Patterico's Pontifications

5/18/2007

Amnesty Open Thread

Filed under: Immigration — Patterico @ 8:19 pm

Consider this an open thread on the amnesty deal, which I have been too busy to follow closely. I thought Allah has been doing a bang-up job of analysis at Hot Air, and Ace has been blogging nonstop on the subject.

Your thoughts?

124 Responses to “Amnesty Open Thread”

  1. I think it’s one of the worst god-damn idea ever.

    It’s a reward for those who have broken the law, and have (if they have been here over a year) commited at least one felony.

    Every year they have committed at least one, without fail. It’s one of two crimes. Guess which it is…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  2. Where is the groundswell of American public opinion demanding that the United States become a Latin American country? Most Americans want illegal immigrants out and to control the border. Nevertheless both the Democrat and Republican “leaders” insist on importing an additional 50 million Latin “citizens” (The 12 million figure is a sick joke). Evidently the powers that be have decided that United States is to become a Northern Province of Mexico with better welfare benefits and anybody who disagrees with the grand plan is a racist.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  3. Reason 5478878 why I would be a horrible POTUS:

    Deploy troops along the boarder. Anyone one crossing illegally will be shot.

    Dead.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  4. It’s a great deal… if you are here illegally. Other than that, not much for us poor citizens of the US.

    Lord Nazh (d282eb)

  5. makes me wonder why my parent’s parent’s parents bothered to come through Ellis…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  6. This immigration legislation reminds me of the recent bill that Bush vetoed regarding Iraq. That Iraq bill included an oscene amount of unrelated pork that induced some legislators to vote for a pullout. It was disgusting that the congressional leadership would allow such unrelated measures into a bill about life, death, war, and peace. Likewise, I get the distinct impression from this whole immigration debate that many legislators are actually threatening to not defend our border unless they obtain sufficient concessions regarding how many millions of illegals will obtain citizenship. This may not be as unrelated as the pork in the Iraq bill, but it is still obscene that any legislator would threaten to weaken our border in order to ensure that more millions of illegals become full US citizens. The issues should be treated separately, notwithstanding Bush’s calls for “comprehensive” legislation.

    But, if Kyl is supporting the bill it can’t be all bad.

    Andrew (bbe670)

  7. If do not have to expend any effort to keep out illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration will stop and they will all return home, when living here become worse than living there.

    tyree (d29d3e)

  8. Virtually every days politicians warn of a poverty crisis, a health care crisis, an education crisis, a housing crisis, etc. What the politicians forget to mention is that 12 to 20 million illegal and improverish non-citizens skew these “USA” statistics. Without the illegal population, no serious problem would exist and the politicians would not feel so compelled to reach into our pockets.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  9. LIVID!

    Mickey Kaus said it best: the country’s not in crisis, Bush is in crisis. And this will sink him, along with anything good he ever tried to do in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  10. It’s funny how quiet the Dems are on this. They’re sort of torn. On one hand, they’re enjoying seeing Bush infuriate and alienate a lot of Repubs, but on the other, they’re not sure the bill is so great. The multi-culti side of the Dem party likes it since it will let in lots and lots of poor non-whites. But they’d prefer a full-on, immediate amnesty with instant citizenship and no $5000 fine. Over on the labor-oriented side of the Dem party, they’re not super-thrilled cause they know the bill will flood the labor market on the low end, and will hurt their “traditional” base, the working class, most.

    As for me, the only ones I see really benefitting from this bill are

    1) Businesses who use illegal labor. On top of the current crop of legalized illegals, future illegals will be encouraged to come because of how well it will have turned out for the current ones.

    2) The illegals themselves, for obvious reasons.

    3) The pols who the illegals will eventually vote for. Most prominent among these are Hispanic Dems. I can’t see someone like Obama getting a lot out of this politically.

    CL (f6ecc4)

  11. No opinion is exactly what I expected from the author. Wet your finger, stick it into the political wind, then call yourself a pundit.

    Disgraceful, and about as genuine as Satan himself would have inquired if he were on your team. Fortunately, he is.

    Petit Bourgeois (375601)

  12. Pols in Washington fail to appreciate just how much the amnesty deal from the 80′s factors in to people’s thinking. Based on that, voters now know that any promises of enofrcement will be ignored if the bill should pass. Then they also sat back and watched Washington pass a law requiring us to build a fence which never happened. Because of that, no compromise is possible from those who insist upon an ‘enforcement only’ policy. To them, the 80′s amnesty WAS the compromise. To buy the same empty promises again would be like buying North Korea’s promises on nukes. Washington has squandered the opportunity here.

    Justin Levine (1c60c2)

  13. I am thinking that Harry Reid said more than what we understood him to say when he said “The war is lost”.

    nk (a074d4)

  14. Near as I can tell, everybody’s wrong on this issue. But why should this be any different than the last 100 years. Immigration law has been screwed up since the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the law has only gotten stupider since. Typical thing when lawyers try to fix something by adding more rules and enforcing fewer.

    Now we have a completely unworkable immigration system, and we are going to fix it with an (amazingly) worse law. Who would have though that was possible? We don’t need new categories and programs. We surely don’t need to encourage another wave of illegals.

    The 12 million illegals are an indication that the law as it stands is a failure. Fences might slow it down a bit, but they don’t answer the problem. What is needed is a change in quotas so that a person can legally immigrate from Mexico without having a family member pull them in. As long as that isn’t possible the tide of illegals is going to overwhelm any conceivable enforcement. Nobody stands in line when the line hasn’t moved for 50 years.

    The McCain-Kennedy law solves none of these problems, while actually increasing the pull on illegals via amnesty. The solution isn’t more stupider laws, but fewer, workable, laws.

    1) Get rid of all national quotas. Yes, this will mean a lot of legal Mexican immigrants, but hey!

    2) Set a price for admission. In the Ellis Island days, the limitation was it was costly to travel; we need to reintroduce that barrier.

    3) Require a period of _really_ good behavior.

    4) Require all law enforcement agencies to report any illegals as a condition of federal funding.

    5) Go back to the Ellis Island policy of letting in everyone who gets here and meets the entrance requirements, and deport everyone who jumps the line. Now that there is one.

    As for the illegals that are here… Assess them 4x the new per person entrance fee, due to the IRS and their tender mercies and interest rates. Let them start as new legal immigrants. It’s not like we’re going to deport all 12 million of them. Unless of course, they don’t report themselves right quick and pay up.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  15. Conservatives don’t like, and I mean really don’t like, the fact that the illegals have broken the law, and are not only going to get away with it, but are going to be rewarded for it. Unfortunately, that’s just tough, because we can’t turn back the clock, and we’re just going to have to live with it. We can’t arrest them all, and we don’t even deport all of those (few) we do arrest.

