Patterico's Pontifications

1/31/2014

GOP Declaration of “Principles” Regarding Immigration

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 am

I guess I need to do a post on the new GOP “Declaration of Principles” that says we will give illegals a “probationary” status that we will never ever ever take away for any reason, as long as something something border security.

So, here is the post.

Republicans have to do this because it’s how they will get tons and tons of Latino votes. We know this because Democrats tell us so. And why would Democrats lie about that?

I don’t have a huge problem with some sort of DREAM act style of path of legalization for young people whose illegal status is no fault of their own. I have no problem legalizing folks who want to serve this country in the military. I am happy to completely transform immigration laws to allow multiple times the number of legal immigrants from Mexico, as long as they are free of diseases and criminal records. What I cannot support, what I will not sanction, is an effort to reward adult people who break our laws as their first act in this country.

But mine is a lone voice in the wilderness. It has been decided that, for the good of the Republican party, we must say to hell with our laws. Give the illegals the vote.

I can’t say it better than Ace:

GOP Announces Declaration of Principles For Why You Should Vote Third Party

And they’re compelling reasons, too.

This is part of the reason I gave up on politics and stopped identifying as a Republican. There is no point supporting a Team of Losers who furthermore don’t even actually have the same goals in mind I do. Not that that would make a big difference, as they are Losers, and cannot advance their goals.

I have listened a lot to libertarian podcasts lately and while I love love love their economics, they are insane in the membrane on international policy and criminal law. So it’s not like there is an organized and viable alternative.

But, like Ace (and many others) I don’t consider myself a Republican any more. I could, in a party that got behind someone like Ted Cruz. But this party doesn’t. So they don’t deserve my support and they don’t deserve yours. Until someone gets serious about actually doing something about the looming fiscal crisis that we all know is going to destroy this country, they should not get a dime. Save your money for the Ted Cruzes of the world.

The best solution, I think, is a very controversial one, and deserves a post of its own. Consider that a hint. I will say this: the answer is not legalizing millions of new Democrat votes.

207 Comments

  1. Dong.

    Comment by The Dana trying for the first comment (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:37 am

  2. Look, I’m as Republican as anyone, but we’re about to do with Hispanics just what was done with blacks: give the Democrats a lock on 90% of their votes. The Hispanics are here, and they are not going away, period, and anyone who thinks they are is obviously using the recreational pharmaceutical legalized in Colorado.

    Even if we manage to find a way to keep the illegal immigrants themselves from ever voting, their children are here, they are being born here, as American citizens, and they will be able to vote. If the GOP ever wants anything more than 10% of their votes, the GOP has to get on board, now, on getting these people legal.

    We’ve had many episodes of trying to exclude immigrants in our past, from “no Irish need apply” to restrictions on Chinese “coolies,” and none of them have ever worked; why should we think that trying to exclude Hispanic immigrants would work any better?

    Comment by The Dana trying for the first substantive comment (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:43 am

  3. OPen up immigration for everyone Ellis Island style if we’re going to grant new citizenship. The catch should be that you can only apply at foreign embassies.

    Comment by DejectedHead (a094a6) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:59 am

  4. Democrats want to give illegal immigrants amnesty. For Hispanics who think that’s a make-or-break issue when it comes to their vote, I don’t see how promising to give illegal immigrants something less than amnesty will win their votes. And it certainly won’t win the votes of those illegal immigrants who will be able to vote after the Democratic Senate goes to conference committee and passes a bill that gives them amnesty.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:08 am

  5. In other words, why should Hispanics who think amnesty is important ever vote Republican? They know the Democrats own that issue and that’s who they will vote for. No matter what the GOP does, it will never measure up to what the Democrats promise.

    The better plan is to work on assimilating Hispanics into our naturally conservative culture.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:10 am

  6. Let’s say a parent robs a bank and gives the money to his kids. Then he gets caught and goes to jail.

    Do the kids get to keep the money? No, they do not. Anything they haven’t spent will be confiscated and anything the wronged party can get back will be recovered. It’s the same way for most any crime.

    And it should be the same for illegal immigration. If you’re brought in illegally, you don’t get to keep the benefits. Yeah, it wasn’t your fault, that’s why you don’t go to jail. The person who did it to you is the one who broke the law. That’s the person to blame.

