularization of existing illegals contingent on the implementation of a number of solid border enforcement measures. Things will only get worse if we implode and lose the White House or (worse) give the Democrats stronger control of the Congress or (worst) both.


I wish I shared your optimism about the contingents, but I just can't. 1986 and all that, you know. And when history repeats itself, I want to be able to blame the disaster on the Democrats and repeat the Great Political Upchuck of 1994.


That said, there's one thing that's a whole lot more awful than the proposed bill, and that's the status quo. I'm afraid that a lot of my fellow conservatives are stampeding us into that awful result.


So be it. Signing off on a political suicide pact will be our undoing. Let the status quo fester, and let their side take the blame. Who knows? Perhaps the unions, who used to oppose immigration because they really cared about their workers, who reconsider the whole "import a new proletariat" idea. The overwhelming majority of Middle America is disgusted with this, and mark my words, Republicans who strongly oppose it will come out ahead.


 


Posted by: Nick Byram at May 31, 2007 09:40 PM (XtdkR)

200 Gekkobear:

Whether you choose to include yourself in the group of knee-jerk anti-imigration types is your affair. But with your every word you confirm that you view the term "amnesty" as synonymous with"guest worker program". Which, you must admit, is a pretty knee-jerk reaction. Aren't the details of the guest worker program relevant to whether the program logically or practically implies amnesty? The closest synonym we have right now for "amnesty" is "status quo", since illegal aliens generally go unpunished under the status quo. Under the proposed bill, illegals have to return to their country of origin, pay a fine, employers who hire illegals face severe penalties and so on. Sorry, but that ain't amnesty. Your insistence on it and the hardening of political categories based on it is what is going to weaken the GOP.

So what's the end game of your strategery. As I see it, it's this: the bill does not pass, the status quo remains in place. Republicans blame Republicans for that as well. Filled with the rancor sown and carefully cultivated during this debate, the party and fractures and weakens making any conservative legislative agenda impossible and making it damn difficult to even block a left-of-center agenda (except through the hated Bush's seldom used veto pen). Hilary wins in '08. The Congress slips further into democratic control.

The Republicans deserve it, you say. Fuck 'em.

And then what? The dems make it so bad that it somehow, finally, 'learns us our lesson'? That doesn't really happen you know. At least, not very often. And the lesson usually doesn't stick. What does stick is the crap that the liberals usher in.

I know what comes next. But the Republicans do the same thing! There's no difference! If so, then, since you've just said that it's all the same to you, why not vote for the Republican. Maybe after a few more years of Republican control, gullible fools like me will finally learn our lessons and become defeatist (and defeated) cynics.

Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 10:00 PM (3c7yl)

201 If you call yourself "WisdomLover" and go off spouting inane pabulum, don't be surprised if somebody on teh Tubes thinks it's ironic. And your use of the term ad hominem as an ad hominem is similarly ironic. But I'll bet that wasn't completely lost on you as you typed those words, now was it?

What I'm saying is that the regulations that are written to enforce a bill often define the goals toward whatever end the agency wants. (There are also sorts of fancy theories on this set of events that you can get your own damned advance degree in, if you choose. If you need a letter of recommendation, just let me know.) That's why courts involve themselves in such things as "Congressional intent" and other nasty bits of lawyering. So, yes. I'm saying that the regs that are established will be whatever the agency chooses them to be. And then the courts will get involved but by then the triggers will be triggered and there's no getting that horse back into that there barn. Ever.

The pee won't come out of the pool.
The toothpaste won't go back in the tubes.
Camel's nose...
And et cetera.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 31, 2007 10:34 PM (gxYF3)

202 Nick:
You're absolutely right bout the WSJ guys on the video. Ironically enough, it was the two guys on the center left of the table relative to Gigot that seemed the most out of it. Suggesting that most anti-immigration folks have racist motives is just absurd. The most intemperate conservative who posts on any of the blogs I read probably still doesn't have a racist bone in his body. (Obviously, a nitpicker could probably find someone who has racist motives.) I would generally not put John Fund in the same category as those two. His points seemed pretty reasonable actually. Gigot on the other hand, quickly showed his elitist stripes when he replied to the racism charge (basically agreeing with it).