    The simple fact is that those 12 million (or however many there are) didn’t just come here and sit on their butts collecting welfare. They came here, got jobs, and integrated themselves into our economy — and the conservatives who rail against illegal immigration still go out and spend their money buying the goods and services that illegal immigrants produce. We are paying them to come here!

    Don’t blame the government and don’t blame evil businessmen for illegal immigration; the people who are responsible for illegal immigration are the ones who pay the illegals to come here — and those people are all of us!

    Dana (556f76)

  16. Don’t blame the government and don’t blame evil businessmen for illegal immigration; the people who are responsible for illegal immigration are the ones who pay the illegals to come here — and those people are all of us!

    Ahhh…yes. And we’re all responsible for war, pestilence, locusts, acne, and American Idol.

    Well, OK, we are responsible for American Idol. But aside from that those responsible are the people who put the cash in their hands and those responsible for enforcing the law who turn a blind eye toward them. Do you really think that when you walk into the store and buy chicken, you’re supposed to, or even supposed to be able to discern whether the workers in the meat packing plant are legal? Or when you buy a house in the new development, you should know whether those who hung the drywall are properly documented?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  17. Unfortunately, that’s just tough, because we can’t turn back the clock, and we’re just going to have to live with it. We can’t arrest them all, and we don’t even deport all of those (few) we do arrest.

    Then we should START arresting and deporting them, and making it DAMNED inconvienient to cross over.

    Getting shot would, i think, discourage them from crossing the boarder.

    Don’t blame the government and don’t blame evil businessmen for illegal immigration; the people who are responsible for illegal immigration are the ones who pay the illegals to come here — and those people are all of us!

    So it’s OUR fault, is it? How quaint.

    How about this: I don’t pay a single damned one of them, and would willingly pay a slightly higher wage on produce and manufactured goods (what few are still made in the US) if it meant the Illegals went the fuck home. I have no desire for them to stay. They have show they don’t give a fuck about our laws, so I want them the hell out.

    And no one has guessed what the two federal laws are that every illegal has commited at least one of.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  18. We should immediately enact new rules preventing ilegal aliens from acquiring any form of public services and then implement a system that fines businesses $10,000 for hiring an ilegal (yes I’m aware that a system to check social security numbers easily will need to put in place) with prison time for repeated offenses.

    Harsh, but it would give them an incentive to stay home to begin with and leave if they’re already here.

    Taltos (c99804)

  19. I would just like to point out that I was in the Bay Area of California last year during their ‘Day Without Mexicans’ or whatever it was called… when all the illegal immigrants were supposed to stay home on strike.

    Wonderful.

    The most dramatic effect was on the traffic. Suddenly the roads infrastructure met up perfectly with the demand and traffic flowed with perfect smoothness.

    luagha (506aa1)

  20. there is nothing you can do. the movement of people over land toward greater economic opportunity is more powerful than laws or border fences. you legalize these 12 million, another 12 million gonna be here in a decade, same thing if you don’t. every 10 years, congress gets het up and posturing on this issue, and they pass a several hundred page item full of arcane, technical floof which ultimately has little influence on the ground. i would rank immigration and education as the two things congress does worst.
    quality of life (q) is equal to available resources divided by the number of people competing for them. when q equalizes across the border, there will be no further illegal immigration. earth is a cage, and we are fated to be stuck between the canada and mexico regions. since we cannot relocate ourselves, let’s look on the bright side. i love mexican food and music.

    assistant devil's advocate (fd2d78)

  21. Yes, yes, there are plenty of good new laws that we can pass. But the “crisis” would end within weeks if we simply enforced one or two laws already on the books.

    You don’t get it: they won’t enforce any law against immigrants because that wouldn’t be “compassionate.”

    Patricia (824fa1)

  22. It’s not a persuasive argument to say a law that simultaneously offends both sides balances security with inclusion.

    I’m more in the “out of the shadows” camp than the “no amnesty” crowd. But beefing up fines for unscrupulous employers is an irreplaceable component.

    What says our host? No time for demurral.

    steve (315d72)

  23. The good news is the this bill, like the prior, has no chance. Putting the unknown details aside, no one has a copy of the bill yet, it’s always about us, isn’t it? I suppose that’s why we are in an abbreviated form, the U.S.

    Tell me at what point do we have a moral responsibility to close the border with Mexico and prevent all immigration of any kind. Let’s see. With approximately 8-10 million Mexicans aged 20-40 years old illegally here this equates to probably 25-30 percent of the entire Mexican population in that age group. We are hollowing out Mexico. If we now allow real or phony wives and children, and millions will be exactly that with fake documents from local small town bureaucrats making millions printing such papers, we will devastate Mexico’s future potential by stealing it’s human capital.

    All this to have our lawns mowed. We should all be ashamed. Leave Mexicans in Mexico so they can finally have a real revolution that might finally straighten out that sh*thole of ruling families posing as a country.

    patrick neid (e03540)

  24. Their birth rate is the variable we never interpose. Mexico will never be “hollowed out” of human capital. One visit to booming Guadalajara reveals stay-home incentives and opportunities that didn’t exist a decade ago. Cliches need occasional updating.

    steve (315d72)

  25. The problems is that people see immigrants as being either good or bad when the answer is much more complicated.

    http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2007/05/19/asymmetric_immigration_solution_part_one

    Asymmetric (d7c84a)

  26. Mr Jacobs wrote:

    How about this: I don’t pay a single damned one of them, and would willingly pay a slightly higher wage on produce and manufactured goods (what few are still made in the US) if it meant the Illegals went the fuck home. I have no desire for them to stay.

    Sorry, Mr Jacobs, but unless you are growing all of your own vegetables or never buy chicken at the supermarket or never visit a restaurant, you are paying the illegals to be here.

    One of the great maxims of conservatism is that we take responsibility for our own actions. Why, then, aren’t we willing to understand that it is our money which is paying the illegals to come here and work here?

    Dana (556f76)

  27. We don’t have to deport the estimated 12 million illegals in this country. All we have to do is make life so miserable for them that they’ll get up and leave. Go after their employers (which our government has done only in dribs and drabs to pretend that it cares about this problem) and the jobs will disappear. Further, require proof of American citizenship as a condition of voting or receiving welfare benefits, so that they lose those incentives to stay. (McCain, by the way, opposes this policy. He’s totally okay with letting illegals vote and get welfare benefits–which they do.)

