June 29, 2007
— Ace Who indeed.
When President Bush's "grand bargain" on immigration fell apart, Jeff Sessions, the Republican senator from Alabama who is named after a pair of famous Confederates, was very proud.
"Hopefully our Senate has learned some things," Sessions crowed on the Senate floor on Thursday after his colleagues killed a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration law, bouncing on his toes and struggling to contain a grin, like a boy who just popped his lynching-cherry.
Okay I added the "like a boy" part. And the boldface. Everything else is real.
Feel the nuance.
Via RedState, thanks to someone.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at June 29, 2007 03:07 PM (c3AXa)
Posted by: Pablo Honey at June 29, 2007 03:10 PM (OaE2n)
Posted by: Macswain at June 29, 2007 03:10 PM (7QM4N)
Posted by: Pablo Honey at June 29, 2007 03:12 PM (OaE2n)
Macswain, it's been a while since I called you a shithead.
Posted by: Bart at June 29, 2007 03:13 PM (PQNVt)
I live in alabama, having moved here from Ney York, and I am proud of both of our Senators, more so than I ever was any House member or Senator who was elected in NY. Shelby joined with Sessions to help defeat the immigration bill at the request of their constituents.As for whipping slaves a couple of years ago, are you truly serious?
Posted by: richard at June 29, 2007 03:15 PM (ScVon)
Posted by: richard at June 29, 2007 03:17 PM (ScVon)
Posted by: ace at June 29, 2007 03:18 PM (1UCRY)
The constant tsunami of 'news' articles and broadcasts which contain this type of bias, bigotry and dishonesty convinces me that the msm regards itself as being in a self-declared war against all non-elite, non-black, non-gay Americans.
Which explains why the msm minimizes the real war against terrorism - it's a distraction from its own self-declared war against 80% of the American people.
Posted by: max at June 29, 2007 03:24 PM (OYeDg)
"This is very bad news for Mexican migrants in the U.S.," said Jorge
Bustamante, special rapporteur to the U.N. human rights commission for
migrants. "It means the continuation and probably a worsening of the
migrants' vulnerable conditions."
The Rev. Luis Kendziersky, director of a shelter for migrants in the border city of , said it appeared senators "are focused more on the political game than on the real needs of the people."
Posted by: MikeX at June 29, 2007 03:25 PM (GLMrI)
Posted by: ricpic at June 29, 2007 03:37 PM (jrDE7)
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 29, 2007 03:45 PM (LViJs)
My brother, his kids and grandkids all live in Alabama. They all think Sessions is doing a great job.
I am SO sorry that the elite, old, tired, out-of-touch media think that Sessions is a Neanerthal.
Obviously, they don't get out much.
Posted by: Scott in CA at June 29, 2007 04:08 PM (KG/+D)
Yup, the sweet smell of victory! WOOHOO! No fence or wall! No hefty fine and touchback for illegal immigrants! No 12 million new taxpayers to help out our economy! Everything's staying the same! RIGHT ON!
I get to keep underpaying my gardner... effin' ROCK!
Posted by: Mr. M at June 29, 2007 04:10 PM (y67bA)
I get to keep underpaying my gardner... effin' ROCK!
I'm glad you see the foolishness of minimum wage laws.
Posted by: jhc at June 29, 2007 04:25 PM (nHRdf)
You just made my brain hurt.
Posted by: Mr. M at June 29, 2007 04:33 PM (Mv/2X)
Posted by: Mr. M at June 29, 2007 09:10 PM (y67bA)
Amusing, considering this bill was strongly supported by large agribusiness corporations who would have had a much larger pool of workers to exploit had this bill passed.
Seems they weren't alone in their desires.
Posted by: Slublog at June 29, 2007 04:41 PM (jXijA)
That's right, Butthead - more focused on the needs of the AMERICAN people. Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to come here i9n the first place. Last time I heard, nobody was holding a gun to their heads and ordering them to jump the border.
PS ... I originally referred to the good Rev in a more profane manner, but didn't want Ace to get that third X.
Posted by: Bruce at June 29, 2007 04:43 PM (nV126)
Sessions insists he's not against immigrants, just those who break the law.
“Insists” in the face of…what? The writer’s unspoken assumption of something more sinister.
Clearly, opposition to this bill was based on racism. And supporters of illegal immigrants who march under the banner of “Long Live the Race”? Patriots.
They’d be marching if the problem was millions of French-speaking, white-skinned immigrants pouring over the border with Canada right? Right?
Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2007 04:44 PM (9KqcB)
You just made my brain hurt.
Posted by: jhc at June 29, 2007 04:49 PM (nHRdf)
Posted by: Mr. M at June 29, 2007 04:52 PM (cqZXM)
Any relation to the hapless would-be Cali governor Cruz Bustamante?
Posted by: someone at June 29, 2007 04:53 PM (TXnhk)
Posted by: Nancy Drew at June 29, 2007 05:05 PM (Cs1cE)
Posted by: jhc at June 29, 2007 05:26 PM (nHRdf)
Any relation to macswain? You know, since you have the same URL, or would if you had entered it correctly. Oh yeah, fuck off. The American fucking people won something, not just conservatives. Things didn't get better, but they were about to get a lot worse. Now, not so much. So, to reitterate, fuck off.
Posted by: OU_Gryphon at June 29, 2007 05:31 PM (HUjun)
Ban me all you like RethuglifascistKKKlansmen i will come back wearing a fake moustache and whig and say more things that show U R stoopid!
Posted by: Macstupid at June 29, 2007 05:39 PM (dvQIA)
I sort of agree. Defeating this bill still leaves us with the crappy status quo. But it's a victory if you believe (as I and apparently most Americans do) that the bill would have made it even worse than the crappy status quo.
If we make actual progress on improving the status quo enforcement-wise, maybe the "comprehensivists" might have more luck with us knuckle-dragging conservative racists next time. And the roughly equivalent percentage of Dem voters who feel the same way.
Posted by: pbrown at June 29, 2007 05:55 PM (NP8hw)
Posted by: wahhaw at June 29, 2007 06:16 PM (KyHUV)
This attack on the character of Jeff Sessions is obviously designed to elicit an emotional response. These yingahas are trying to divide and conquer . I will tell you after yesterday I feel like Gen. Patton when after he waisted the Germans he wanted to march through those "Bolshevic bastards". in Russia. We must not loose our momentum. We must activly pursue change with all the emotion that was used to score this huge victory . The Senate phone system in DC crashed yesterday. This experience proves we can make a difference when we unite on the issues. Someone wrote a book titled 'Don't sweat the small stuff". It was said about yesterday that Union people were a big part of the rally too. and that some of the Senators were scared. They know they have been living on our dime for years while financing the whole world to boot. We are paying for our enemies who want to crush us. It is crunch time dudes. North South East West we need to UNITE against these theiving crybabies and shut them down, Hey to be honest I live in Central Florida and before the immigration debate (if you can call it that) I never heard of Sen. Sessions. In 1979 I never heard of Ronald Regan either. I reserched his record as Governor of California and registerd Republican and cast my first ever vote. Its right to compare Jeff Sessions to a General, because he let the charge in the battle (and it was a battle) to defeat that hidious POS bill.