On the bill, there is this difference with the 86 legislation. There was nothing very specific or locked in on the contingents in the 86 bill. In 86 we had amnesty plus the promise to get 'really serious' about border enforcement. This bill is a lot more specific. To fulfill the contingent for the Z-visa program for example, there has to be at least 370 miles of fence, 40 radar towers, 4 unmanned aerial suveillance vehicles and so on. That's pretty damn specific. Short of repealing or ammending the law (which a more strongly Democratic government might do) how could they fudge that?


Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 11:07 PM (3c7yl)

203 Mmm... Nom de blog isn't the least bit affected either. Look, you don't want to use your name. I don't want to use mine. I'm quite willing to leave it at that. If the names we use are a bit stilted, that's no skin off anyone's hide and it makes them much easier to remember and more fun to type.

As for ad hominems, I think I'm too stupid to think of calling you on an ad hominem as a fancy way of making an ad hominem. What I meant to do was call you on the use of an ad hominem. We can make a great start at avoiding political cannibalism (which is my bigest fear in this whole sad debate) by observing little courtesies like eschewing ad hominem attacks (they don't really help anyway).

Now, on to the substance of your reply.

What I'm saying is that the regulations that are written to enforce a
bill often define the goals toward whatever end the agency wants....That's why courts involve
themselves in such things as "Congressional intent" and other nasty
bits of lawyering. So, yes. I'm saying that the regs that are
established will be whatever the agency chooses them to be.

So what did you have in mind? I ask again. Will the department of Homeland Security regulate that 1 mile equals 4 inches in order to 'enforce' the 370 miles of fence requirement? I'll grant you that some of the triggering requirements may not be quite as difficult to fudge? But in all honesty, some are damn difficult to fudge. Since the triggering requirements are conjunctive, the most difficult requirement dominates.

Your point seems to be that those wiley Bushies (or other hated politico) could find a way through arcane legal maneuvering and regulating to bamboozle us all so that this bill will end up legalizing every soul from Barrow to Tierra del Fuego. But that's just a nice bromide. If true at all, it will end up being true of any bill, even the the 'toughest' fever dream bill of Tom Tancredo and Jim Gilchrist.


Posted by: WisdomLover at May 31, 2007 11:54 PM (3c7yl)

204 Drew:
Sorry, this one got by me. Hope it's not to late to reply.

You didn't address my question about how it's those of us who oppose
amnesty are destroying the party when it's Bush who is letting in
millions of new Democrat voters....

No policy disagreement in this area is going to destroy the GOP. The conservative movement (and the GOP as its imperfect instrument) has been the home of sweet reason over raw emotion. We settle our disagreements that way. When liberals have disagreements, they hold rallies and shout. What will destroy us is the adoption of a rhetoric of rage. This rhetoric of rage is what I see mostly from the Tancredo wing of the party.

When I hear people say that Bush is destroying the GOP I think they usually mean that they think he's making everyone mad at the GOP because he won't build the goddam fence. They don't have your demographic point in mind (At least, that's my take on the subject...someone probably has a poll to show me that everyone's really worrried about the demographics.) I think, instead, that conservatives have gotten themselves into an unhealthy rage-induced feedback loop. It's gotten so bad that some people can't hear "guest worker program" without also hearing "amnesty". I'm not saying we shouldn't be angry. There's plenty to be angry about. But we don't let it trump our reason. It's not who we are and it just doesn't help us.

Now, I must admit, your demographic point has a lot of plausibility. Current Hispanics vote for Democrats two to one when they vote (or something like that). And there's no reason to thing that new Hispanic immigrants will do any better. Note that, with a proper registration program, it'll be a long time before these new and regularized immigrants become eligible to vote (by becoming citizens). During those intervening years, a lot could happen

Posted by: WisdomLover at June 01, 2007 12:52 AM (3c7yl)

205

I reply because it's fun for me.

