StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Shamnesty?

Submitted by Tully on Tue, 06/26/2007 - 10:18am

Michelle Malkin is live-blogging the immigration vote on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, Stanley Kurtz has some thoughts.

The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we’re at each others’ throats, there’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.

...Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.

UPDATE: Cloture vote goes 64-35, and it comes to the floor with new life. Now for the parade of incomprehensible amendment votes. One does wonder if they picked up votes from those who wanted to open the coffin and make sure the stake was firmly placed--and reveal those who wanted to pull it out.

UPDATE: In other Senate news, the Employee Intimidation Act of 2007 fails, 51-48.

I might be just a bit off base here, supporting comprehensive

reform and all, but is it at all possible that democracy is alive and well, but this bill survives, because enough people believe this is the right thing to do, regardless of how popular it may or may not be?

I hear the same arguments made about Iraq, BTW. Not to sound preachy, but sometimes we have to do the right thing, whether it's popular or not.

Dismounting from high horse now...

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Right, Rafique...

We'll see whether the people are really against it when the next elections come around. If their constituents really don't approve of the "shamnesty," they'll be voted out. If they're not, then the people don't really care all that much. That a loud group of folks really, really don't like it doesn't necessarily mean that an actual majority of our citizens dislike it.

True enough. Elections do have a way of settling things.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Evidence

That a loud group of folks really, really don't like it doesn't necessarily mean that an actual majority of our citizens dislike it.

There is evidence that direction. Of course, how many actually know what's in it? Or what will actually come out of the bargaining process? See below, re: suasage.

Just remember...

Not to sound preachy, but sometimes we have to do the right thing, whether it's popular or not.

...we're talking about Congress. "Right thing" for who? And under what specific definition of "right?"

I support comprehensive reform myself--but I don't know that I support this reform. Of course, it hasn't emerged from the sausage grinder yet, so we don't really know what form it will actually take. As we know, what goes in one end of the sausage grinder oft bears little resemblance to what emerges from the other end. But if it doesn't begin with securing the border, it's just talk-talk, no better than what we have now. We have laws now, but they're rarely enforced. We don't need more laws that won't be enforced, or laws that reward those who broke the original laws.

That isn't a perfect bill, but it's worth supporting I think.

Unless I've completely misread the bill, border security is an essential part of the bill. The thing is though, you have to deal with all these issues (immigrants already here, employer enforcement, legal children of immigrants, etc), or the whole thing falls apart.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

From the logistical

From the logistical standpoint, if you do not deal with both the demand and the supply, you've done nothing to address the problem. The supply end is fed by the de facto open border and our nudge-nudge-wink-wink approach to dealing with illegals once they're here. The demand end is the employers.

Dealing with those already here is complicated, and falls somewhat more under the "social justice" type debate. Especially when proponents (including the White House) do their damndest to conflate immigration in general with illegal immigration. [pdf] In general, I have serious reservations about importing more poor unskilled labor when we've already got some, you see.

dead center

Bullseye on border enforcement as well as supply and demand. Max and Raf, the part that it feels like you guys are missing is the TRUST part.

Sure, the bill has provisions for increased security and enforcement. But anyone with a brain and a memory files every word under "what they say." When it comes to what they do, my cynicism is as high as it can get. Does anyone in their right mind believe that this bill will augur a sea change in border security? Nope. Best guess, a little bit less nudge-wink, a little more manpower, mostly as a sop to grumblers, the minimum needed to add a few votes to the right column.

So let me ask this. Are you guys on board despite genuine misgivings about border enforcement, or is it really the case that you aren't as motivated by enforcement as by legalization? I find that hard to imagine of you Max, even though you seem to think New York is entitled to low cost construction labor instead of the pain of, say, a correction in the cost of living disparity in NY.

Congress does not appear (at least to me) that interested in stemming the rate of illegal immigration or substantially channeling it into legal flow. If they were serious about it and really acknowledged and cared about the views of the grumpy, the approach would have been fundamentally different from the get go. Instead, what we've gotten is what most folks recognize as lip service, congressional style, with the minimal regulation changes and band-aid level budget ups needed to heave through a bill.

This all raises a familar question about what it means to be a representative in a represenative democracy. How leitimate is it to "vote your conscience" when that vote is poorly representative of your constiuents' views? What's the guiding principle there?

I tend to take a dim view of voting your conscience over representing your constituents, unless such a vote is undertaken after great deliberation driven by a perception that the occasion is especially momentus. Hopefully such actions would be relatively rare.

Postion clarification

I find that hard to imagine of you Max, even though you seem to think New York is entitled to low cost construction labor instead of the pain of, say, a correction in the cost of living disparity in NY.