    Alan (d4c0fe)

  28. Pablo wrote:

    Do you really think that when you walk into the store and buy chicken, you’re supposed to, or even supposed to be able to discern whether the workers in the meat packing plant are legal? Or when you buy a house in the new development, you should know whether those who hung the drywall are properly documented?

    Yes. If you are going to rail against illegal immigration, then Hell yes, you should know where you are spending your money.

    But it becomes to inconvenient to look at the truth, because then we might have to change what we are doing, rather than blame someone else.

    A real clue: if you buy a chicken at the supermarket, the odds are pushing 100% that there was illegal immigrant labor involved. If you buy a house that was built within the last ten years, the probabilities that illegal immigrant labor was involved in the excavation, the concrete, the roofing, the drywall, the framing, the exterior siding or the landscaping approaches 100% in most parts of the country.

    If you close your eyes to this, and try to blame someone else, you can count on the problem never being solved — because you have chosen to ignore the part your own actions play in it.

    Dana (556f76)

  29. I am far too stupid to read a thousand pages of anything that isn’t pornographic or an indictment. But, I hate to tell everybody this but we have already lost. These “illegals” are actually squatters. They, like the squatters in Cuba and Venezuela, now defy us to throw them off their land. Posted here if you choose to read it, and it ain’t even a page long; which means you can look at the dirty pictures while you move your crayon under the text.

    Howard Veit (4ba8d4)

  30. As for this nonsense about illegal immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t do, who was doing those jobs before we had 12 million illegals in this country?!

    Alan (d4c0fe)

  31. Last year, Stephen Ohlemacher of the Associated Press wrote, “It is estimated that illegal immigrants fill a quarter of all agricultural jobs, 17 percent of office and house cleaning positions, 14 percent of construction jobs[,] and 12 percent in food preparation.” Okay, so who else is doing those jobs even right now for those dirt-poor wages? Aliens from outer space? Will those aliens get an amnesty, too?

    Alan (d4c0fe)

  32. The problems is that people see immigrants as being either good or bad when the answer is much more complicated.

    I really couldn’t care less about immigrants that come here legally, we could double the allowable number tomorrow and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash.

    One of the reasons that the “they do work Americans refuse to do argument” is utterly pointless is that even if that were true (which it isn’t) you’ve got umpteen thousands of people trying to come here legally who could just as easily do the work.

    One of the great maxims of conservatism is that we take responsibility for our own actions. Why, then, aren’t we willing to understand that it is our money which is paying the illegals to come here and work here?

    If we had some say over who Random Company hired you might have a point. Unless they tell us they’re hiring ilegals (which would be stupid of them) there is no real way for us to know.

    Taltos (c99804)

  33. Yes. If you are going to rail against illegal immigration, then Hell yes, you should know where you are spending your money.

    And how do you propose one should, as a consumer, backtrack that from your position standing over the meat case at Ralph’s?

    A real clue: if you buy a chicken at the supermarket, the odds are pushing 100% that there was illegal immigrant labor involved.

    In which case, it seems that law enforcement should also be aware of that and rectify the problem. Unless you’re suggesting that the solution to illegal immigration is to not eat meat, which falls apart when you have to backtrack the immigration status of the vegetable picker.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  34. Wait, I get it now, Dana. The answer to illegal immigration is to shut down the economy.

    Have you found any support for that idea elsewhere?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  35. Alan,

    As for this nonsense about illegal immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t do, who was doing those jobs before we had 12 million illegals in this country?!

    Probably the 10 million people John Kerry promised to put to work by creating new jobs for them.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  36. McCain as much as punched the void stamp on his presidential hopes. Good riddance.
    President Bush is continuing to position himself as an enemy of the republican party. When you think about it, with his poll numbers, this could be a good thing.
    The next GOP nominee will have considerable slack to position himself closer to the base, while keeping clear of the stink surrounding Bush.

    papertiger (1afea2)

  37. I wouldn’t dare be so optimistic, papertiger. I thought that Giuliani’s campaign was dead in early April of this year when he said that abortion is a constitutional right and should be funded (at least for poor women) by the government. But opinion polls taken since then reveal that his campaign is alive and well. As for McCain, did Republicans not already know of McCain’s contempt for our borders and our national sovereignty? Don’t stick a fork in McCain just yet; I don’t think he’s quite done.

    Alan (d4c0fe)

  38. What about Mexico reform? Everyone is saying that it’s US that needs to fix something. They’re the one with the problem that’s leaking across the border.

    Terrance (f6ecc4)

  39. “As for this nonsense about illegal immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t do, who was doing those jobs before we had 12 million illegals in this country?!”

    Here’s another important point along those lines. Either we are condemning the current crop of illegal aliens to living as an underclass forever, in order to mow our lawns and “do the jobs Americans won’t do,” or as they move up economically we are going to need more illegal aliens to keep “doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” Either way it’s a losing proposition.

    Best wishes,
    Laura

    Laura (de5a83)

  40. I don’t think it’s possible for America to permanently solve its immigration issues, Laura.

    It’s an ongoing thing.

    alphie (015011)

  41. I oppose this bill because I oppose illegal immigration and this bill will just encourage more illegal immigration. No bill at all would be better.

    I don’t think it would be hard to greatly reduce illegal immigration and get rid of most of the illegals already here given sufficient political will. The problem is the country is divided so existing laws (and policies) are inadequate. For example the law which supposedly forbids employers from hiring illegals actually requires employers to hire illegals with easily obtainable phony documents. And of course Bush is an open borders advocate who has shown no interest in enforcing the laws we do have.

    Kill this bill, get rid of Bush and maybe some progress will be possible under the next President.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  42. I think Jim Geraghty at NRO put it very well when he said the opinion of the vast majority of the GOP base is, “enforcement now, path to citizenship later, maybe, if we’re in a good mood.” That covers my feelings exactly, and probably the mood of most Americans, Republican or Democrat. The problem with this bill is that it again says “trust us”. I’m sorry, we won’t fall for that yet again.

    The fact that these clowns in Washington still don’t understand this is incredible.

    Regarding our host, I think he’s made his opinions on this quite clear in the past. Give the guy a break.

    Jeff (428193)

  43. As for this nonsense about illegal immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t do, who was doing those jobs before we had 12 million illegals in this country?!

    Umm… the last batch?

    Their kids don’t do because they’re Americans, went to school, and some to college, and now they’re delivering your mail, fighting in Iraq, fixing airplanes, running stores and designing chips.

    There’s only one thing that Mexican immigrants don’t seem to do: live on welfare.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  44. The Senate’s Democratic majority thinks that the estimated 12 million illegals in the US would be a vote bonanza for them. Since there are no longer refugees from Communism, that is a pretty good guess. In order to get these illegals “on the path to citizenship,” they will agree to some enforcement provisions in the law.