    We can’t confiscate the schooling you got or the free school lunches you ate. But you don’t get to keep the citizenship just because it wasn’t your fault.

    Comment by luagha (1de9ec) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:30 am

  7. My ears perked up when I first heard that the Chamber of Commerce was supporting this. I asked, why would super-rich business support this?
    – Cheap labor. But the illegals already provide that.
    – Competent, conscientious, hard-working labor. But the illegals already provide that.
    – Cheap, competent, conscientious hard-working labor that you can use in your big businesses and not get into trouble with the government. Bingo!

    If the native-born Americans on the welfare and food stamp rolls were willing to give an employer what the Mexicans give, there would be no demand for illegals and the whole issue of illegal immigration would wither on the vine. But they are not. Legalizing the illegals will keep America productive. Maybe make it even more productive because they’ll be free to take jobs that they are even more competent for, that they cannot have now because “illegal”. AND, they will now pay taxes and help us support the drone class on the welfare and food stamp rolls. And pay for my Social Security.

    Oh, and yes. Screw the GOP. Like Lot and his family could not redeem Sodom and Gomorrah, the few like Cruz and Lee are not enough reason to spare it.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:33 am

  8. it would help if anyone involved in designing, passing, and implementing this new immigration scheme had a shred of credibility

    as it stands whatever they do is certain to be incompetently executed and rife with unforeseen consequences

    that’s just how America rolls anymore

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:36 am

  9. Ball shoot!!! GOP didn’t do anything in 10+ years about immigration, so called formed commission groups of representatives in congress expended years saying: ” we are working hard in the issue”…. and now come up with just principles?!… is ball shoot!!!…they are still playing with the american people.
    They are not going to approve anything but deportation and border enforcement…. LIARS! THAT IS WHY THEY WANT IN PIECE MEAL. when the chance to legalize people arrives they are going to come out with something to stop it….
    Mr. President use yours executive orders and legalize people to boost the economy.

    Comment by dcrety (a9fc76) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:41 am

  10. 7. Forget Walker, I changed my mind, I resolve to do nothing without considering whether it will help or hurt the GOP.

    Since I’m a thinker not a doer, it will likely escape notice.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:46 am

  11. It’s probably nothing:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-31/third-banker-former-fed-member-found-dead-inside-week

    Bankers struggle mightily with quality of life issues.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:56 am

  12. DRJ wrote:

    Democrats want to give illegal immigrants amnesty. For Hispanics who think that’s a make-or-break issue when it comes to their vote, I don’t see how promising to give illegal immigrants something less than amnesty will win their votes. And it certainly won’t win the votes of those illegal immigrants who will be able to vote after the Democratic Senate goes to conference committee and passes a bill that gives them amnesty.

    The battles over the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were over in the 1960s, but, because they were proposed by Democrats way back then, blacks gave their wholehearted support to the Democrats, after being mostly Republicans previously.

    Since then, Republicans have produced many things that ought to attract black voters, and blacks are more Protestant and religious, in general, than whites; the GOP should, by any reasonable test, attract a significant percentage of the black vote, and we get squat.

    If the Democrats can take that 90% of the Hispanic vote over this issue, Hispanic voters will remain loyal Democrats for decades, regardless of what Republican positions are.

    Our window of opportunity here is narrow, and closing fast.

    Comment by The Republican Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:06 am

  13. I utterly and completely support the House leadership on this. I live among millions of illegals. Wish I did not, but you all out there, away from the border, allowed this problem to fester for a long time. Now you talk about “enforcement.”

    Horse. Barn door.

    TWENTY YEARS AGO, California voted to shut off all government services to illegals. Prop 187 would have required proof of legal residency for schools, unemployment insurance, welfare, etc. It passed overwhelmingly.

    And the Federal courts struck it down, just like they’ve struck everything down the border states have tried. Now there are 10 million illegals in 4 border states. It is well past the point of enforcement. The only remaining option is “live with it.”

    And so we try, only to have all you lot who ignored the problem for year after year come along and tell us we’re doing it all wrong.

    Effya. Legalization is the only option left. The other ones require tanks, camps, boxcars and nifty armbands. Places most folks are not prepared to go.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:14 am

  14. What I cannot support, what I will not sanction, is an effort to reward adult people who break our laws as their first act in this country.