Posted by: sonnyspats1 at June 29, 2007 06:22 PM (DV0/w)
Posted by: Glenn MacEllison at June 29, 2007 06:26 PM (HtEGF)
House on immigration. But he acknowledged a lengthy debate when he and
the president flew on Air Force One to a fundraiser in Mobile last week
that raised nearly $1 million for Sessions' re-election campaign.
Heh. I wonder how many times Sessions will be allowed anywhere near the Air Force One tarmac now? That subtle arm-twisting didn't quite work.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 29, 2007 06:31 PM (Y0gTb)
Sorry, J. I promise to hold all moments of humor between you and I sacred. It just would have disturbed me if people took me seriously; I know there's a faction of conservatives who believe all Liberals are rich, wine drinking, smelly cheese eating snobs who like illegal immigrants... for staffing their homes with.
Grypon. My, what a stunningly worded argument. The breadth of your argument is truly vast and contemplative, counterpointed by a deliberately intriguing style that draws the target in seductively. Your deduction that I co-write with Macswain the product of an exceptionally sharp and observant mind, the eloquence of your epithets, simply brilliant. The most remarkable thing about your statement is how you used so many words to say so very little, it is ironic in purpose, a beautiful illustration of absurdity in motion.
In other words; eat me.
pbrown, Now we're getting somewhere, argument wise. Much better than the labotomized Gryph (sorry G, you start dropping f-bombs, I'm gonna have to get nasty). I'm gonna mildly disagree with your analysis of the polls. For one, as it turns out Republicans aren't necessarily in favor of the more strict controls many in the conservative base seem to favor, particularly when it comes to this whole "shamesty" ordeal.
As it turns out, most Americans are okay with allowing illegal aliens to find a simplified path to legal citizenship. As long as they do their jobs, pay taxes, and don't cause trouble, seems most folks are willing to give it a go.
And Democrats tend, in at least some cases, to oppose the bill not because it wasn't strict enough, but because it was too strict.
Me, I would have liked to see it pass to be honest because the illegal immigration debate is so polarized, you will never get a bill pushed through. At least this bill would have done something. But I'm not overly fussed about it's not passing, but then I never saw immigration as the crisis many saw it as.
And I most definitely am not with the anti-immigration crowd on how to solve it. My solution, and I know you folks are going to love this, is to open the borders, and deal with the Mexico government directly.
-National Security; largely a false argument. Organized terrorists do not want to sneak across the border. They want to be here as legally and unobtrusively as possible so as to operate at a peak effectiveness as a "sleeper". It doesn't bode well for a sleeper if he gets pulled over for a traffic violation, and uh-oh, you're illegal, it's deportation time.
Also, if we have open borders and simplified paths to citizenship, than those bastards you see STILL making a run for the border, I'll go ahead and cede that maybe they're up to something, so I'll give you increased border patrols for that.
-Labor; We do have a labor force that needs to be filled by low education folks with an enhanced ability to put up with shit jobs. Look, I grew up in California, hell, I had my life saved by a migrant, pulled me out of an irrigation ditch after I drove into it. I know what a lot of these folks do. Picking tomatoes is not a job Americans want, not sun up to sun down picking veggies off a vine in 100 plus degree weather.
Now, as illegals progress to citizens, of course they are going to move up, get better jobs, creating a vacuum, but if you have a legalization process that keeps up with the demand, than you can not only keep the fields populated with that low laber force, but you can make sure they are getting a fair wage, and paying their taxes.
-taxes; 12 million illegals in America, estimated. Speaking to my stepfather, which I realize is not a valid source, but he's a conservative, so cut me some slack, you could estimate that there are about a couple mill in California alone. This is a drain on the system. Emergency rooms are shutting down because they can't handle the influx, especially from a demographic of people who are uninsured and don't pay taxes. But, we make them legal, voila, at the very least, you have an influx of millions of new tax payers that are pumping new money into a flailing system.
-making it easy to come here legally will remove the incentive to come here illegally. Look, the path to citizenship is ridiculous. We got it easy. I was born here. I didn't do anything special, I just had the good grace to pop outta my mom's kooch instead of some other woman's who wasn't an American citizen currently on American soil. Yet, we have some pretty heinous requirements. Despite English not being the official language, immigrants need to speak fluently, they need to take a test most Americans probably couldn't pass, and the time wait alone makes the border dash worth the risk.
I say, let's take the English requirements, and still keep them, but let's drop it down to a comprehensive test that makes sure immigrants can get around safely. My mother in law hasn't been fluent in English since she had a stroke, leaning almost totally on Chinese now (she's legal, back off). She still manages to be a perfectly good citizen, and even tries very hard to use English when she has to. It can be gotten around.
The test? Instead of a history exam that would stump a good chunk of Americans, how about a basic quiz on vital laws? Again make sure that they can exist in American society.
But the big one, the waiting period. Look, let's make them wait long enough to make sure that we aren't letting serial killers across our borders, and I'm FINE! Do a RIGOROUS background check. This is vital, probably the most vital part of the enforcement side of my stance. Waiting periods should only be long enough to ensure an extensive background check because, as mentioned above, we don't want terrorists, and i'd like to avoid the serial killers too.
-culture. Look, I know this is out there. Who was it? Tom Tancredo at the last Republican debates. Traditionalists. I know there is this fear that immigrants are gonna muck up the culture, and if you're there, we're never gonna agree, and I'm sorry about that. But this is because I'm a firm believer that this is a country OF immigrants. When i say I'm Irish and German, it's not an empty statement, my ancestors actually originated in Ireland and Germany. And my grandmother who is half Hawaiian, half Japanese, yeah, she served in the marines. there's a damn lot of promise in our borders, and it attracts a lot of people and it's what makes this country great. Not our flag waving or military. It's the people. It's the culture, and I wouldn't have it any other way. My father was a college student in China at a time when that was really a very impressive feat, and he gave it up to spend his life waiting tables in a Chinese restraunt, just to give his children a better life.