    Few of the enforcement provisions will ever be fully enacted. In any case it will take years before enforcement provisions are effective. There will be many opportunities for Democrats to cut appropriations for measures that “clearly are not working.” Those that do work i.e. keep illegals out and prevent them from getting jobs or social welfare benefits are likely to be found unconstitutional by liberal judges.

    Democrats are currently big on benchmarks. In exchange for not filibustering their “humane” legislation, let’s insist on the completion of the border fence that has already been authorized, increase border patrol agents from the current 11,300 CPB Securing our Borderto 100,000, and have in place a working electronic data base for employers to verify the immigration status of employees. When these benchmarks have been met and only then should we begin the “path to citizenship” for persons who are here illegally.

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  45. makes me wonder why my parent’s parent’s parents bothered to come through Ellis…

    The tickets to Montreal or VeraCruz were more expensive, or less, in my great(5th power) grandparents case. A French Irish connection brought them to Montreal near where they farmed and raised about 13 children. One traveled to the U.S. south and built bridges. When those who would conserve the social order, they thought it was about race, yelled and started the Civil War, he went back to Montreal. Now I could talk Union Army forbearers too, but my family has found this to be a country of (natural) law where money talks and you do have the right to shout and sometimes make unnecessary wars.

    Michael (4506b4)

  46. Kevin said:

    “There’s only one thing that Mexican immigrants don’t seem to do: live on welfare.”

    Oh, they don’t? That’s strange. I heard on O’Reilly that almost a third of legal Mexican immigrants are on welfare. Well, I guess I must be wrong, since I don’t remember the date offhand. Yes, I suppose that everyone who talks about illegals taking money in social services, and who warns that the amnesty bill is going to impose a huge burden on the taxpayer, is simply making things up because they hate Mexicans.

    And I suppose that it’s also false that hospitals are shutting down because they can’t afford to take care of the illegals who flood them for free services? Yeah, I’m sure that’s just a lie created by Pat Buchanan. Right.

    Kevin also said:

    Their kids don’t do because they’re Americans, went to school, and some to college, and now they’re delivering your mail, fighting in Iraq, fixing airplanes, running stores and designing chips.”

    I suppose no one was delivering mail or running stores or fighting in (say) Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s? I suppose no one was delivering mail or running stores or fighting in Korea in the 1940s and 1950s? I suppose no one was delivering mail or running stores or fighting in Europe or Africa or the Pacific in the 1940s? Tell me, when is is that we developed this dependency on illegal immigrants?

    There’s no job that Americans “won’t do.” I dismiss out of hand the idea that the current generation is any lazier or prouder than the generation that came of age in Sixties. I mean, how could they be?

    If the job pays enough, Americans will do it. They won’t do it for the dirt wages that illegal immigrants pay because Americans won’t live five families to a house like illegals do. But the idea that we need illegals to do these jobs is a load of garbage. A lot of the jobs illegals now dominate used to be middle-class jobs–even cleaning jobs.

    It’s simply anti-American slander for you to say, as you did, “Their kids don’t do because they’re Americans. . . .” Shame on you.

    And seriously, where did you find your misinformation and why didn’t you leave it there?

    Alan (273e95)

  47. Corrections…

    I should have written, “came of age in the Sixties” and “They won’t do it for the dirt wages that illegal immigrants receive

    Alan (273e95)

  48. Also, Kevin, who’s doing the 83 percent of office and house cleaning positions that illegal aliens aren’t doing, the 86 percent of construction jobs that illegal aliens aren’t doing, the 12 percent in food preparation that illegal aliens aren’t doing, etc.? Space aliens?

    Alan (273e95)

  49. In post #49, 12 percent should read 88 percent. Another typo.

    Alan (273e95)

  50. The director of the Brain Tumor Surgery Program at Johns Hopkins University hopped a fence from Mexico at 19 to become a farm worker. A story he told in 1999 when he delivered the commencement address at Harvard Medical School, where he graduated cum laude and became an American citizen.

    None of which means we shouldn’t secure our borders. But the economy can more easily absorb those who don’t think society entitles them to a living.

    steve (315d72)

  51. Steve, for every hideously unrepresentative anecdote you can tell about some illegal immigrant becoming a great contributor to our society, someone else can tell you a story (probably quite a few stories, actually) about an illegal immigrant murdering an American citizen.

    On the whole, indeed almost unanimously, the illegals we’re importing are uneducated.

    Alan (273e95)

  52. As my favorite anecdote, here’s someone else who “hopped the fence” (figuratively speaking) and got amnesty (under the 1986 amnesty program) as an agriculatural worker: Mahmud Abouhalima, one of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

    Alan (273e95)

  53. China has well over 100 million migrant workers, and its economy is growing 10 times faster than ours.

    Clearly, migrant workers aren’t an impediment to economic growth.

    I think this is a case of the new American aristocracy trying to distract the pleabs while they gorge themsleves at the trough.

    Increased government spending that doesn’t actually “solve” any “problems.”

    Perfect for people with buddlies handing out the contracts.

    alphie (015011)

  54. Alphie, obviously you’ve never taken a logic class. You buried about a half dozen logical fallacies in that comment, the most prevalent being non sequitur.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  55. Nobody would give a rat’s ass about illegal immigration if America’s economy was growing 11% a year, Robin.

    alphie (015011)

  56. It’s interesting that most of the people who favor amnesty don’t live in border states. Border states are overflowing with immigrants and we’ve learned it’s a net loss – a big net loss – when you factor in the additional cost of health care, education, welfare and crime.

    If this legislation becomes law, more and more immigrants will migrate to and have to be absorbed in the Midwest and Northeast. Get ready to see your taxes increase and your services diluted. I think it will be an eye-opening experience.

    DRJ (2d5e62)

  57. Alphie. Good point. the unemployment rate is 39% in your mind right.

    Michael apwlfv (4506b4)

  58. I favor a secure border policy, but can tolerate only so much grandstanding while undocumented workers manicure Mitt Romney’s lawn.

    steve (315d72)

  59. When I walk down the street in california I look for black people. You know why?
    Between the Russian imigrees and the Mexicans it’s a rare treat to find someone speaking English.

    papertiger (b40a74)

  60. most of the people who favor amnesty don’t live in border states.

    Yep I hear that. I read that there has been some success in turning back potential iillegal immigrants. One recent comment, ‘Now there demanding more money!’ It’s a wonder Adam Smith could talk to their ancestors; supply and demand, baby.