    I thought that for a while. But give it a try, you can get past that. The “if we make life difficult, they’ll go home” strategy has failed; life in Mexico is way the heck worse.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:19 am

  15. For those you think that Republicans cannot win Hispanic votes, see Andy Vidak’s win in a 63% Hispanic, Democrat-held district in 2013. Against a Hispanic Democrat.

    Vidak is Croatian, not Hispanic. Yet he won, flipping the seat for the first time in 20 years. How? He pointed out how badly the Democrats were serving the people of the district.

    Like other voters, Hispanics will vote their interests if you offer them a choice.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:32 am

  16. there are two links in the above.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:32 am

  17. The main point to take away from this episode is that we’re all F%#@ed. Not because of the illegal immigrants, but because OUR political leadership is incompetent and powerless to be anything but incompetent. They cannot make a good decision and if they just so happened to stumble into a good decision, they would botch it up on the implementation end.

    No matter which way this shakes out, we’re all still screwed. The individual issues don’t matter. We have systemic problems that aren’t even being addressed because there is no crisis forcing the issue.

    Comment by DejectedHead (a094a6) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:38 am

  18. I’m with Kevin M, though I know it makes me a squish/RINO/liberal or whatever we say to those of us whose conservatism is tainted. Here is what I would support in a final compromise:

    1. Support the DREAM act and allow children brought into this country by their parents a path to citizenship. Yes, I know there are good arguments why we should not reward the lawless of the parents, but the children don’t have any choice in the matter here. Citizenship for these children requires a clean record, a high school diploma, and a college degree or some kind of professional certification.

    2. Allow illegals to get a green card after paying a fine, provided they register and are fingerprinted, and make them ineligible for any public aid until they have paid federal income taxes for at least ten consecutive years.

    3. Create a pathway to citizenship for the illegals, but frankly make it a very difficult hurdle to clear so that an illegal has to make a fairly extraordinary effort. Those who serve in the military or who start businesses which employ others would have a better chance than those who work a low-wage jobs. Those who have troubles with the law (minor stuff like drunk & disorderliness or petty theft) will not face deportation, but will have virtually no chance of citizenship.

    4. Require businesses who want to hire a non-citizen to pay a heavy fee (10% of annual wages up to $5000 or something) in order to encourage them to hire citizens first.

    5. Any costs associated with processing these illegals and setting them on the path to citizenship shall be paid entirely by fees and fines levied upon them and their employers. The citizen taxpayer should not have to pay for illegal immigration.

    6. After the amnesty period, anyone caught in this country illegally will not only immediately be expelled, but they will be fingerprinted and ID’d and will be put on a list of people permanently ineligible for residency here. Any business employing future illegals will be subject to a $5000 fine for the first offense, which will double for each subsequent offense.

    7. If there are countries which refuse to cooperate with us in preventing illegal immigration, there will be no immigration allowed from those countries until they are in compliance.

    8. If border security once again becomes lax and illegals are reported to be crossing the borders, all green card applications will be held in limbo until border authorities get control of the situation.

    But the idea that we are going to be sending the current horde of illegal immigrants home is way far-fetched. As Kevin M. says, the barn door is broken and the horse has escaped; all we can do now is repair the barn door and be more vigilant about the next horse.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:39 am

  19. Dana, you naive Republican. “First fill their bellies, then teach them virtue.” Democrats give them money, and food stamps, and Obamaphones, while the Republicans (used to) talk about bootstraps. Why aren’t the Democrats worried about alienating their black base, the group with the highest unemployment, by letting the Mexicans compete for their jobs? Have you already started laughing? Because the Democrat base is not interested in jobs — it’s interested in a broadened tax base that will them money, and food stamps, and Obamaphones.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:39 am

  20. Make citizenship no more difficult than for anyone else. Five years legal permanent resident, three years if married to US citizen for two years by time of application. Anything else becomes a bureaucratic nightmare, and a twilight zone between citizen and permanent immigrant is un-American. We did it with the Chinese after the Civil War, and came to apply it to all Asians by 1926, and it was a disgrace that nobody today is proud of. Extend the same options to persons here LEGALLY on non-immigrant visas (H-1s, O-1s, J-1s, Justin Bieber) at the time of enactment of the law.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:49 am

  21. 8. it would help if anyone involved in designing, passing, and implementing this new (insert term here) scheme had a shred of credibility

    as it stands whatever they do is certain to be incompetently executed and rife with unforeseen consequences

    that’s just how America rolls anymore

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:36 am

    See Mr. feets. Sometimes I am taken with your profundity. Even if you are unaware of it. Or even may not like its more general application.