Do your other hobbies include a lot of "fuck you"?

And yes, I am quite delightful. But I'm not so much into the pounding you seem inclined to accept from your Congressional betters.

You still don't seem to get that I'm not in favor of this bill. Oh well. Whatever.


Posted by: jhc at June 01, 2007 02:53 AM (IL3Gd)

206

Never mind the dubious claim that this is what our economy needs (more illiterates who are net takers of social services? more public school failures? more gang recruits, and then more prison inmates?), the very arrogance of so many of you "comprehensive reform" advocates is grating, never mind the duplicity.

Um, you do know I'm not actually advocating this bill, correct?

Anyway, yes, we do need more uneducated people. We always have. In the past, it was the Irish, Italians, Asians, and southeastern Europeans. They were ALL poor. Many of them couldn't read or speak English well, or at all. People complained about them dragging down the tone of the country. People complained about them spitting in the street. People worried that some of them would be criminals. Some of them were.

But in a free market society, people work their way up. Are you going to clean toilets? For $6.00/hour? I'm not. That's why economies always need fresh groups of poor uneducated people. It's a waste of resources for those with education to do cheap menial labor. It's a loss of opportunity cost.

In 50 years, when the descendants of people coming here now are college-educated and have well-paying white-collar jobs, they won't be willing to do that stuff either. More poor people will be required. All societies are stratified. Fortunately, free market economies are fluid, so everybody gets a chance.

That is why we need a continual flow of cheap unskilled labor. And when you guys are slamming Wal-Mart or Bob the Landscaper, you start sounding just like the Dems crying for minimum-wage increases or price controls. Enough already.

Rho, if you're reading this, I know how you feel now. I still disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of stuff. But I know how you feel...


Posted by: jhc at June 01, 2007 03:05 AM (IL3Gd)

207 WisdomLover has a lot more time and patience than I, but FTR, the case he is trying to make is the one I'm trying to communicate, only, you know, he does it a lot better.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 01, 2007 04:07 AM (uSomN)

208 Ok, so I'm wrong and it's not amnesty.  Good to know.  So there isn't a "path to Citizenship"... I must have misheard Bush.  I thought we were giving them a path to citizenship, ignoring various illegalities (tax evasion, gang related incidents, etc.), and letting them gain citizenship.  I guess it's just a "guest worker program" now, and the citizenship path isn't part of the bill?

And you've got an interesting point.  My end-game sucks.  It does, as Congress is perfectly willing to ignore the fact that almost nobody supports this bill; so it seems unlikely that they'll fix this problem.  And when your Congressman is doing something you don't like, your best option isn't to do what I have done and write to him clarifying your position; it's to shut up, sit down, and vote for him anyway because "the other side is just as bad, maybe worse".

Thanks for continuing that lovely line of reasoning.  But somehow sitting down and shutting up when my elected officials are ignoring me and doing stupid things that we know won't work isn't my strong suit.

And your endgame is even more obvious that mine (since we've done it twice).  We have a new batch of citizens (which I'm fine with) and another batch of 50-100% more illegals crossing the border in the next two decades (it accellerates every time we do this, especially in the few years following amnesty as we've lost a chunk of the "cheap labor" pool)..  So I'd predict (based on past events, and the fact that we've done this plan before) 20-40 million more illegals within 20 years.

Of course maybe they'll really enforce the laws against employers who employ illegal immigrants.  They didn't enforce the laws that existed before this bill, but I'm sure that was a problem with the previous laws, not the enforcement of the laws...  I also believe that if someone doesn't speak english, I can simply talk slower and louder and they'll eventually understand me.

Or    maybe    this     sort     of     solution     won't      add     anything    as     they      don't      enforce     the      laws      we     already      have     ...     why     do      you       think      they'd      enforce     the      new      ones     ?

But at least you've given me a nice choice there.  Either vote for Liberals who claim to be Liberals, or Liberals who claim to be Conservatives (without actually promoting Conservative ideals).  I can see why we want a Republican Majority again.  They did so well with the last one, passing every clause in the "Contract with America" that got them the majority... except the parts that were written or mentioned aloud.