    Michael apwlfv (4506b4)

  61. Kevin Murphy, your comment about Mexicans and welfare don’t seem to jive too well with the data.

    In the U.S., compared to whites, Hispanics are:

    - 2.5 times more likely to be on welfare (link, table 1)

    - about 50% more likely to be unemployed (link). (Among all Hispanic groups, Mexicans are the most likely to be unemployed)

    Some other data relevant to the topic:

    - Hispanics are less than half as likely to graduate from college and 7.5 times more likely to not even complete middle school (link). (Among all Hispanic groups, Mexicans have the lowest educational accomplishment).

    - Hispanics are almost 3 times more likely to live below the poverty level (link).

    - Hispanics are 3 times more likely to not have health insurance (link, page 16)

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  62. Alan, here’s an anecdote from just yesterday:

    Kenosha, Wisconsin – The man now charged with killing Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy Frank Fabiano is an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record…

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  63. All immigrant stories are anecdotes. Ellis Island processed a million a year (1902) with no NCIC data check to stop incoming criminals.

    I agree, it’s a sad state of affairs that if enough people break the law it is no longer a law. But stiffening the penalties for employers and seizing businesses and assets, just like Rico prosecutions, would send some Republicans to jail. That’s a catalyst for compromise.

    steve (315d72)

  64. And another one from the previous day.

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  65. This one is from way back, on Wednesday.

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  66. China has well over 100 million migrant workers, and its economy is growing 10 times faster than ours.

    Yeah, well, when you are shifting form decades of communsim to the starts of capitalism, your economy would have freakishly huge growth too.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  67. That’s the spirit, scott.

    Rationize away America’s sluggish economy.

    No need to look at the real problems when you can just blame brown people.

    alphie (015011)

  68. China has well over 100 million migrant workers, and its economy is growing 10 times faster than ours.

    US’ economic growth rate= 3.4%

    China’s economic growth rate= 10.5%

    3.4 x 10 = 34

    I take it math isn’t your strong suit.
    And just FYI,

    US’ GDP = $13.22 trillion

    China’s GDP = $2.512 trillion

    Taltos (c99804)

  69. sluggish?

    Yeah, look at the stock market, and tell me that again…

    And as for our GDP…

    Not bad for a country with about 1/5 the population…

    But seriously, Alphie… Explin to me what it is that tells you our economy is sluggish?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  70. Steve, if Republicans break the law, they should go to jail, just the same as Democrats. As William Evarts said, “he who strikes at a law strikes at the law.” As for your correct assertion that all immigrant stories are anecdotes, your acknowledgment of that fact makes me wonder why you started us down this anecdote road. Then again, maybe I shouldn’t complain. I think I’d beat you in the battle of the anecdotes, since I can name a lot more illegal immigrants who did horrible things than you can name who did great things.

    Alan (d4c0fe)

  71. Rationize away America’s sluggish economy.

    Uh, yeah.

    It was another strong week for the stock market, and it ended with the Dow Jones industrial average reaching another record close and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index tantalizingly near a record of its own.

    Terrible economy, indeed. How will we get along with record market highs, unemployment at 4.5%, and a historicall solid GDP growth rate? If only we were China! Or Iraq, with their 53% GDP growth rate in 2005.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  72. In response to Kevin Murphy’s illegal alien cheerleading, I dug up some data on employment and welfare use:

    In the U.S., compared to whites, Hispanics are 2.5 times more likely to be on welfare (link, table 1), and about 50% more likely to be unemployed (link). (Among all Hispanic groups, Mexicans are the most likely to be unemployed)

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  73. 53%?

    But Pablo, didn’t you know we’re ruining them? Those numbers can’t be right!

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  74. Funny, Pablo

    The CIA shows Iraq’s economy actually shrank 3% in 2005.

    http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2006/geos/iz.html

    I think what you’re looking at is the massive inflation we’ve handed the Iraqis.

    70% last year, another gift from the banana Republicans.

    But if you’re just makin’ stuff up…it’s all good, ain’t it?

    alphie (015011)

  75. So Dana thinks that we should all hold ourselves accountable (according to conservative principles) but not hold the people that actually broke the law accountable? How’s that work exactly?

    Alphie is convinced that the economy is going to fail sometime middle of next week, yet can’t fathom math or logic.

    Great discussion. ILLEGAL immigrants are a problem, mainly because of that word that most leftists and press reporters keep dropping: ILLEGAL.

    Would all the people that are for ILLEGAL immigration like to pick the next set of laws that we simply do away with? Which laws would you guys like to get rid of? (not counting the laws that everyone likes to poke fun of)

    The reason that ILLEGAL immigrants do the jobs that ‘Americans won’t do’ is because the jobs are NOT available, they are filled with ILLEGALS.

    Lord Nazh (d282eb)

  76. I think what you’re looking at is the massive inflation we’ve handed the Iraqis.

    70% last year, another gift from the banana Republicans.

    Looks like we did that in 2002 as well. Which is a pretty neat trick, what with us not having been there.

    According to Index Muni, the -3% was for 2006, and if you’d clicked the link and fired up a couple of synapses, you wouldn’t have made the moronic claim that I just made it up. What I find most telling is that you only bothered to argue with the one claim in my post which was more snarky than anything else, and simply demonstrated that comparing GDP numbers really doesn’t tell you much without context. But you ignored the ones that destroyed your “sluggish economy” claim, like the market records and the full employment range unemployment figure.

    Why is that, alphie?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  77. Whoops, wrong link. This is the correct one for 2002.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  78. Oh, and alphie, you’re using an out of date copy of the factbook.

    Current link is:
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

    Taltos (c99804)

  79. Pablo,

    America’s GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.3% last quarter. Than number is expected to be revised down, and this quarter will probably be even lower.

    http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

    You may consider that “solid GDP growth” but most people don’t.

    alphie (015011)

  80. Anybody have any idea of how much it would cost to deport all 12 million (at last report) illegals in this country? Are you willing to pay that?

    I have my look at two provisions of the bill up at When the Door Don’t Budge. I’m basically against the bill because it’s an attempt to maintain a status quo that died years ago. We want to see illegal immigration cut back substantially the only real way to do it is to liberate Mexico.

    Alan Kellogg (ad113e)

  81. Correction: When the Door Won’t Budge

    Forgot to do an important bit of editing.

    Alan Kellogg (ad113e)

  82. Alan–

    #48. I’m sorry that you can’t understand simple English. Go back and read what I posted. CHILDREN of previous illegals that are taking middle class jobs, and the new immigrants are taking their parents crap jobs.