    If you insert the term “gay marriage” into the blank you’ve articulated my general objection to the idea.

    Activist judges like Vaughn Walker dismiss the idea that society devised the concept of marriage around having children because that’s an inconvenient idea for gay activists. So when in a position to pronounce otherwise, they do.

    So, marriage is now proclaimed to be no longer about responsible procreation because that excludes gays. My questions start with, does society have an interest in responsible procreation? And include, can it regulate that urge in any way that the gay lobby won’t destroy?

    As near as I can tell, the libs plan on managing the population by aborting what they can, and importing what they need.

    that’s just how America rolls anymore

    I’m not satisfied with the proposed plan. That makes me a “homophobe.”

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:58 am

  22. I’m looking on the bright side with this. If the Republicans join in and get this crap passed, I won’t have to agonize over voting for them anymore, because I’ll never vote for them again.

    Comment by Just A Guy (08458e) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:04 am

  23. 17. Astute observations.

    Our Republican friends are again missing the point badly. Nothing of substance will change with Amnesty however this sturm und drang shakes out.

    That is the whole point of the GOP obsession, that they be perceived as having a function in our Republic.

    “Out, out damned spot”.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:04 am

  24. Well, since we’re not about having kids anymore because society’s plan for safeguarding the arrangement is “homophobic,” let’s look at the plan our masters in DC are devising to grow the population through immigration.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/if-rubios-amnesty-is-so-great-why-is-he-lying/

    It’s not good.

    But don’t listen to me. I’m a “homophobe.”

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:06 am

  25. 22. Second.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:07 am

  26. Dana,

    There is no window of opportunity for voters who think amnesty is crucial to their vote. They are already solid Democratic votes because Democrats are committed to amnesty and Republicans aren’t. It’s just like abortion for those who view the absolute right to abortion, without restrictions, as an issue that defines who they are and how they vote. Acting like the Republicans can do something to win over those votes is a gift to the Democrats that will keep Republicans from winning for years, and perhaps decades, to come.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:10 am

  27. But it’s also a gift to the Tea Party and state secession movements, so if the Republicans want to self-destruct this way — go for it.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:11 am

  28. gay marriage is a

    how you Americans say

    done deal, Mr. Steve

    one must keep a stiff upper lip about such things, and press on

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:12 am

  29. Team Republican needs to be flushed.
    What a sorry lot.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:15 am

  30. “TWENTY YEARS AGO, California voted to shut off all government services to illegals. Prop 187 would have required proof of legal residency for schools, unemployment insurance, welfare, etc. It passed overwhelmingly.

    And the Federal courts struck it down”

    Kevin M – I appreciate the attempt to hold the rest of the country responsible for the failure of California legislation. NO SALE.

    Just because President Obama and Democrats decide immigration reform (amnesty) must be a priority it does not mean people on the other side of the political spectrum must follow him around like poodles wagging their tails. It is just another example of how Washington is out of touch with the American people. Immigration reform ranked 16 out of 20 on the most recent Pew survey of priorities of the American people. They don’t give a crap. Politicians do.

    2007 immigration reform failed because the American people demanded enforcement first. Democrats wanted legalization and voting first, betraying their priorities. There is no sudden fierce urgency of now compelling the country to do this fast rather than the right way.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:16 am

  31. So is the new immigration dealio!

    Pass the tequila and shut up, Mr. feets. We’ll just watch the fireworks from my sailboat.

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:22 am

  32. nk,

    It’s hard for me to believe we need more illegal immigrants given how many Americans are out of work and despair of ever finding work. Plus, like Thomas Sowell (via PowerLine), I’m not interested in supporting American industry’s continued reliance on cheap Mexican labor in a way that prevents it from making needed market adjustments.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:24 am

  33. Like Michelle Malkin says, I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative.

    Comment by CrustyB (5a646c) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:25 am

  34. It was a nice country while it lasted. But it’s destruction was ordained by the law of the land!

    So get out of the way, mofo.