I'm glad he did, because I wouldn't have my wife in the other room yapping on the phone with her cousin right now (on second thought..). I know culture clash is an issue for some people, but I can't ever see eye to eye with them. So I'm sorry. I won't call you a bigot, I'll just beg to disagree.
And there are a multitude of other things I think would be made better by opening our borders (with prudent restrictions and laws attached, of course).
But this gets nowhere unless we also take tough stance with the Mexican government. The fact is, they are exporting their poor to us, and we need to get them to cut that shit out. I also admit, I don't have a clue on how to do that, I'm no diplomat, but I'm sure there are people much smarter than I am that could probably rub some brain cells together and figure it out.
Okay, this went way longer than i expected, so I'll click the little post button now.
Posted by: Mr. M at June 29, 2007 07:12 PM (urhSd)
You thought I was putting forth an argument? No, I was telling you to go fuck yourself. I'm sorry if you tried to read more into it.
As for dropping the f-bomb, I admit I'm a bit testy since my hash changed - I really liked HPU22 - but this is AoSHQ after all. If you were expecting a profanity free response to your posts, perhaps you should have checked the NC-17 rating before posting liberal, condescending comments.
Posted by: OU_Gryphon at June 29, 2007 07:47 PM (HUjun)
... For fuck's sake, you are sharp like a bowling ball and swift like a tree, ain't ya Gryph?
It's a simple game, dipshit. Express an intelligent idea, and we'll debate. Get your tampon in a wad, and I'll get "testy" right on back. Personally, I'm already starting to grow fond of a couple folks over here, so I ain't fussed with pausing every once in a while to call you a dumbass.
Posted by: Mr. M at June 29, 2007 07:51 PM (urhSd)
Welcome to the Ace of Spades HQ! You'll fit in fine, for a lefty.
Posted by: Xoxotl at June 29, 2007 09:32 PM (F/ysA)
Posted by: Mr. M at June 30, 2007 03:02 AM (urhSd)
As it turns out, most Americans are okay with allowing illegal aliens to find a simplified path to legal citizenship.
Neither, necessarily, are many of the posters here. But, like the vast majority of Americans in the polls of which you'r being somewhat dismissive, not until the flow of fresh illegals has been reduced as much as humanly possible. There was absolutely nothing in the worthless bill that we just helped throttle that should have given any sentient being confidence that it would have dramatically reduced the rate of illegal immigration. The only big winners if it passed would have been the kleptocratic Mexican government, soft-slaver industries already willing to break federal law to squeeze out a few extra pennies for some new ivory back scratchers, Democrats looking for a whole new vote-by-rote collective of easily manipulated, group-identity-oriented robots to pander to, and the illegals themselves. No thanks.
And Democrats tend, in at least some cases, to oppose the bill not because it wasn't strict enough, but because it was too strict.
Agreed, and they look like silly little girls for making that case. Given the severity of the crime committed, having to pay a symbolic fee that (a) would have been subsidized by Joe Taxpayer for those who couldn't afford it and (b) would have been made up in spades in Orwellian Earned Income Tax Credits (OEITC) for most of the then-legal illegals, the bill was almost utterly devoid of "strictness" of any kind.
Oh, but there was that draconian "you first have to spend three hours in Tijuana" touchback provision. Have the Republicans no hearts?
Me, I would have liked to see it pass to be honest because the illegal immigration debate is so polarized, you will never get a bill pushed through. At least this bill would have done something.
Yes. It would have made the problem much, much worse. This has been convincingly demonstrated by weeks of analysis of this bill on talk radio and the intertubes (shockingly, no one else seemed all that interested) and shedding light on its odious provisions, which were, for some magical reason I can't finger, cobbled together in back-door, members-only, mutual backrubbing sessions before the whole abomination was crammed down the throats of the rest of the Senate (after first, of course, getting the thumbs-up from the Mexican version of the KKK).
And, though you seem a reasonable and intelligent guy (if Macswain is in your band, though, it might be time to consider a solo career), this impulse to "dooooooo something!!!!" is, along with the elevation of emotion over cold, hard, rationality and the autocratic willingness to forcibly impose one's personal policies onto others that don't share them, one of the most destructive in the liberal mindset. "Doing something" is not an accomplishment in itself. Here, the choices were "do nothing" or "do something terrible". That's it. There was nothing else on the table. There was no third rail that would make this problem go away.
And, frankly, the desire to make the country less "polarized" is about the lamest justification I can think of to acquiesce to transformative legislation that makes a bad problem worse, sticks the American people with the consequences, and unapologetically circumvents the legislative process. If anything, this episode has been healthy for the republic, because people haven't been polarized against the bullshit machinations of their "representatives" nearly enough.But I'm not overly fussed about it's not passing, but then I never saw immigration as the crisis many saw it as.
Well, I don't want to attribute arguments to you personally that you haven't made here, but liberals also keep telling me that Social Security isn't in crisis (despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary), and that the threat of Muslim butchers is illusory or at least grossly overblown (despite the mountain of bodies to the contrary). And I'm constantly told that miniscule changes in global climate caused by the gas without which every living thing on this planet would die and projected by crude models to maybe sorta possibly cause some kind of calamity in hundreds of years when technology will have undoubtedly evolved to the point of making the whole hysteria moot is a "crisis" (despite no evidence).
So I'm afraid I'll have to be skeptical about your crisis evauation metrics. I think the shuttering of over 80 hospitals in one state and the influx of tens of millions of people with very little education, sky-high rates of illegitimacy and teen pregnancy, and a less-than-ingrained respect for the rule of law (coming from a feudal kleptocracy as they do and willing to break laws, including those involving forgery, to stay here) is, if not a "crisis" in the according-to-Hoyle sense, a serious problem that we need to put a stop to. And one that over time would certainly evolve into an unambiguous crisis if the status quo is maintained. Recognizing the major problems with the status quo, however, is not an endorsement to cheerlead for a bill that exacerbates the problem and provides nothing of value to Americans in return.
And I most definitely am not with the anti-immigration crowd on how to solve it.
I'd like to know what you think the "anti-immigration crowd" (George Lakoff would be proud) -- all 100 million or more of us, it seems -- wants to do to solve the problem. I have a feeling that visions of cattlecars stuffed with pitiful wretched refuse forcibly separated from their doe-eyed chlidren is going to be making an appearance in my future. Please tell me I"m wrong -- I'm starting to warm up to you.
For my part, I've got this nutty and quaint notion enforcing federal immigration laws -- you know, the ones passed by our elected representatives who are bound by oath to uphold them -- will get many if not most of the illegals currently here to self-deport. Then they can -- get this -- get in line just like everybody else. I know I'm really thinking outside the box here because I keep being told that immigration laws are the one set of super-special laws that simply cannot be enforced by the same nation that put a man on the moon and defeated the Soviet Union. Oh, and I'm a bigot. Can't forget that part.