    As for being un-American for calling the CHILDREN of illegals “American”, well sorry but they are. Not even in dispute. People born here ARE Americans. By definition. Even if they are brown. Even if their parents were illegal. Even if their parents came from Betelgeuse or Krypton. Clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Sorry. Live with it.

    But I guess you just listen to modern Know-Nothings like Dobbs or neo-racists like Buchanan, and don’t get out much. Do you even LIVE in an are where these illegals are? I find it rather instructional that all the Republican supporters are in the border states, and all the opponents are in places like Colorado and Ohio.

    I said back in 2003 that this issue was going to utterly split the Republican party. Seems like and understatement now. Only goods thing is it screws McCain.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  83. Alan–

    You’re so fond of statistics. Try this one. How many Mexicans were admitted to the United States under general immigration quotas in the last 40 years? That’s folks that aren’t married to an American, don’t have relatives here, and don’t qualify for some other program that gives them a preference. Folks who just wanted to come here, legally, and get work. How many do you suppose got in?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  84. Hi Alan, I don’t know how much it would cost to deport 12 million illegals, but it probably wouldn’t cost more than maybe $10 million to put several executives of large companies employing illegals in prison for a while.

    Howabout that? Then a big chunk of the illegal population will self-deport, as their prospects for being illegally employed diminish. After all, every illegal in the country at at least one time in their life deported themself from their home country.

    CL (f6ecc4)

  85. Kevin, what’s a neo-racist?

    CL (f6ecc4)

  86. Here’s the thing. Current immigration law is perverse. It favors dependents and keeps out workers. It favors the third world and keeps out the first.

    Want to come here from Al-Qaedastan? No problem. Want to come here from Ireland? Tough.

    Want to bring in granny from Mexico who needs a new hip? Fine. How can we help? Want to come here from Jalisco, work, pay taxes and start a new life? Try the 12th of Never.

    Are you coming from a tiny third-world country? If you can get here, you’re in. Coming from a large wealthy country, like England? Better just say it’s a visit.

    Mexican immigrants on welfare? Those are the LEGAL ones. Granny and Cousin Pablo who we let in because a relative married a citizen. The Mexicans digging post holes in your neighbor’s backyard for $5/hour? Those are the illegals. Do you think they’d be doing that if there was a welfare check?

    The US started regulating immigration around 1900 to keep out Chinese and Catholics. They keep “reforming” the law to fix it, but nothing much changes — the same groups have been kept out all along. Whether it’s racial quotas of the past, or the current 7% sub-quota by country of birth, or the special programs that make a shambles of any sense of fairness — or whatever nonsense is in the new law (that I also dislike) — it doesn’t work.

    What we need to do is toss out everything we have and start over. Because if we don’t, whatever bandaid we choose will fail and 20 years from now we’ll be back here.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  87. America’s GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.3% last quarter. Than number is expected to be revised down, and this quarter will probably be even lower.

    a quarter of 1.3 is 5.3% increase over a year…

    Which is considered quite good…

    Take an econ class, moron…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  88. At an annual rate…which means for the year, Scott.

    Please redirect your anger.

    alphie (015011)

  89. 1.3% annual? Last quarter?

    First I’d have to ponder your mixing of “quater” and “annual”, and state that 1st quarter is always sluggish due to the end of the x-mas shopping season.

    Second, I’d have to ask if that was adjusted after inflation, or a gross GDP rate. It makes a big difference, bubba.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  90. Whose the idiot who called Patterico “Satan for not expressing an opinion on illegal immigration

    I never thought I’d meet someone who could cram their foot in their mouth farther than me…

    EricPWJohnson (92aae0)

  91. Kevin

    In 1998 a friend who was from Denmark and her husband who was from Italy were deported even though they had lived in this country legally for nine years under a sponsorship, unfortunately the sponsor had tax problems so the government threw out my friends along with their four year old son who was born in America. It appears that some children born here of a particular race and color are more equal than others so if you’re white European well then you get a letter from the INS declaring deportation.

    This of course occurred under the Clinton adminstration so no big rallies about saying no to deportation was in the news.

    syn (7faf4d)

  92. America’s GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.3% last quarter.

    One quarter does not a year’s GDP rate make, annualized or not, alpo. Nor does it demonstrate a trend. For instance, 2006 had a 4.8% first quarter, after a 1.7% rate in the fourth quarter of 2005. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with our growth rate. Check it against the historical trend.

    Than number is expected to be revised down, and this quarter will probably be even lower.

    Your expectations fail to move me. So, how about that stock market? And the unemployment rate?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  93. Illegal immigrants are just that ILLEGAL and both parties are to blame for this shameful deal but if our beloved Commander in Chief were as interested in really defending the country as he is in photo ops and empty platitudes things mi

    Charlie (d884f8)

  94. Opps my browser failed.. continuing on.. if Bush were smart he would have taken one third of the one trillion dollars he is wasting in Iraq and used it to demand reforms in Mexico and Central America, so these people would not have an incentive to come here. But instead he plays ball with the Mexican leaders, demands no progress and so they continue to flood us here..while wasting money and lives on his insane project in Iraq. Impeachment would solve so many problems!

    Charlie (d884f8)

  95. Dammit! I hate it when I agree with Charlie.

    On the lighter side, former never-should-have-been President Teeth and Prayers claims that the Bush administration is the worst in history.

    nk (a074d4)

  96. Why not do exactly what Mexico does on their southern border on our southern border. Treat all US illegals and legal green card residents the same as Mexico does.

    After two tries with magic laws, we now are going for #3. Why haven’t the provisions of the first two magic AMNESTY laws ever been enforced?

    The changes in demographics brought about by these AMNESTY laws is going to spell the end of America as we know it. Immigration with assimilation was fine, but this is turning into invasion with no recourse.

    bill (26027c)

  97. Even if their parents were illegal. Even if their parents came from Betelgeuse or Krypton. Clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Sorry. Live with it.

    Not so, the application of the 14th amendment to anchor babies is only due to a ruling in Plyer v Doe which the supreme court could easily overturn if they chose to.

    Taltos (c99804)

  98. We could awlays build the double fence and just fill the gap with landmines, I think they’d get the hint before too long.

    Taltos (c99804)

  99. Taltos #98,

    Allowing the Supreme Court to play that fast and loose with the plain language of the Constitution would be a far worse evil. And an unnecessary one. We simply make illegal entry a felony which disqualifies the alien from ever being allowed back in as a relative or for any other reason.

    nk (a074d4)

  100. CL,

    They won’t self-deport, because we’ve made it too hard to self-deport. Besides, even if it was easy to go back, even with employment being restricted, illegals would have a better life in the underground economy here than they would in the economy back home.