Name 3 Conservative domestic actions that the Republicans managed to pass with their 6 year control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.  Please make them important enough to cover a huge increase in discretionary spending, a large increase in future liabilities with the Medicare Prescription bill, and the signing of McCain-Feingold.

Ok, that was mean...  "tax cuts".  Now come up with 2 more?

Well heck, with the track record they have, we've gotta ge them back in power without even clarifying that we might be unhappy with them.  They're super.
 
"Your point seems to be that those wiley Bushies (or other hated
politico) could find a way through arcane legal maneuvering and
regulating to bamboozle us all so that this bill will end up legalizing
every soul from Barrow to Tierra del Fuego. But that's just a nice
bromide. If true at all, it will end up being true of any bill, even
the the 'toughest' fever dream bill of Tom Tancredo and Jim Gilchrist."

This in fact is exactly the sort of proposal we will end up with... and we will get this with whatever proposal we start with.  Congratulations on having the correct answer.  This is why we'd like to secure the border first, rather than hashing out the bits that will be dropped as soon as they're found to be inconvenient to keep.

But maybe you believe that we'll follow the bill this time... just because we've always dropped the inconvenient bits after the bill is passed; doesn't mean we'll do it again this time.  and my annoying cynicism in expecting Congress to do what they've done in the past is awful.  They do the first step or two, then drop the rest... at least that's what they've always done.  Maybe this time will be different... and maybe it'll rain chocolate.

Ok.  Now the fence I understand, but 320 miles for 2000+ miles of border seems questionable.  Maybe I don't understand though.  How do unmanned drones and radar towers stop border crossing?  Or do you think the manpower situation will change?  Admittedly I think it will change, but that's just because Chertoff is talking about removing manpower from the border in the next few weeks.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/184492

Maybe I'm missing the parts of the bill that you think will actually stop a physical person from stepping across the border, instead of letting a Government official who is tasked with 10 miles of border count that today he stopped 500 border crossers in his section, and the radar shows he missed 5,000 others... does that help something?


Posted by: Gekkobear at June 01, 2007 07:24 AM (X0NX1)

209

Gekkobear:


This in fact is exactly the sort of proposal we will end up with... and we will get this with whatever proposal we start with.  Congratulations on having the correct answer.  This is why we'd like to secure the border first, rather than hashing out the bits that will be dropped as soon as they're found to be inconvenient to keep.


Your position is self refuting. The proposal of securing the border first is just as subject to manipulation as any other law. Your committment to your rage against government makes it impossible for you to support anything except the status quo, no matter how broken that is.


Ok.  Now the fence I understand, but 320 miles for 2000+ miles of border seems questionable.  Maybe I don't understand though.  How do unmanned drones and radar towers stop border crossing?


Fences don't stop border crossings either. A 20 foot high fence will just increase sales of 21 foot ladders. Men stop border crossings. Fences, radar towers and unmanned aerial drones are force multipliers.


There are places on the 2000+ mile boder where it doesn't make any sense to build fences. I'm pretty sure that the 370 miles that triggers the guest worker program is still not enough. I'm no expert on security fences, but I guess that the 700+ miles I've heard bantered about by a lot of responsible people is probably the right amount. The bill at hand amounts, with near mathematical exactitude to half a loaf.


Or do you think the manpower situation will change?  Admittedly I think it will change, but that's just because Chertoff is talking about removing manpower from the border in the next few weeks.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/184492


Did you read the article you linked? It says, basically, that national guard units deployed temorarily to logistical positions are being drawn down as newly trained border agents come online. At the beginning of Jump Start there were 12000 Border patrol. 6000 Guardsmen were temporarily deployed. Over the next several months, 3000 of 6000 guardsmen will be removed while the number of Border Patrol goes up to 18000 (the number of Border patrol is now at 13500). Eventually, all of the Guardsmen will go home. My math may be wrong, but I think that when the dust clears and all the guardsmen have gone home, there will be the same number of bodies that there were on day one of Jump Start (and 6000 more than there were on day -1). The difference is that the new bodies will be trained to do the job. This, by the way, is independent of any force increases mandated by the bill under discussion.