Sorry for the winded reply?..Every major city a has higher cost of living index than suburban or rural areas. The regulations in NYC create added expenses. There are not enough skilled workers in NYC to contruct the 20 billion in new construction.. Tell me how we correct for the cost of living disparity? You misunderstand my past remarks. Illegals are hurting legal workers in my field. Cengel and I both agree, but the Middle and Upper Middle Class benefit. The poor are hurt too as Tully points out.. I was complaining that entry-level positions for semi-skilled American laborers are over-priced in NYC. I guarantee a Z visa worker isn?t going to demand $40,000 to start. Work in my field is based on performance, not alleged experience. The real change will come when contractors get $75,000 fines for hiring illegals. I am impressed how hard they work. We will better off letting many in. Many of my peers could use the legal competition and labor. Then I?ll see my income rise. Nowhere did I say I want to PRETEND that the situation will be resolved. I actually hurt myself, by advocating Amnesty and not joining the deportation crowd, but my Liberal instinct is too strong. The question is how to change this BAD situation. Making illegals legal will raise the wages of those of us trying to compete with contractors who use illegals. The influx of legal labor will lower the higher bids because of the labor pool, but so what? I can?t see deportation work so I am forced to accept Amnesty. Will I favor a B.S. Bill? No. I will see what comes out of the meat grinder and look here for reviews of the bill..

I do not favor a bill that will not enforce labor laws or pretend to close the borders. Again, the reason I favor qualified Amnesty is because of the less damaging effect to the South as we build a wall ( we have to see long term) and the absurdity of deporting 12 million people. Immigrants will make the playing field more level and raise the present wages of those of us working hard and by the rules. Frankly, a good painter should be making at least $50,000 a year. A decent minor contractor should be making closer to $80,000 for quality work. I know several contractors making far more than that, but most use illegals and make the added money from their labor. My comments about over-priced legal workers does not mean skilled workers who work hard aren't due a good living wage. Of course a floor in NYC or Palm Beach is going to cost more than Norwalk CT or Newark, NJ.

If I wanted cheap labor Brian, I would do what the Democrats are doing ?try to push Amnesty without a real plan to enforce labor laws. I am hoping, but we will see. I felt compelled to throw my voice in behind qualified Amnesty. The situation is bad and deportation will fuel the anti-American fire as Chavez prepares military resistance against the US. LOL You were the one talking PR and blow back. The present situation in the renovation sector is too many illegals driving down the labor wages (but often not what the crooked contractor takes in) and sub contractors over charging to make up the difference.

Here is an example. I bid $8,000 to restore a floor. The client?s buddy contractor underbids my price and leaves an illegal at the site to do the work! No friggin insurance, but I keep my mouth closed. It's the client's potential problem. The worker is a nice guy and works very hard, but the work isn?t great. The contractor doesn't even supply the right tools. The contractor throws another illegal at the work. I supply the knee pads. The client shows some patience hoping the job will turn out for the price. It doesn?t. He fires the contractor and asks me to complete the work. I tell the client no. My price was reasonable and he tried to save money on the back of semi-skilled labor. In fact I leave the job as soon as my work is done disgusted by the client?s effort to save a buck. The guy paid close to $1,000,000 for 1050 sq. ft. and he wants to save a few thousand by using illegals? That was months ago with 20% left to do. The client still hasn't moved in. It happens all the time. So I empathize with Cengel. I am feeling the brunt of illegals more than most on this blog. My position is based on principle, reality and a desire to find a just solution. If nothing happens, I may leave the city and make far more money working in Mass or Upstate. Stamford, CT and White Plains, NY, Jersey City and New Haven CT are all feeling the effect of illegals. Greenwich CT service industry now runs on illegals. Take a walk on Greenwich Avenue these days. Florida thrives on illegals. We have to end the exploitation, enforce our laws and control the needed influx of labor. I am sorry if I did not make my position clear. I am eager to see what Congress comes up with. My gut tells me to object to deportation, but I have lost considerable trust in the Democrats these last several years. If the Bill is a joke, I will fight against it.

Dawn of the Dead

I tend to agree with you Raf. Under all the B.S. I even think there IS a majority that 1. wants real border security AND 2. accepts the need for qualified Amnesty covering those here now. There are also many who realize you can't have one without the other and nothing is as bad as status quo (except unqualified Amnesty without security).

Your application of Iraq is a good example.

Once again, I note Hillary leaning center on healthcare and still refusing to completely pull out of Iraq. If she does manage to win the chance to run in the general election, she has stayed true to her positions MORE THAN MOST leading contenders. She beats Rudy at least in New York where his effort AFTER 9/11 inspired, but left a little bit of a bad taste in the mouth. The first WTC attack should have awakened Rudy and Pataki far more than it did. We are not electing someone to manage crisis. We are electing someone to prevent it.

some (leaning) questions

I have some questions:

1) if the "right" hate Reid's manipulation of the bill, then how is cloture anymore honest? Saying no to cloture means the bill will drown in committee...how is that more "up front" than what Reid's doing?