    You need to remember two things. One, you can’t control everything. Just trying consumes more resources than anyone could ever muster and impoverishes society (cf The Deutsch Democratic Peoples Republic).

    Two, people adapt. Without total control of society people will find ways around any regulation. When there is a call for a service or good, a way will be found to provide it. Obstinant insistence on doing things the way they should be done will only make matters worse.

    You can have control, or you can have prosperity. Make your choice.

    Alan Kellogg (0f9ee1)

  101. #100

    Every illegal alien that has been in this country more than a year has already commited at least one felony, so your idea is sound.

    It just requires prosecution of those crimes.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  102. We also have an exclusion in the immigration acts now, that does not require conviction for a crime. If an alien is here illegally for more than 180 days but less than one year and leaves voluntarily, he cannot be readmitted for three years. If he is here for more than one year and leaves voluntarily or involuntarily, he cannot be readmitted for ten years. We can soup this law up to permanent exclusion.

    nk (a074d4)

  103. P.S. I keep mentioning felony because that is the best way to self-deportation. Promise every illegal alien not a job but ten years in prison and his children in an orphanage or a foster home.

    nk (cad7e1)

  104. Opps my browser failed.. continuing on.. if Bush were smart he would have taken one third of the one trillion dollars he is wasting in Iraq and used it to demand reforms in Mexico and Central America, so these people would not have an incentive to come here.

    How, exactly, would that work, Charlie? How much does it cost Felipe Calderon to make demands?

    We already tried the Mexican bailout trick. It didn’t work.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  105. #103

    Remember the December raid at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Colorado in which around 260 workers were rounded up for working under assumed identities? Only 18 of those workers have actually been charged. No company managers were charged. Swift last week revised upward its estimate of the cost of the 5-plant raid to $45 million to $50 million for the fiscal year ending May 27.

    What insanity. We don’t have the courage of our own convictions. If you’re going to stage a symbolic enforcement, make sure the whole system is behind you.

    steve (315d72)

  106. The ultimate ultra-liberal discussion-ender:

    What about Mexico reform? Everyone is saying that it’s US that needs to fix something. They’re the one with the problem that’s leaking across the border.

    Racist!

    The reason that we have immigration from the places we do is because of the 1988 law that mandated a lottery so “underrepresented” countries would get their fair share of immigration. So now we have codified that our nation is under obligation to draw immigrants from all areas or be deemed unfair or racist.

    Underrepresented countries

    Patricia (824fa1)

  107. Allowing the Supreme Court to play that fast and loose with the plain language of the Constitution would be a far worse evil.

    It has nothing to do with playing games with the constitution. The matter hinges on what being under the jurisdiction of the state means. Plyer held that ilegals qualify as under the states jurisdiction. Saying that they don’t due to their ilegal entry and avoidance of accountability ,which they need to maintain in order to deter being deported, is just as valid a decision. Plyer was a split decision to begin with. Children of foreign diplomats born in the US aren’t citizens, I see no reason why the children of ilegals should be either.

    Taltos (c99804)

  108. Kevin-

    #84. I’m sorry that you can’t understand simple English. Go back and read what I posted, and then go back and read the Constitution. I didn’t say you’re “un-American” for saying that the American-born children of illegal aliens are American. I said you’re “anti-American” for saying “Their kids don’t do because they’re Americans,” which necessarily implies that if you’re American then you won’t do those jobs–which is an anti-American thing to say, not to mention a stupid one. You imply that these jobs have always been done by illegal aliens. (I misunderstood to whom “the last batch” applies, which I admit was stupid, but less stupid than your misreading of my post, which, unlike yours, doesn’t rely on sentence fragments.) That, of course, is simply wrong. Illegals’ playing a prominent role in the construction industry is a development of recent vintage, for example. Jobs like cleaning out apartment buildings in Los Angeles and working in slaughterhouses in Nebraska used to be middle-class jobs. The problem is not just that the children of illegals are taking middle-class jobs; the illegals themselves have turned middle-class jobs into lower-class jobs.

    I couldn’t help but notice a rather embarrassing contradiction in your post. First you attack me for not understanding “simple English”–not understanding that you were talking about the American-born children of illegal aliens–and then you accuse me of saying that you’re un-American for saying that the children of illegal aliens won’t do these jobs. Are you a complete retard? How could I possibly call you un-American for saying X, if I didn’t even understand you were saying X in the first place? Looks like I’m not the only one who’s having trouble understanding your posts; you yourself can’t understand what you write, if you’re going to contradict yourself like that. Idiot.

    Oh, and by the way, being born in the United States is not a sufficient condition for citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Thus, for example, if a female foreign diplomat, or the wife or daughter of a foreign diplomat, gives birth in the United States, the child thus born is not an American citizen. Now if someone who came into this country lawfully doesn’t get citizenship for the child she bears, why would illegals get special treatment and thus get more rights than those who gave birth in this country by lawful means? There’s actually a legitimate debate about whether the children of illegals have birthright citizenship. It’s simply stupid of you to act as if the debate is over. There’s NO SUCH THING AS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP in this country. Being born in the U.S. just isn’t enough–by the terms of the Constitution itself. The only question is whether illegals’ American-born children should be interpreted to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    “Clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Sorry. Live with it.”

    Again, you’re the illiterate one. You’re the one who clearly can’t read the Constitution. You’re the one who thinks that the Amendment automatically confers citizenship on everyone born in the United States. It’s “clearly stated in the 14th Amendment” that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    “Do you even LIVE in an are where these illegals are? I find it rather instructional that all the Republican supporters are in the border states, and all the opponents are in places like Colorado and Ohio.”

    Where the hell did you hear that garbage? When people call up Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Michael Savage or Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham to complain about these amnesty bills, a lot of them are from places like California and Arizona. So now I know that you’re not only an idiot, but a liar as well. Did you seriously believe anyone would believe that lie? Why do you just make this stuff up?

    Oh, and nice going with the argumentum ad hitlerum. Shouting racism–great. Shouldn’t you be shining Ted Kennedy’s shoes?

    Alan (d4c0fe)

  109. Plyler v. Doe was not about “anchor babies” it was about whether illegal alien children could go to a public school.

    “There’s NO SUCH THING AS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP in this country. Being born in the U.S. just isn’t enough–by the terms of the Constitution itself.”