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:25 am

  35. JVW,

    I quibble, in part. Using your numbers:

    3) I would not allow anyone who has come here illegally to enter the naturalization process. Pretty sure this is current law. I would not change that. They’d have to go back to theior origin country and apply for entry before they could get in line for citizenship. This is what the House plan proposes with it’s rejection of a special process.

    4) Unconstitutional. If they are legally resident, they cannot be discriminated against except for national security reasons.

    6) I’d chip them, too, before expelling them. Somewhere deep.

    7) It’s not their problem, it’s ours.

    You also forgot the back taxes that the House insists on in their proposal.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:26 am

  36. daley,

    Prop 187 wasn’t the only attempt. Since the 80′s, three Republican governors and at least one Democrat have demanded that the feds stop obstructing and either enforce the law or defray California’s huge costs for the federal malfeasance.

    Crickets.

    Where you lot then?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:33 am

  37. Two things:
    1) Like Same Sex Marriage, no matter how unpopular amnesty was, they keep trying and trying until people get tired of opposing it
    2) When the Repubs do things that just make so little sense, doesn’t it make you wonder who is really in charge and how they are pulling the strings they are pulling?
    One wonders what caliber of gun and what ammunition is being held against who’s head.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:34 am

  38. “Plus, like Thomas Sowell (via PowerLine), I’m not interested in supporting American industry’s continued reliance on cheap Mexican labor in a way that prevents it from making needed market adjustments.”

    DRJ – THIS

    It’s like artificially inshoring our offshoring without recognizing it or obeying the law.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:34 am

  39. i’m saving the tequila for to make these this weekend

    http://www.blenheimgingerale.com/the-el-diablo-with-blenheim-ginger-ale/

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:34 am

  40. Look, I’m as Republican as anyone, but we’re about to do with Hispanics just what was done with blacks: give the Democrats a lock on 90% of their votes.

    Dana, you have put succinctly the thing that has been bothering me most in this discussion.

    So, a question: Was ending Jim Crow a mistake? You seem to imply it was.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:35 am

  41. You guys do realize, don’t you, that illegal labor is MUCH cheaper than legal labor from the same immigrant?

    Legal labor costs: Minimum wage laws, FICA, Medicare, unemployment insurance, benefits, legal rights, safe workplace, etc.

    Illegal labor costs: None of the above.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:39 am

  42. I’ve decided the GOP doesn’t want to be in power and is more worried about beating the Tea Party than the Democrats. Tammy Bruce has similar thoughts.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:40 am

  43. Kevin M,

    Illegal immigrant labor works in the short run but makes it harder for industries to embrace innovation and better production methods that will be more valuable in the long run. It’s like the South wanting to keep slave labor forever.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:42 am

  44. I realize you aren’t arguing for illegal immigrant labor and you want to legalize them, but this roller-coaster we’re on between illegals and legalization creates the same dysfunction.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:44 am

  45. Yes, but that doesn’t matter a lot in manual labor trades (construction, gardening, etc). Which here in Los Angeles are completely Hispanic now. Also, waiters; actors haven’t a chance of waiting tables in Hollywood anymore.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:45 am

  46. Dana:

    Look, I’m as Republican as anyone, but we’re about to do with Hispanics just what was done with blacks: give the Democrats a lock on 90% of their votes.

    I’m no longer a Republican so you win that one. But I haven’t given up on appealing to Hispanic’s basic conservative values — things like law and order, social issues, and economic responsibility. Those are the issues that used to help Republicans win elections and they still would, if Republicans haven’t given up on them.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:47 am

  47. DRJ,

    I would rather that, in 1986, we had increased the immigration quota from Mexico to something workable (it really only covers family pull-ins now) and hardened the border. We did neither. So here we are again.

    Maybe this time it will be different.™

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:47 am

  48. Note that the House plan wants to eliminate family pull-ins, in favor of job-based sponsored immigration.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:49 am

  49. Kevin M:

    Yes, but that doesn’t matter a lot in manual labor trades (construction, gardening, etc). Which here in Los Angeles are completely Hispanic now. Also, waiters; actors haven’t a chance of waiting tables in Hollywood anymore.