Posted by: WisdomLover at June 01, 2007 08:29 AM (5E40L)

210

Gekkobear:


Republicans controlled House and Senate for four years under Bush. Not 6. We got: Tax Cuts, the Patriot Act, Op Iraqi Freedom, Op Enduring Freedom. Not to mention Roberts and Alito.


Posted by: WisdomLover at June 01, 2007 09:22 AM (5E40L)

211 And NCLB and increased Medicare coverage.
Yeah! Increased government spending.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at June 01, 2007 09:44 AM (gxYF3)

212

Nom De Blog:


Gekkobear challenged me to come up with three major items that conservatives 'got' during the years that Republicans controlled all the organs of govt. The idea was to set that against their not-so-good stuff. Gekkobear had already included the increased Medicare coverage under th not-so-good. And I agree with him there.


Posted by: WisdomLover at June 01, 2007 10:13 AM (5E40L)

213 Ok, SC Justices Roberts, Alito (although really they wanted Myers, right?)... you did come up with enough domestic ones to count.  I honestly was having trouble coming up with enough items to make a list of 3.

And you're right, I forgot about the Jefford defection throwing the Senate control from 2000-2002; so I was overcounting those years.  Although I don't recall loads of Conservative bills being passed in the House and hung up in the Senate.  Maybe I just didn't hear about them.

Wasn't the Patriot Act from 2001?  So it wasn't in the 4 year period in question.  Actually, I made the same mistake.  The tax cuts were passed in 2001 as well (although some were in 2003, the primary bill I was considering was also 2001).

So, domestically (i.e. not foreign policy) the Republicans had control for 4 years, and got two SCOTUS Nominees (out of 3 attempts) and an addition to a tax cut that expires soon.   And some critical foreign policy.  I'll concede that foreign policy is less serious under Democrats, but somehow Republicans seem to fail miserably at Domestic Policy...

In four years there was no drop in spending (in fact record increases in discretionary non-military spending), a worsening of the coming problems with Medicare, no work at all done for So-So Security, and more Pork spending and earmarking than ever.

I'm supposed to feel that the Democrats are worse?  Ok, honestly I do.  Do I feel they're significantly worse?  Enough to justify voting for a Conservative who isn't actually Conservative in action, votes, or speech?  Since when does that single letter after their name justify a vote?



Posted by: Gekkobear at June 01, 2007 10:47 AM (X0NX1)

214

I think you're right about the timing of the Patriot Act. That was passed by a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The tax cuts, however, passed before Jumpin' Jim Jeffords jumped.


I'm right with you in being very disappointed that the Republicans couldn't do more with what they had. Especially in the 2002-2004 time period. Had Bush gotten Social Security reform. I'd be a lot less disappointed. I suspect a lot of people would be a lot less disappointed (except the Democrats).


They all look bad compared to Reagan don't they? (Even though he was behind the 86 border bill.)


Posted by: WisdomLover at June 01, 2007 11:55 AM (5E40L)

215

Hello.


I would consider it a privilege if you would add my blog www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com to your list of linked sites if you feel it is of a high quality.


Happy June.


eric


Posted by: eric at June 01, 2007 12:04 PM (2Q6Ib)

216 Well, I'm glad to see you've decided to stop calling me names for a while and focus on your other target: WisdomLover. Let's only hope your prescription doesn't run out soon...

Posted by: jhc at June 01, 2007 05:52 PM (IL3Gd)

217 "The left hates Bush when he's effectively good for the country, we hate him when he's not."

Um, he's never been good for the country. Neither have the Republicans, at least not since TR.

Bush is the worst president in history. Those who voted for him are the stupidest Americans in history. Do I hate you? Yes, I do, because you hate America. Leave now. You'll be more at home in Russia.