If you want to talk about streamlining our clusterfuck of a legal immigration system so it seems less like it's operated by retarded monkees trying to hump a fire hydrant, then you and I will likely fund a whole lot to agree upon.
And then you can try to explain to me why so many liberals, in the face of the daily evidence that government bureaucracies are almost immeasurably incompetent and inefficient, should be given control of the entire health care industry.
My solution, and I know you folks are going to love this, is to open the borders, and deal with the Mexico government directly.
I might buy into your crazy idea if by "dealing with the Mexican government directly", you mean invading Mexico, deposing the corrupt cretins that have run it for centuries, and annexing it into the United States. Mexico is a useless basketcase that has utterly squandered its almost incomparable geographic and other natural blessings. Drastic changes in management would be healthy for the entire region.
But, if you just mean let every Mexican that wants to live here just stroll on in, parasitically consume American-funded social services that far outweigh their tax contributions, and repatriate the vast majority of their cash back to Mexico to help enable that country's sleazy imbecile leaders to maintain their grip on power, all in the name of the same brand of nebulous, has-never-solved-a-single-damned-problem "diplomacy" that liberals are always trying to treat as the great panacea of all the world's ills, then I'll pass.
Mexico needs a revolution. As long as the Mexican government is able to tacitly displace a huge percentage of its potential revolutionaries and thus quell what should be a seething level of public rage by bringing in those sweet, sweet greenbacks, that's never going to happen. We need to do our part to lock the cage and let the probably bloody political process take its course. Consider it an intervention.
Can't get to the rest of your points right now, but welcome aboard.
Posted by: VJay at June 30, 2007 05:08 AM (PcWG2)
Let me see if I can summarize "M's" long post above:
"We need people who will do lousy jobs for low wages, so we can't permit border security, which could stop or greatly reduce illegal immigration."
"Conservatives who opposed this bill are just racist bigots."
"We need open borders, and to deal directly with the Mexican government." ["deal directly" to try to get them to do what, exactly?]
"I admit, I don't have a clue on how to do that."
"But we need open borders."
"National Security is largely a false argument [because] Organized terrorists do not want to sneak across the border." [And you know this...how? Did you use your superpower of Liberal Empathy to get inside bin Laden's head and read that, or did you just use that brilliant reasoning of "if they got pulled over for a traffic stop and were found to be illegal, they'd be deported, so they'd never sneak across the border."?]
"Most Americans are okay with allowing illegal aliens to find a simplified path to legal citizenship." [Ah, that would explain why a majority of calls and faxes to congress in the days before this POS was defeated were FOR the bill. Oh, wait...]
Finally, M, you repeatedly charge that we're "anti-immigrant" and "anti-immigration." That makes you feel good but you're wrong. Virtually all of us here are opposed to illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. There's a big difference, and I'll bet even you can figure it out. But then, I think you knew the truth, and were simply using a tired but popular liberal trick to make the casual reader believe that conservatives are anti-immigrant.
In other words, you were dishonest in your argument. That's accepted in leftist groups, but you'll rarely get away with that here.
Posted by: sf at June 30, 2007 05:28 AM (9ilOO)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2007 05:29 AM (FWrFx)
sf... Actually, I tend to like my arguments worded the way I word them... that's why I speak them instead of farm the job out to someone else. Takin' stuff out of context and summing up can twist the over all message.
Look, I ain't callin yall bigots. My stepdad is a "traditionalist" conservative who worries about the affect of mass illegal immigration on the cutlure, and I'm pretty sure he ain't a bigot. And I'm not trying to perform jedi mind tricks on you.
And i didn't use a jedi mind trick on OBL either, I read the al Qaida manual when it came out, along with the 911 report, Richard Clarke's against all enemies, and it just makes sense. Why on earth would you want to come here as a terrorist illegally when you can do it legally? The number one goal of an OBL certified terrorist is to assimilate; do not wear traditional clothing, keep your faced shaved or close cropped, do not pray outwardly, be polite and courteous to neighbors, in other words don't raise suspician or risk getting caught. You look at those folks who had taken a few airplanes and smacked eh into building on September 11th... legal. Jose Padilla? John Lindt? legal legal legal.
I'm not saying bad people can't sneak across the border, but it's not the grand national security threat that so many people make it out to be. al Qaida ain't using Mexico as a backdoor. As for anti-immigration (a) look how long my replies are, i get tired of writing anti-illegal-immigration it tends to get old, I use a short hand. And really, compared to my stance, yall are anti-immigration. no shame in it. I'm not trying to call you racists. We just see the issue differently.
To me, the words inscribed at the Statue of Liberty make be go a big wet one, and I guess it's a basic moral value for me. I don't get the long lines and the silly tests. But you know it's a spectrum kinda thing. It's not just for immigration or not, for illegal immigration or not. There's a sliding scale, and i realize I'm pretty far on the left. I'm not completely left. I don't think illegals are great for the country. I'm a liberal, so I like taxes, and there are about twelve million people in this country whose paycheck I don't get to bilk. So there are people who would say even I'm too tough.
Now when I say deal with the mexican government, they aren't doing for their people. Mexico has resources, it has people, it has what it needs to progress to a full and bountiful economy except it has crap for a government, and we make it easy, both by being soft on illegal immigration, and through free trade (alert: talking out my ass on free trade, not well versed in this stuff, but I'm on a roll and can't stop), Mexico is able to instead of work on fixing their economic problems, and poverty problems and infrastructure problems, just export the people over here.
vjay... good comment, but it may take a while to reply, and I'm watching the daughters to day. If I just don't get there, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to ignore or dodge ya.
Posted by: Mr. M at June 30, 2007 05:53 AM (urhSd)
Okay, vjay here goes.
Alright, let's do it this way, we can refer to righties and lefties in general, fair game, but deal with the person, to a person, no generalizations, fair? I admire the conservative movement for one thing and that be the unity. We liberals tend to rip ourselves apart as often as we sometimes belly up to let yall take over for us when we're done.
We'll start with polls. I'm somewhat of a poll fanatic (I swear, someone cracks a gay joke...). There are two important polls here. I'm gonna try and cite them, but I haven't written about them for a while so if I don't cite, I apologize, and I'll dig them up later.
The first poll actually showed a majority of Americans wanting the bill, i think this was back around the first time it got blocked. Now analysis is almost as much important as are the numbers. So it's very possible the majority wanting the bill was noise, but it is also possible that the bush from conservative radio, columnists, and blogs helped shape that opinion. My guess is probably that support wasn't quite as high, but then, the political melee that ensued over the bill soured public opinion.