    I live in West Texas where we have a lot of Hispanics and we also have jobs. What we’re seeing is Hispanics working in skilled trades so the unskilled jobs are being done by teenagers. What you describe isn’t just an Hispanic issue. It’s also a jobs/economy issue.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:50 am

  50. BTW, here’s the House plan for those that haven’t seen it:

    Standards for Immigration Reform

    PREAMBLE
    Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not the case today. The serious problems in our immigration system must be solved, and we are committed to working in a bipartisan manner to solve them. But they cannot be solved with a single, massive piece of legislation that few have read and even fewer understand, and therefore, we will not go to a conference with the Senate’s immigration bill. The problems in our immigration system must be solved through a step-by-step, common-sense approach that starts with securing our country’s borders, enforcing our laws, and implementing robust enforcement measures. These are the principals guiding us in that effort.

    Border Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First
    It is the fundamental duty of any government to secure its borders, and the United States is failing in this mission. We must secure our borders now and verify that they are secure. In addition, we must ensure now that when immigration reform is enacted, there will be a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the border illegally or overstay their visas in the future. Faced with a consistent pattern of administrations of both parties only selectively enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, we must enact reform that ensures that a President cannot unilaterally stop immigration enforcement.

    Implement Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System
    A fully functioning Entry-Exit system has been mandated by eight separate statutes over the last 17 years. At least three of these laws call for this system to be biometric, using technology to verify identity and prevent fraud. We must implement this system so we can identify and track down visitors who abuse our laws.

    Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement
    In the 21st century it is unacceptable that the majority of employees have their work eligibility verified through a paper based system wrought with fraud. It is past time for this country to fully implement a workable electronic employment verification system.

    Reforms to the Legal Immigration System
    For far too long, the United States has emphasized extended family members and pure luck over employment-based immigration. This is inconsistent with nearly every other developed country. Every year thousands of foreign nationals pursue degrees at America’s colleges and universities, particularly in high skilled fields. Many of them want to use their expertise in U.S. industries that will spur economic growth and create jobs for Americans. When visas aren’t available, we end up exporting this labor and ingenuity to other countries. Visa and green card allocations need to reflect the needs of employers and the desire for these exceptional individuals to help grow our economy.

    The goal of any temporary worker program should be to address the economic needs of the country and to strengthen our national security by allowing for realistic, enforceable, usable, legal paths for entry into the United States. Of particular concern are the needs of the agricultural industry, among others. It is imperative that these temporary workers are able to meet the economic needs of the country and do not displace or disadvantage American workers.

    Youth
    One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, those who know no other place as home. For those who meet certain eligibility standards, and serve honorably in our military or attain a college degree, we will do just that.

    Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law
    Our national and economic security depend on requiring people who are living and working here illegally to come forward and get right with the law. There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits). Criminal aliens, gang members, and sex offenders and those who do not meet the above requirements will not be eligible for this program. Finally, none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced.
    /blockquote>

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:51 am

  51. clear tags

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:52 am

  52. Kevin M:

    Maybe this time it will be different.™

    I guess that’s where we disagree. Maybe you’re right but I think this will be the roller coaster that never ends, because the Democrats don’t want it to end and there will always be more Mexicans waiting to come to the promised land. If I’m right, the House plan is another nail in the Republican’s coffin.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:52 am

  53. Kevin M,

    It doesn’t matter what the House plan is. It will go to conference and most of the Senate plan will be become law. This will be amnesty, pure and simple.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:53 am

  54. 39. i’m saving the tequila for to make these this weekend

    http://www.blenheimgingerale.com/the-el-diablo-with-blenheim-ginger-ale/

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:34 am

    Well then screw u. Least u could do for the ride is share he te-killya. So walk or bus or jeep to Costa Rica I don’t care.

    But NOOO!

    You’re saving the tequila.

    Well good for you.

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 10:57 am

  55. Heh! From the little I know about California’s proposition system, there are two kinds: 1) The ones Sacramento doesn’t like and refuses to defend in court and/or implement through enabling legislation; and 2) the ones it does like but cannot pass because of fear of future political fallout or disagreement on division of the spoils. How popular was Proposition 187 in sacramento? Because, you know, no matter what the courts did to it, the Assembly could have passed more focused, narrow laws that would have been Constitutional instead of putting on a show of whining to the feds.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:02 am

  56. “You guys do realize, don’t you, that illegal labor is MUCH cheaper than legal labor from the same immigrant?