Posted by: Mike at June 03, 2007 09:53 AM (Y+MHN)

218 "Now, I must admit, your demographic point has a lot of plausibility. Current Hispanics vote for Democrats two to one when they vote (or something like that). And there's no reason to thing that new Hispanic immigrants will do any better."

I rather think you've got it the other way around. To Karl Rove's way of thinking the socially conservative, Catholic, hard-working Hispanic immigrants are a natural constituency, IF the Republicans handle them in the right way.

Posted by: Mark Borok at June 03, 2007 09:58 AM (L69x5)

219

"Hey, President Bush? Fuck off. You are going down in history in a neck-and-neck battle with Jimmy Carter as worst president of the twentieth century.
And you know what? You are, pretty much, a fucking moron
. ...... Message To The Left: I'm not saying you should impeach him, I'm just sayin', you know, go with your hearts." - Ace

I'll be damned. It turns out that he really is a "Uniter not a divider."


Posted by: mw at June 03, 2007 10:16 AM (Jb3be)

220 Anyone and everyone should know that James Buchanan was the worst President in American history, followed by Warren Harding.  Consider the totality of history and the era in which they governed. 

Posted by: Mike H. at June 03, 2007 11:02 AM (3i0x6)

221 Am I the only one who noticed this in the WSJ video: The one woman and the one African-American in the room do not have a seat at the table! Hell, the woman does not even have a chair! WTF is up with that?

Posted by: HerEssay at June 03, 2007 11:18 AM (P3Ha5)

222

I propose that Americans stop the "Fvck President Bush" remarks, well-deserved though they may be, and start fvcking each other, early and often.  Mexico has a young, surging population; the United States, not so much.  However, the Americans could start a surge in the other direction; this would involve having sex, which I've been told is a lot of fun.  Have a look at the figures; parity is within reach.










Total fertility rate


Year
Mexico
U.S.

1955
6.87
3.45

1960
6.96
3.71

1970
6.82
2.55

1980
5.30
1.79

1990
3.61
1.92

2000
2.75
2.05

2005 (est.)
2.50
2.11

 
 
 

 
 
 

Population* > Age 15

Year
Mexico
U.S.

2001
33.30%
21.70%

2015 (est.)
26.40%
20.30%

 
 
 

*"Refers to the de facto population, which includes all people actually present in a given area at a given time."

 
 
 

Source:  Globalis, http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/ 


Posted by: Kralizec at June 03, 2007 12:13 PM (Qp2FB)

223 You shouldn't be surprised. All along, the deep Republican establishment (for which the WSJ is a prime mouthpiece) just wanted to enlarge power for corporate masters.  They never cared about populist concerns, Main Street, the Constitution, anything else. Either vote for Democrats, which are now the lesser of two evils, or try for a third party movement.  The Republican/Wall Street establishment must be brought down, for the good of our nation, our Constitution, our children.

BTW, the link - Arthur is one of the greatest commentators alive, and doesn't get any general credit... read it.

Posted by: Neil B. at June 03, 2007 12:46 PM (LYrb1)

224

Everyone is always talking about how illegals will work for $6.00/hour. Where can I find these guys? Here in Northern Arizona we've got no shortage of illegals and it's tough to find any who will work for less than $15.00/hour. I know because I regularly (every day) employ them myself.


I support border enforcement but it isn't the real answer. The real answer is very simple indeed. Enact and enforce harsh penalties on employers and not only will the stream of new arrivals dry up, many who are here already would return home if they had no work. I employ these guys for manual labor because under the current system there is no penalty for doing so and a real cost for not doing so. In fact, as it stands now, if I refused to allow illegals on my job-sites I would go out of business in short order. A typical framing crew of 15 guys might have 1 or 2 who are legal. The same goes for concrete, stucco, drywall, and landscaping. Plumbing, electrical, and roofing seem to use few illegals. With harsh employer sanctions the playing field would be more equal and it would be possible to employ legal workers. I think we would still need to keep a good proportion of the illegals who are here already. Wages would rise, but even still, the construction industry would pretty well grind to a halt for a while.