2) as far as democracy goes, I'm with y'all on that one. Democracy means "people rule" in Greek. Which includes their faults (in this case I argue nativism) as well as their merits (like fairness - is it right for people who follow the rules have to wait longer than those who just "hopped the fence?")*
If immigration is even on the plate in 2008 (which I doubt if Hillary! becomes the Dem nominee) the people will show their voice with a vote.

3) do people who believe in a fence actually think that will stop desparate Mexicans from trying to cross? I don't think so.

* I have a friend who is from Britain, married to an American, worked legally in the US for several years, yet cannot get full citizenship. So I understand the frustration over immigration.

I wonder about your situation.

I know an illegal (now married) who entered legally and fell out of legal status after three years of being here. No fence hopping in this case. After five years in total, this person married an America. Within 6 to 8 months of marriage and after filing the proper form including money order with immigration, a temporary tax number, change in status request ($1400) and a permit to travel abroad should be in place. Within three years a green card (if interview is credible) and not long after that, the offer of full citizenship.

I don't know why your friend from England is having such a hard time.

Reid is half the problem.

Hillary can talk about HER plan for Amnesty and still appeal to the majority who want to break the status quo. It seems the Republicans will just go with a fence approach and deportation, hoping their polls ring true. She is in a better position to offer a solution than perhaps Fred, Rudy or Mitt.

Enforcment of labor laws AND better border security can make a real dent in new illegal numbers. Amnesty can win SOME help from Mexico to stem the flow. Our neighbor is showing much stronger economic numbers spurred by their Harvard educated President.

Brian nails it

Max,

Brian pretty much nails the crux of the issue here (IMO). Although I am opposed to Amnesty, as you already know, I could live with it as a compromise solution IF I had any confidence that the government would actualy ENFORCE strict immigration controls in future.

Therein lies the CRUX of the problem. Because the government, including not only this Administration but all the recent past ones has absolutely ZERO CREDABILITY when it comes to enforcing immigration laws. They've paid lip service to it to mollify us...but when push comes to shove they've made no good faith effort to actualy try to do something about it. In the past, repeatedly, they promised they would provide better enforcment in return for amnesty and increased legal immigration.... we let them have that bargain.... but when it time to pay thier end of it... quite simply they welched.

Looking at the backers of the current Bill and the cauldron of fatal flaws designed into it there is absolutely no reason to believe this time will be any different. If some-one has defaulted on thier end of a deal with you multiple times in the past.... it's not unreasonable to demand that they pay thier end up front first before you agree to another one.

Even if ALL the fatal flaws in the current legislation were fixed and it was made absolutely air-tight.... it would still be worth absolutely nothing if the people charged with enforcing it have no intention of doing so. You could have the best law on the books...but how much would it matter if the police charged with enforcing were told that they'd have thier careers ruined the first time they attempted to do so?

That's the problem here. From everything I've read morale at Border Patrol and ICS is at an all time low. There are alot of good and decicated people at the field level in those agencies. They want to do thier job....but everytime they try, they get punished... the administrators in charge of them throw obstacles in thier way to prevent them. They are pressured to do nothing more then put on a show of doing thier jobs when attention is focused on them. The real problem isn't the lack of resources or the lack adequite laws.... it's a simple lack of will-power at the top.

Want a good example of what can happen when government leadership actualy WANTS to do something about illegal immigration... look at what happaned during the Eisenhower administration.

The bottom line is that the government has lost the confidence of the American people on immigration enforcement. No one TRUSTS them that they are going to actualy do what they promise they are going to do..... and until they actualy start PROOVING ( actions, not words, not money, actions) that they are willing to hold up thier end of the bargain....no one on my side of the arguement is willing to give an inch.

Then the soluition is clear

1. Get the Bill as good as possible (knowing there are still flaws)

2. Set Benchmarks by which AMNESTY DOES NOT HAPPEN until security concerns and enforcement is functional.

3. If benchmarks are not met by either a new Republican or Democratic administration and/or Congress, then the BILL IS FROZEN and States/individuals can petition the court to DEMAND FULL enforcement of the law.

Please tell me how this sequence has anything to do with trust (of which I have little for either present Party)? I have now made CLEAR my support of ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY. I have made clear my reasoning for QUALIFIED AMNESTY.

I have more reasons than most to reject the present STATUS QUO and DEPORTATION is not a political reality despite your claims otherwise. Calderon is improving Mexico. With the right tact, we can improve the situation on both sides of the border and head off a real mess. We can chew gum and walk at the same time as long as the Bill sets CLEAR and NON-NEGOTIABLE CONDITIONS for enactment, provides the funding and creates a national identification system (which can be used for other things like welfare tracking and security in general). If behavior does not fufill the Immigration Bill's required obligations then it becomes null and void, or groups can sue the government (with or without standing LOL).

Does that work for you?

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.