    That’s nonsense which flies against the plain language of the Constitution and every American law, custom and tradition since the founding of our country. “Under the jurisdiction” meant “subject to the laws of”. Foreign diplomats, which seems to be the only argument not based on fantasy, are not subject to our laws. They have diplomatic immunity. Foreign embassies and consulates are considered foreign soil, not American soil. It is a privilege granted to a few under treaties which promise that they will be tried in their own countries for crimes they commit in the United States. Who wants to extend that privilege to illegal aliens?

    nk (cad7e1)

  110. I don’t like it, but it’s absolutely true. nk is right. Remember this?

    A spokeswoman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said a child born in airspace over American territory is eligible for U.S. citizenship.

    All they need to do is file the paperwork.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  111. The spam filter keeps eating my links. Google United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

    nk (cad7e1)

  112. It’s a well-settled principle that when an interpretation of a law would produce such absurd and awkward results that the legislature must be presumed not to have intended it, that interpretation should be disfavored. Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 453-54 (1989) (citing Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459 (1892)). To me, it seems absurd that the children of illegal aliens can get more rights than the children of foreign diplomats lawfully present in this country, and likewise so absurd that Congress couldn’t have intended it when it wrote the Fourteenth Amendment.

    So, for the limited purpose of determining citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment–if not for any other purposes–I think that it would be a legitimate argument that while illegal aliens’ children are subject to our laws, they don’t get the benefit of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, because Congress definitely did not intend to give them citizenship. The purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to erase the Supreme Court’s holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), that blacks, whether free or slave, whether born in this country or another, could never be American citizens.

    My point is not that this is necessarily the correct reading of the Amendment; my point is that there’s a legitimate debate over it, so we shouldn’t just assume without argument (as Kevin did) that anyone born in this country is perforce a citizen. And it’s especially unwise to make that unreasoned assumption based on what the Fourteenth Amendment “clearly” says, in Kevin’s words.

    Alan (d4c0fe)

  113. So, for the limited purpose of determining citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment–if not for any other purposes–I think that it would be a legitimate argument that while illegal aliens’ children are subject to our laws, they don’t get the benefit of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, because Congress definitely did not intend to give them citizenship.

    They clearly intended birthright citizenship. What we’re seeing may be an unintended consequence, but I don’t think that’s even clear. Given that it was passed in a time when border security wasn’t an issue, there’s a full measure of reason to the notion that, at the time, if your parents were here contributing to the building of the nation, as the freed slaves were, you would be a citizen.

    We’re one of few countries that has birthright citizenship, and it made sense when we were trying to grow our citizenship. In these times, to not restrict it to at least children of legal aliens is insane.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  114. Alan–

    “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — are you saying that illegal immigrants are NOT subject to US jurisdiction? That’s an amazing claim. Scary, too. That would mean they could climb in your window, kill you, and there’s nothing the police could do about it but give them a free ride home. When did this happen? Must be Pelosi.

    Yes, there is an American birthright, except for really rare cases, like foreign diplomats.

    So you don’t live in California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. So you just read about what I live every day. Who am I going to believe, you or my own two eyes?

    And keep it civil. If you can’t comment here without calling people liars and morons, go away. You add nothing but noise.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  115. Kevin, if it makes you feel any better I thought just as lowly of unrestricted immigration when I lived in California as I do now. This whole “if you’re not from a border state, your opinion on illegal immigration doesn’t count” mentality is not helpful.

    I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment probably means birthright citizenship for illegals. I don’t believe, however, that Alan’s point about absurd readings can be dismissed out of hand. There is indeed precedent for giving statutes a meaning that is not consistent with its most literal meaning, where the most literal meaning is so clearly absurd that the drafters could not have intended it. In that sense, drive-by citzenship belongs in the same category as gay marriage, ferret bans, and every other law that someone thinks is unfair – and can therefore make a colorable argument that it violates equal protection even though it is clear the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment had other things in mind.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  116. Oh yeah, Patterico: did you notice your blog is still on PST?

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  117. Need to weigh in on the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” aspect of the debate here. This language was originally included to take into account the status of Native American Indians. Both sides (Americans of European origins as well as Native Americans themselves) didn’t want the 14th Amendment to confer citizenship to the U.S. American Indians wanted to retain their “soverign nation” status – so it was really uncontroversial at the time. (American Indians were later granted the opportunity to be U.S. citizens en mass through legislation in the early-mid 20th Century.) There is no doubt that courts currently interpret the Amendment to mean that anyone born within our borders becomes a citizen – but the history of the Amendment shows that they may have taken a wrong term with some unfortunate consequences.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  118. #117–

    On the subject of civility, it’s clear you don’t believe in leading by example. The first thing you wrote on this page (and this was before I posted on this subject) was, “Near as I can tell, everybody’s wrong on this issue. But why should this be any different than the last 100 years. Immigration law has been screwed up since the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the law has only gotten stupider since.” #14. Now who the hell are you to lecture anybody about civility? Everybody’s wrong! The law is stupid because I don’t like it! Hypocrite.

    In any event, I think civility has no place when one is responding to a person who’s been as intellectually dishonest as you’ve been. If you say–as you did in the third paragraph of #84–that no one who shares my views lives in a border state, then you are a liar.

    Or do you think Michael Savage doesn’t live in California?

    I don’t care if you live in a border state. What you live every day isn’t other people’s opinions. Just because you live in a border state doesn’t excuse your Clintonian distortions.

    And apparently your view of what you purport to live every day is incomplete, which makes me think you’re not much of an authority at all on this issue. Are you living the effects of the disproportionate crime committed by illegals? Are you living the hospitals shutting down because of illegals flooding the system and taking free services? I seriously doubt that you are.

    Oh, another lie I forgot to call you out on–you accuse me of nativism by saying that I listen to Know-Nothings. When did I lash out at immigrants? I thought I was talking about illegal immigrants. Oh, but I guess that opposing illegal immigration is tantamount to opposing all immigration, legal and illegal. More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

    You accused me of adding nothing but noise. You think you’re any different when you fling baseless accusations of bigotry? At least my noise isn’t composed of LIES, like yours.

    Alan (a50118)

  119. #117–

    As to civility, I see you don’t believe in leading by example. Here’s the first thing you wrote on this page:

    Near as I can tell, everybody’s wrong on this issue. But why should this be any different than the last 100 years. Immigration law has been screwed up since the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the law has only gotten stupider since.

    Oh, that’s very civil, isn’t it? EVERYBODY’S WRONG! THE LAW IS STUPID!

    Oh, and if you don’t want me to accuse you of dishonesty, don’t be dishonest. You said in #84 that no one who holds my view on this issue lives in a border state. Um, that’s a complete lie. What do you expect people to call you when you tell a lie?

    Alan (a50118)

  120. Cum Free Cum Young Cum…

    I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

    Cum Free Cum Young Cum (d82470)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4949 secs.