Second poll that I think is important shows much lower support for the bill, but is in favor of allowing for a simplified path to legalization, even among Republicans. And then there is reason number three million why the bill bottomed out, and that's because Bush has turned into an anti midas where everything he touches turns to shit.
And I know you are big on the law, a lot of people are. And I'm a big one for making law is properly enforced, but what is proper enforcement for this law? I think with a simple path to citizenship, the law doesn't have to be enforced through deportation. Drunk drivers kill tons of people a year, but the first offense, at least here in Virginia, is a suspended license and a fine of I wanna say 2300 dollars. And that's for doing something stupid that puts a lot of people's lives in danger.
Me, I think a five thousand dollar fine is pretty fair, probably be more fair to put them on a payment plan to pay back taxes along with the taxes they are gonna pay as a new citizen, they owe my tax lovin' ass, don't ya know. I gotta welfare state I'm trying to run, and I'm none too appreciative of freeloaders.
But you call the five g's symbolic. I see it differently. Look, five g's would hurt me, and I don't make a small sum of money. Government service has been good to me, allowed me to put my wife through college, and now we're doing decent. And still, five grand would hurt. There would definitely be a forced tightening of belts around the household for a little bit.
Now you look at a bulk of these illegal immigrants who are dirt poor and doing jobs at sub minimum wage (which of course they're making, else there wouldn't be a job market for them), five thousand is HEFTY.
As for a do something, that was for conservatives. I'm cool with it. I'm reasonably confident conservatives will not make many gains in voting next year in November, and Reid's not putting this bill or any immigration bill back on the table until then, so any immigration overhaul that we see within the next, I'd say six years is going to be more liberal in nature, i would wager. There is a low probability that we might have a Republican president come Jan 2009, but that just means veto.
(rests.... note to self, keep arguments shorter in the future)
Actually, i'm gonna cut it here, and simply ask a question. Aside from being unable to avoid catching Michelle Malkin screeching shamnesty, I've been largely avoiding the conservative fervor to kill the bill, so , tell me, how does this make things so much worse than they are now?
Posted by: Mr. M at June 30, 2007 06:23 AM (urhSd)
"millions of French-speaking, white-skinned immigrants pouring over the border with Canada"
Jaysus, CJ, don't scare me like that! Having a million would -be Frogs sneak over here would be my second-worst nightmare. (My worst being millions of brain-eating zombies sneaking over the border.)
Posted by: ushie at June 30, 2007 08:19 AM (ljcNo)
Posted by: mrobvious at June 30, 2007 08:20 AM (8Y/fG)
So under amnesty Mexicans will still be working for 9 bucks an hour and non-union freelance journeymen will be working where?
Blue collar workers and the lower middle class will be crushed by the flood of new cheap labor. But who cares - country club republicans and the left sure don't.
When your cushy office job is outsourced to cheap labor in India, don't come here and cry about it.
Posted by: 13times at June 30, 2007 08:41 AM (FSHC0)
I am always reading and never comment. Ya'll are some hilarious motherf'ers. I know my comment will never be as cool.
But I have to give you props, man. That was some good stuff.
Posted by: susanita at June 30, 2007 10:40 AM (Dw3vY)
Posted by: Mr. M at June 30, 2007 11:35 AM (urhSd)
"The first poll
actually showed a majority of Americans wanting the bill, i think this was back
around the first time it got blocked"
Wrong, care to provide a link because I have not seen any
poll in the last 6 months that came to that conclusion.
“In the face of public
opposition, some supporters of the legislation have argued that the compromise
may not be perfect but doing something is better than doing nothing. Voters
have a different view--a solid plurality believes it would be better for the
country to pass no bill at this time rather than letting the Senate compromise
become law. Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters prefer no bill over the Senate bill.
Just 32% prefer the legislative compromise over inaction. “
I'm not saying bad people can't sneak across the
border, but it's not the grand national security threat that so many people
make it out to be. al Qaida ain't using Mexico as a backdoor.
Boy are you naïve. Have you
heard of OTM. Al Qaida has been using the Mexican border to illegally enter the
The coyotes get upwards of 50k to smuggle Arab looking people across our
borders. The BP has found clothing and bomb making materials from Al Qaida in
the town of Laredo.
Do a google.
Picking tomatoes is not a job Americans want, not sun
up to sun down picking veggies off a vine in 100 plus degree weather.
Then why are 75% of the agricultural
workers held by American citizens?
But, we make them legal, voila, at the very least, you
have an influx of millions of new tax payers that are pumping new money into a
By you own admission; the
majority have no education and will hold low paying jobs. They in fact will not
pay any appreciable taxes and will be a net drain on the economy. Numerous
studies have shown they will be a net drain to the tune of $22,449 a year.
new study by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector found a household headed
by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of
illegal aliens, costs U.S.
taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same
family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax
burden of $22,449 each year."
half of the 17.7 million households studied are illegal aliens. About
two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high
school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category."
the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer
(immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9
trillion," Rector writes. "This number would go up significantly if
changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of
low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services."
Me, I would have liked to see it pass to be honest
because the illegal immigration debate is so polarized, you will never get a
bill pushed through.
Actually, the American people
are united on enforcing our borders and is not polarized at all. This is just
pure BS promoted by some liberals and the open borders lobby.
"Rasmussen Reports was the
first polling firm to document the broad public opposition to the Senate bill.
Since then, the findings have been confirmed by and NBC/Wall
Street Journal survey and by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan. Even polls touted by supporters of
the legislation showed a strong desire for more serious enforcement measures. A
CBS News/New York Times survey, found that 69% of Americans
want illegal aliens prosecuted and deported."
"Earlier surveys have shown
that 72% of voters consider increasing border security and reducing
illegal immigration to be Very Important. Just 29% say the same about
legalizing the status of illegal aliens."
Posted by: ScottyDog at June 30, 2007 02:32 PM (TBvUe)
Mr. M wrote: And there are a multitude of other things I think would be made better by opening our borders (with prudent restrictions and laws attached, of course).
My questions to you are:
1. Why should the illegal immigrants in our country have received head of the line privileges under the just defeated proposal?
2. Do you prefer visitors to your home to use the front door and knock or just crawl through any open window?
Posted by: cranky at June 30, 2007 02:48 PM (Xj2Ev)
I'd like to apologize for my rude remarks last night. Although we disagree on politics, you didn't say anything that warranted my swooping in and dropping f-bombs willy-nilly. At least for me, it's sometimes easy to forget that just because I'm posting on the internet to someone I will never meet doesn't mean I can treat them differently than the people I see every day. So if possible, I'd like to clear the air, as it were, especially since you are planning on sticking around.