    Legal labor costs: Minimum wage laws, FICA, Medicare, unemployment insurance, benefits, legal rights, safe workplace, etc.”

    Kevin M – You might convince me if you could point to staunch Democrat support for measures like E-verify, policing the EITC for fraud, or that Obama would not just issue Executive Orders or instruct agencies through executive actions to waive provisions of any reforms enacted. I have absolutely no faith that can be avoided with this lawless administration in office.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:06 am

  57. Dana,

    If what Erick Erickson says is true — and I admit we don’t know it is, but I think it’s plausible because Boehner has done this before (as described at Erickson’s link) — then how can you support this?

    John Boehner and his friends will craft a package behind closed doors. They will leak it to the press. They will attack conservatives for daring to oppose that which they have not seen. Then he will rush through a package as quickly as possible, relying on Democrat votes to get it done.

    The Chamber of Commerce will be happy, the base will not be, and Boehner can retire to a cushy K-Street job with Chambliss, Latham, and his other BFF’s who are retiring this year.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:13 am

  58. nonono you’re welcome to share but please to enjoy the tequila in the form of the proffered cocktail

    I scored the ginger ale off amazon prime and I’m very excited plus this week has been no bueno in some key respects

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:16 am

  59. That’s no position. That’s the MSNBC position.

    I want a Great Wall of California. I want frigging sharks with lazer beams on their heads patroling the San Diego coast for swimmers.
    I want the President to issue threats to the Mexican government, if they don’t stop the inflow we’ll invade, take over their shitty little country, and run it the right way.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:22 am

  60. Most Republicans here have argued that the GOP should keep the focus on ObamaCare, Obama and his economic policies. Now the House leadership is handing Obama a lifeline on immigration — something he and Harry Reid could never have done by themselves. How will this hurt the Democrats and/or help the GOP in 2014?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:23 am

  61. Ludicrous blog post, but altogher predicable from the cocooned demographics which dominate Internet and talk radio circles.

    FYI, if you give work visas and then green cards to a bunch of illegal landscapers, hotel maids and dish washers it doesn’t create “millions of new Democrat votes.” That’s a cynical straw man argument imbued with cloudy thinking. There aren’t that many people who’ll receive legal status and given turnout rates even for WASPs in gated communities in the ‘burbs not that many of these newly-minted work visa holders would vote, even if eventually they went past green cards and obtained citizenship. Plus giving a four-year-old citizenship couldn’t create a voter for another fourteen years, much less a Democrat voter, and by then who’s to say they’ll even register much less vote for anyone in particular?

    This issue is one of macro economics, labor economics, public finance, law enforcement and morals. Reagan understood that. And Reagan’s amnesty plan might have worked wonders if Democrats didn’t control the purse strings and if not too long afterwards Ross Perot and his ilk gifted Clinton with two terms in office.

    The brutal reality, however, is that on the Interent and in talk radio circles they see dark-skinned, working class Catholics as the beneficiaries of these reforms, and that’s simply too much to countenance.

    Comment by Lawrence Westlake (4fc30a) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:25 am

  62. Media: ‘If you’re the Republicans where are your immigration reform proposals?’

    Republicans: ‘Immigration Reform? We ain’t got no immigration reform proposals. We don’t need no immigration reform proposals! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ immigration reform proposals!’

    Let it burn.

    h/t The Treasure of Sierra Madre, 1948.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:28 am

  63. Thanks for your insightful commentary, Mr Westlake.

    Comment by JD (2bd35e) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:31 am

  64. We’ve had many episodes of trying to exclude immigrants in our past, from “no Irish need apply” to restrictions on Chinese “coolies,” and none of them have ever worked; why should we think that trying to exclude Hispanic immigrants would work any better?

    Who is trying to exclude Hispanic immigrants? Conflating g legal and illegal immigrants does not make a compelling argument.

    Comment by JD (2bd35e) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:33 am

  65. Lawrence Westlake – Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:38 am

  66. The brutal reality, however, is that on the Interent and in talk radio circles they see dark-skinned, working class Catholics as the beneficiaries of these reforms, and that’s simply too much to countenance.

    Bunch of racists!

    Plus giving a four-year-old citizenship couldn’t create a voter for another fourteen years, much less a Democrat voter, and by then who’s to say they’ll even register much less vote for anyone in particular?