Skills based immigration is the way to go. If we only allowed in skilled workers with good English it would drive up wages at the bottom of the economy and American workers WOULD do those jobs.


Posted by: Bob Mologna at June 03, 2007 01:30 PM (a65wj)

225

Wow, is'nt this a hot button issue or what - surprising to see Bush getting pilloried here by conservatives.. but may be its not totally shocking either.


The biggest issue seems to be that GW is not taking as much interest in building the border fence as he is in granting amnesty to illegal immigrants - a fair one, but one devoid of reality.


Illegal immigrants are here because of a reason - few Americans want to do the jobs that they are willing to, at least not at the rate the illegals get paid. Plus there is no workers health insurance costs or other benefits - Employers like this situation. No wonder the WSJ is backing Bush on this.


Even if you didnt want to grant amnesty to the illegals, how are you going to deal with them ? Just deport them one fine day and hope that nothing will get interrupted in this country because there is no one to work the jobs that illegals did.


This is one tough problem to fix and the bill may be a very imperfect first step.


Posted by: NS at June 03, 2007 01:47 PM (APVe8)

226 Bush Derangement Syndrome
hahahahahahahahahaha...

Posted by: The Left at June 04, 2007 05:21 AM (vFnoO)

227 You know NS, that's a great idea.  Amnesty first, then when it's convenient, maybe secure the border.

Heck, I wish we'd done this in 1986 so we wouldn't have this problem now...  wait a minute, isn't this what we did in 1986?  And 1965?

Hmm, so your idea of a solution is to keep revisiting a non-solution over and over again.  If the boat leaks, get some cups to bail out the water?  See, I'm ok with bailing out the water, but I'd like to patch the hole first so we aren't bailing forever. (or, amnesty is fine, but can we secure the border first this time, so we know we're actually really going to?)

Some people might like a solution that wasn't deliberately temporary, while pretending to be permanent.  But those people, who don't like being played and lied to by politicians probably don't understand the big picture like you do.

I guess if I weren't devoid of reality, I'd believe Ted Kennedy in 1986 claiming that bill would be the last one ever needed, and Bush in 2007 claiming the same thing about this one.

Whereas, since I am devoid of reality, I know how this will turn out, and I know that the politicans are lying to me while implementing the same failed plan they've done twice before.  And they aren't implementing the plan in a manner to get different result this time.

Can you define "reality" in which believing a lie is "based in reality", and denying a lie is "devoid of reality"? ... This is gonna be a really cool definition I think...

Posted by: Gekkobear at June 04, 2007 05:31 AM (X0NX1)

228 Face it. 95% of politicians are for rich people first, last and in between. Anyone who hitches his star to a Democrat or Republican is in for disappointment.

Posted by: Gus at June 04, 2007 10:01 AM (Tqfhc)

229 If it took you so long to realize Bush is retarded, then maybe you're a retard as well.

Posted by: Sirkowski at June 04, 2007 09:12 PM (UzvnY)

230 Hey there, Ace, I think Dems have no problem with impeaching Bush, but the votes for conviction in the Senate just aren't there

The only way it's going to happen is if Repubs introduce the articles of impeachment and line up sufficient votes in the Senate.  Oh, and Cheney has to get impeached first and ousted or the Dems will want to retain Bush as the lesser of two weevils.

So get to work, y'hear? Line up those votes.





Posted by: attobuoy at June 04, 2007 09:13 PM (U7kWZ)

231 Shrub has been for this immigration plan since day one. Stop acting surprised, like you only just now discovered it.

Posted by: Jake at June 04, 2007 09:28 PM (HQ525)

232 The laws weren't enforced.  There needs to be penaltes.

Posted by: s at June 05, 2007 06:40 AM (LdD6+)

233 ywbhze tmfs etlps bzwqu afxqrtw qzylfkti tzhwsb

Posted by: wqhyju ryvsopg at June 16, 2007 04:03 AM (MIrwZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
286kb generated in CPU 2.69, elapsed 5.5656 seconds.
62 queries taking 4.4237 seconds, 469 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.