Posted by: OU_Gryphon at June 30, 2007 03:44 PM (HUjun)
Gryph, air cleared, And I'll try not to be too much of a bugger.
Cranky, they shouldn't, You're missing my overall point, there shouldn't be the bigass line anyone. And the house analogy, not exactly the same. I'm not a fan of analogy arguments, to be honest, because an analogy is easily used to mischaracterize a debate, often for the user's benefit. They can be helpful, like explaining a trick concept, but as a debate ploy, they work TOO well. A good example of a useful analogy, I work in nuclear physics. I'm not going to try and explain to a layman, for instance, neutron scattering in straight up technical terms, I'm gonna use a bowling ball and ping pong ball analogy, then we'll work on the technical terms later.
Scotty, I'm gonna try and get to all of your comment, but, I can't promise anything. I'm waiting for Mrs. M to get home so I can shuffle off some of this cabin fever I've been accruing all day watching the daughters.
First, the poll. I don't have it, so I'll cede that to you, and take it off the table. Thought I could dig it up, but I would have to ruffle through my archives, and I'm lazy, so, there you go.
But I'll ask you to cite a reputable source that shows a significant level of al Qaida folks coming through with the rest of the OTM's (yeah, Cali boy over here, so I know the term). And if they are coming, that's unnerving, and I'll cede some ground, but not all.
I still say... crap
Posted by: Mr. M at June 30, 2007 04:24 PM (urhSd)
Posted by: Mr. M at June 30, 2007 04:28 PM (urhSd)
Mr. M., fair enough that there should not be a long line but one exists and this bill would have put the illegals at the head of the line. If you read through some of the comments on other immigration related posts here, you'll see that more than a few commenters here have been through the immigration system and are still waiting.
To the house analogy I would argue that if your quests are expected to come through the front door after having knocked and had the door answered, why then should you allow another group to enter your home by any means they deemed appropriate for their wants. The analogy holds. Yes, it is a convenient means of argument and in this case it is also an honest method.
Posted by: cranky at June 30, 2007 05:07 PM (Xj2Ev)
Posted by: Diane C. Russell at June 30, 2007 05:52 PM (MOTNp)
Posted by: sonnyspats1 at June 30, 2007 07:05 PM (DV0/w)
Once more into the breach, part I...
-National Security; largely a false argument. Organized terrorists do not want to sneak across the border. They want to be here as legally and unobtrusively as possible so as to operate at a peak effectiveness as a "sleeper".
I think you'd have to agree that this is pretty speculative on your part, even though, logically, you're quite possibly more right than wrong. Setting aside a debate about what percentage of its terrorist sleepers Al Qaeda et al. implant here via illegal entry, there's no doubt that an open, unregulated border makes us less safe by some non-zero quantity. A San Antonio paper just ran a disturbing four-part series documenting the human trafficking pipeline from Islamist nations through Mexico and into the U.S. I think you should check it out; it might give you pause as to the degree to which national security concerns legitimately figure into this equation.
It doesn't bode well for a sleeper if he gets pulled over for a traffic violation, and uh-oh, you're illegal, it's deportation time.
I hope you were being facetious here, because you're completely out of touch if you think that anyone gets deported over a traffic violation. Our prisons are overflowing with hard-core criminals who have no legal right to be in this nation, our state and local authorities are in many cases prohibited from even inquiring into someone's immigration status, and the DHS is entirely, purposefully disinterested in deporting anyone. It's damn difficult to be deported in this country no matter how heinous your behavior. Shockingly, for instnace, illegals tend not to show up for their court appearances when released on their own recognizance. The system is a bad joke. Anyone claiming that illegals are "living in the shadows" is either selling the American people a hideous bill or lives in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane. The only "shadows" I see are the ones cast by the big letters in the Home Depot sign.-Labor; We do have a labor force that needs to be filled by low education folks with an enhanced ability to put up with shit jobs.
(a) We have a slew of those legally living in America right now. There's no such thing as a job an American won't do. There's just jobs that Americans won't do for artificially low subsistence wages. Basic economics dictates that if the demand for menial laborers exceeds the supply at wage x, then x should be increased until the supply and demand meet. Greedy corporate paymasters don't want to make that necessary sacrifice -- the same one required of every business not "blessed" with an illegal pool of slave labor -- and you're high-fiving them.
Of all the arguments liberals make defending mass illegal immigration, this aspect baffles me the most. The whole "protect the American worker from being shafted by corporate fat-cats" crusade, here made larger than life, and you all are helping the guys smoking cohibas pick out $5,000 shower curtains. It makes one question the sincerity of your bread-and-butter liberal convictions when you're championing a cause that clearly depresses the wages of and deprives opportunities to those Americans on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. What gives?
(b) Many of those "jobs that Ameircans won't do" are jobs that "machines will do without passion or prejudice". The whole crack addiction menial labor-intensive industries have for slave wage earners keeps them from having to make capital investment into technological and infrastructure advances that would make these jobs obsolete from a human perspective. But why suffer the temporary drop in margins associated with long-term investment when you've got an easy out -- the one, again, you're cheerleading for?
(c) The illegal alien population has glutted other industries besides those that Americans supposedly won't do. Talk to anyone in the construction, industry, for example, even in areas supposedly unaffected by mass influxes of illegal labor like the Midwest and Northeast. Last I checked, construction -- still a respectable trade and a quality source of income for many millions of Americans that didn't become doctors, lawyers, or engineers --was not one of those jobs that would simply go undone without tens of millions of people willing to do it for a lot less than their American counterparts.
The addiction is spreading. Now, as a nuclear physicist, you (and I, for that matter) are likely insulated from its reach. But what about all of those tens of millions of Americans who aren't college graduates? What about those that excel at working with their hands, even in capacities that we often deem "unskilled" labor? What about their opportunities to develop a work ethic, learn the monetary and character value of honest work, and climb the ladder? The whole "American Dream" phenomenon almost unparalled in human history, anywhere but here? And we're going to cut a huge swath of our own people out of it so we can save five cents on a head of lettuce and/or feeeel good about ourselves because we're undermining the welfare of our own citizens out of compassion for foreigners?
What the hell has happened to liberals? Do you even remember who you used to ostensibly fight for?
Now, as illegals progress to citizens, of course they are going to move up, get better jobs, creating a vacuum, but if you have a legalization process that keeps up with the demand, than you can not only keep the fields populated with that low laber force, but you can make sure they are getting a fair wage, and paying their taxes.
So you don't see any problem with a perpetually and rapidly growing American population, one whose rate of growth is dictated not by the people living here but by the desires and whims of those who don't? I'm really not trying to be a dick, but have you given this much thought? Do you think that America would be better off with a billion people, even if we could assimilate and economically integrate an entirely new massive underclass every few decades (a rather absurd proposition, given that it would be chaotic external pressures and not internal regulation that would dictate the rate of such immigration, much less its composition)? Have you been to a congested urban area lately or ever?
It is true that a declining population is generally a bad thing for a nation. It is equally true that a rapid increase in a nation's population is a bad thing. The United States, without a single person added to its 300 million member roster, would still have serious infrastructure and demographic problems that aren't going to be alleviated by straining them even further.
But, we make them legal, voila, at the very least, you have an influx of millions of new tax payers that are pumping new money into a flailing system.
I think others here have pointed this out, but your analysis doesn't hold water because illegals as a group consume far more in taxpayer-funded services than they contribute in paid taxes. Legalizing them isn't going to change that, and I'm not sure how this bizarre line of thought continues to survive. I don't hear anyone arguing that we need more households headed by minimum wage earners because of all that sweet, sweet tax revenue. Encouraging an expansion of the lower class -- which, legal or illegal, is a net drain on the treasury -- in the name of expanded tax revenues is simply foolish. The welfare state already has this nation on a crash course with bankruptcy, and you want to add tens of millions of wards to it? Why?-making it easy to come here legally will remove the incentive to come here illegally. Look, the path to citizenship is ridiculous. We got it easy. I was born here. I didn't do anything special, I just had the good grace to pop outta my mom's kooch instead of some other woman's who wasn't an American citizen currently on American soil.
This sounds like a variation of "liberal guilt". Yes, you and I won life's lottery and were born here, making us automatic citizens of the greatest nation on Earth. That's lucky for us, but that luck does not convey an obligation to grant the same privilege to everyone else who wants it. If I win the lottery tomorrow, I'm damn sure not going to send the entire proceeds to Robert Mugabe because it's just so damn unfair that a middle class American guy like me gets to horde a fortune while, somewhere in Zimbabwe, a child goes hungry. Cold? A little. True of pretty much every human being past, present, and future? Absolutely. A gift is a gift; not an obligation.
You and I both want to see a much streamlined legal immigration process (which is, as an aside, fucked up almost entirely because of the inherent, immutable boobery of government bureaucracies which liberals tend to think are the Roxxor, but never mind). Where we part, I think, is in motive. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you want an easier path for immigration so, first and foremost, foreigners who want to come here have an easier go of it. That's great and all, and, knowing a few awesome Brits myself that this country is insane for rejecting for up to a decade, I'm on board with it to an extent. It is, however, only a tertiary motive of mine.
The primary reason I want our immigration system overhauled is so that we can better and more efficiently bring people here that we've identified that we want and which benefit us the most. America is strengthened by importing the fine foreign doctors and scientists, for example; these are the people we should be trying to get in the door as quickly as possible. I'm only concerned with the needs and desires of America and Americans when it comes to determining who gets to share in the great gift that was so easily given to us. America first. America only.
If I understand your position correctly and if I may use a casual metaphor, you're looking to run a little league team where anyone who wants to join is added to the roster, and every player has to bat in every game. I'm looking to put together a little league team that beats the crap out of yours.
Posted by: VJay at June 30, 2007 07:51 PM (PcWG2)
Once more into the breach, part II...
Despite English not being the official language, immigrants need to speak fluently, they need to take a test most Americans probably couldn't pass, and the time wait alone makes the border dash worth the risk.
Yes, we have hefty requirements for citizenship, but:
(a) This is an elite club which righly should have requirements commensurate with that status.
(b) We shouldn't dumb down our citizenship history tests just because most public school-educated Americans were never taught American history. Understanding our history is absolutely esstential to making the transition from being a non-American to adopting a uniquely American belief system and culture (more on this one in a minute).
(c) The bill under consideration didn't provide most illegals an incentive to become citizens anyway (and, if you listen to the rhetoric from the shrill voices in the Latino "civil rights" community, they don't talk about citizenship; they talk about handouts and deference to which they feel self-evidently entitled). It legitimized them and made them permanently immune to deportation after 24 hours. Since none of them were exposed to the test you're trying to dilute, and, in the case of Mexicans, they came from pseudo-lawless third world toilets without the principles we so casually take for granted, they wouldn't have the background necessary to be true Americans. They'd just be Mexicans, with all of the antithetical-to-the-American-way baggage that that entails, living legally in America. I want nothing but Americans living in America, and if you buy into the supremacist, ethno-centric, quasi-Marxist propaganda of the PRI, you don't qualify, no matter how many tomatoes you can pick in an hour. Sorry; next contestant.
I say, let's take the English requirements, and still keep them, but let's drop it down to a comprehensive test that makes sure immigrants can get around safely.
Again, for you it seems like it's all about us trying to accommodate them. You've got it entirely backwards. Who is doing who a favor here? Why shouldn't a foreigner have to at least learn about the foundations on which this grand experiment was built? Why shouldn't they have to learn about our trials and tribulations, our great moments and desperate times? Why shouldn't the learn how much our Founders risked and sacrificed just to be Americans? Why shouldn't they learn how our government operates and how that rather unique and delicate system came into being? Do you think they acquired that vital background in their countries of origin? And shouldn't they have to do some serious proving that they really, really want this tremendous gift we're making available to them?
But the big one, the waiting period. Look, let's make them wait long enough to make sure that we aren't letting serial killers across our borders, and I'm FINE! Do a RIGOROUS background check. This is vital, probably the most vital part of the enforcement side of my stance.
If this is a crucial requirement for you, then you can't possibly support the just-defeated bill, which guaranteed legal status to applicants if nothing incriminating in a background check could be found by those crack sleuths at DHS/INS -- the same ones that issued a visa to a dead Mohammed Atta six months after 9/11, remember -- within 24 hours of application. 24 hours. Now, I don't care how many sunrises and rainbows you attribute to those wonderful cogs and wheels of the benevolent government machine, you know damn well that they won't be able to effectively screen a significnt percentage of the bad guys who actually bother to apply for the temporary visa, especially given how many applications they're going to have to simultaneously process, and especially given that many of these people have been living under (sometimes multiple) assumed names and using forged documents for years.
-culture. Look, I know this is out there. Who was it? Tom Tancredo at the last Republican debates. Traditionalists. I know there is this fear that immigrants are gonna muck up the culture
I don't think you understand where a lot of us are coming from when we talk about “culture” as it pertains to the immigration debate. We, or at least I, don’t mean that we’re worried that whitey is going to be living in the shadows of those scary, swarthy brown people and their corn-based recipes. We mean that the whole notion of being an American is going to be cheapened and watered down to the point that it will eventually dissolve altogether. America is exceptional because of how America came to be, what America has gone through, what America stands for, and what Americans believe in. It’s not about having an American ZIP code or being paid in American currency. It’s about believing in the rule of the law, the sanctity of the Constitution, the value of the individual over the collective, the self-evident existence of inalienable liberties immune to government suppression, and the idea that government should be responsive to and even fear the governed.
That’s what I mean when I say that open borders are a serious threat to American culture. All those things I mentioned – I value them. Dearly. And I don’t want them sacrificed in the name of compassion, or cheap produce, or any other wholly inferior cause. And when you talk about dumbing down American history tests so immigrants can get on with the business of calling themselves American citizens, and when you talk about opening our borders because those tomatoes just won’t pick themselves for two dollars an hour, and when liberals in general go about the business of creating hyphenated identity groups based on irrelevant superficial characteristics that do nothing but carve out dividing lines between what are otherwise just plain Americans, it makes me a little angry. Because, for all your much appreciated rationality and cordiality in a hostile ideological environment, I just get the sense that you and I have dramatically and irreconcilably different ideas of what it means to be an American. And I know that your view, or at least what I construe to be your view, has, unfortunately from my perspective, a lot of support.
I'm a liberal, so I like taxes, and there are about twelve million people in this country whose paycheck I don't get to bilk. So there are people who would say even I'm too tough.
Not to pick on this one to much, but I question how much you know about the tax system in this country. Roughly 40% of our working-age population didn’t pay a single dime in federal income taxes last year, and many of those people actually made money in April because of dependent and EITC credits. Know what kind of people got a free ride on the backs of the rest of us? The same kind of people primarily fitting the profile of those you want to make instant citizens at least in part for the illusory tax gains. You really need to drop this line of reasoning, because it makes as much sense as Karl Rove’s infamous “we need to double the size of the Hispanic population because 35% of Hispanics vote for Republicans” math-challenged mantra. You’re playing a dead hand with your cards up, and you keep raising. I know I said it before but it bears repeating: under-educated, low-skilled workers are a net drain on the treasury whose coffers you’re trying to fill by increasing their numbers.
Drunk drivers kill tons of people a year, but the first offense, at least here in Virginia, is a suspended license and a fine of I wanna say 2300 dollars. And that's for doing something stupid that puts a lot of people's lives in danger.
This isn’t a compelling argument. The degree by which one crime is punished or unpunished does not justify the degree of punishment or non-punishment afforded another crime. Immigration regulations are federal laws with prescribed consequences for violation, and I, just as any decent American who recognizes that laws are superior to the whims of men, expect them to be enforced to the letter. If the law is supposedly too onerous, work on changing the law. Until then, we don’t have a functioning society if the agents of our government can just pick and choose which laws they want to enforce and which ones they don’t.
Me, I think a five thousand dollar fine is pretty fair,
I understand that, but you’ve missed my point. Most of them would have never paid it; that’s what makes it a purely symbolic fine. Most would have been provided taxpayer-funded “vouchers” (i.e. forcibly appropriated wealth transfers from productive, law-abiding Americans to law-breaking non-Americans) to cover the burdensome costs, or they would have been put on an essentially meaningless payment plan that stretched into infinity, or the whole fine itself -- probably no more than a sop to us crazy, snaggle-toothed rednecks in flyover country that demand a little law and order from our government -- would have been quietly removed during the committee process once the bill was already passed and the people went back about their business (“too cruel” doncha know, and La Raza would never tolerate it).
I gotta welfare state I'm trying to run, and I'm none too appreciative of freeloaders.
Dude, you’re slitting your own ideological throat. I’m really trying to help you here. The welfare state is not made healthier by adding a massive and rapidly growing underclass, it is crippled by doing just that. “Poor” people – a classification that would be assigned to the vast majority of the illegals you’re rallying to shovel in the door – whether legal or illegal, don’t pay income taxes or at the very least use up more in the services for which you pay taxes than they themselves pay for. They will collect a disproportionately greater amount of Social Security (an already economically unviable boondoggle without the added burden) than they contribute. And with the chain migration provisions that would have survived the final bill’s passing, they would import a small army of relatives, many of them too young or too old to work but all eligible for the benefits of your beloved welfare state.
Am I making any headway on this one?
probably be more fair to put them on a payment plan to pay back taxes along with the taxes they are gonna pay as a new citizen, they owe my tax lovin' ass, don't ya know.
Contrary to what you may have heard from John McCain, George Bush, or that insufferable douchebag Chertoff, there was no provision in the bill to collect any back taxes from any magically-made-legal illegal aliens.
Scratch that. There was some asinine provision to collect back taxes accumulated between the time they applied for a z-visa and the time that the application was processed, or something similarly idiotic and pointless. It wasn’t 48 hours after Bush, doing a propaganda job that would have made Leni Riefenstahl blush, proclaimed that his bill would go after illegally earned back taxes that Gutierrez or Chertoff announced, basically, “Nah, not doin’ that. There’s no way we can determine how much back taxes any of these people owes.” And you know, he was right, because federal bureaucracies aren’t good at pretty much anything, much less anything difficult. No word yet, however, on how that same understaffed, blind, helpless collection of paper pushers which admits that it can’t track down the past taxable activities of illegals, even given an open-ended timeline, is going to manage to track down all of their criminal activities under a 24-hour ticking clock.
But, regardless, I’m getting the impression that you’re not well-versed in the actual bill that’s been under discussion. You admit that you’ve steered clear of this debate, but you chose to make your entrance on its coattails. You've been very upfront about what you would hope the bill’s passage would accomplish, and I think I’ve done at least a passable job explaining why that same bill would advance few if any of your stated goals (and would actually set back some of them). I hope you’re starting to see why the more people, from the left and right, knew about this steaming shitpile, the more they hated it.
Well, I’m spent, but you’ve been a pleasure to talk to.
Posted by: VJay at June 30, 2007 09:19 PM (PcWG2)
Exceedingly well done. Any chance you can run for office? I know it's logic, policy, and honesty like that that will keep you out of politics, but I'd like to think there's hope.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 02, 2007 12:04 PM (Y0gTb)
Mac Video Converter
Mac Mp4 Video Converter
Mac iPhone Video Converter
Mac iPod Video Converter
Video Converter for Mac
Mac Video to AVI Converter
Posted by: yujinxiang at March 25, 2009 10:32 PM (x6PsB)
Posted by: softor at October 19, 2010 05:06 AM (a2ObJ)
62 queries taking 1.0575 seconds, 295 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.