    CNN’s demographics department for one.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121109110054-voter-turn-out-by-race-story-top.jpg

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:44 am

  67. I just don’t see immigration reform as the most pressing issue before congress at this time. I don’t even see it in the top 10. It’s the economy which is most pressing. Lower taxes, regulations, the power of government entities like the EPA. Get rid of entire agencies like the department of education (we didn’t need it for over 200 years). Reduce the size of government.

    Those and more are more pressing than immigration reform. What they are doing tells me that they despise us and don’t really care to do what’s best for this country.

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:45 am

  68. 58. nonono you’re welcome to share but please to enjoy the tequila in the form of the proffered cocktail

    I scored the ginger ale off amazon prime and I’m very excited plus this week has been no bueno in some key respects

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:16 am

    Well then things are different. The only other condition is that you have to help man the quarter pounder on the foredeck.

    I recently had the old girl reinforced because the pounding of the guns ruined the crystal. Glass shards everywhere. Ghastly.

    As long as you’re willing to share and help fight our way out of the harbor, welcome aboard!

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:48 am

  69. How about passing a law that makes IRS employees accountable under the law? Then they can’t say, “we were just following orders”. For that matter, make all government employees accountable to the law where they could be taken to court and serve jail time.

    If a government employee cannot be held accountable for their actions, why should they obey the law?

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:53 am

  70. How about starting with the principle that the United States has borders, and laws, that ought to be respected?

    When was that principle abandoned?

    Comment by Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:55 am

  71. 17. Cont.

    Today in Atlanta the Morality Play continues, with only incidental contributions from the GOP.

    No amount of money can protect Atlantans from 3 inches of snow falling on warm pavements with air temps well below freezing.

    Just as in 2011, if there is a chance public service monies can be saved for kickbacks, bribes and inducements, they will be and sheeple will be left to their own devices.

    The only lesson to be gleaned is don’t be sheeple.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:58 am

  72. 66. I thin it recently polled as very important to 3% of the public.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:00 pm

  73. All I can say is it is fun to see the libertarian/Republican coalition fracture. I used to have libertarian sympathies, but seriously, no longer. I don’t expect anyone here to agree. Some of us notice how nice northern Europe states are.

    Comment by Snip (031824) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:00 pm

  74. 56. Precisely. The middle class Mexican citizens who work and summer here in MN, have no interest in becoming citizens, no interest really in learning English, no interest in assimilating, etc., NTTIAWWT en toto.

    Of course, along with them are lower class non-citizens of these disunitied states.

    I am certain some in the GOP have noting but revenues and entitlement relief in mind, but that is fairy dust.

    Their real obsession is the MFM and therein their perceived status as ‘the Party of No and Obstruction’.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:12 pm

  75. Mr M asked:

    Dana, you have put succinctly the thing that has been bothering me most in this discussion.

    So, a question: Was ending Jim Crow a mistake? You seem to imply it was.

    No, it was not a mistake at all. The mistake came in that the Republicans, at the time no force at all in the South, allowed the Democrats to take the lead and get the credit for getting it done. There were more Republican than Democratic votes in the Congress for this, but it doesn’t matter, because a Democrat was President. If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election, and he had cared about this, everything might have been different.

    Comment by The sadly realistic Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:13 pm

  76. DRJ wrote:

    I’m no longer a Republican so you win that one. But I haven’t given up on appealing to Hispanic’s basic conservative values — things like law and order, social issues, and economic responsibility. Those are the issues that used to help Republicans win elections and they still would, if Republicans haven’t given up on them.

    Those things ought to appeal to a lot of black voters, law-abiding black voters tired of their neighborhoods being shot up, working black voters tired of their tax dollars gong to the lazy, religious black voters tired of seeing their future slaughtered by abortion and their culture being eaten up by homosexuality — remember the black vote for Proposition 8? — but we still get around 10% of the black vote, if we’re lucky.

    Comment by The very sadly realistic Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:16 pm

  77. 72. Aren’t our pets cute. Conservative, xenophobic parties have already taken seats and power in the Scandi nations.

    Of particular note, Iceland, threw off their oppressors, defaulted on their national debt, arrested the bankers and are making progress returning to their roots.

    And some call time done in public schools an education.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:18 pm

  78. It doesn’t matter what the House plan is. It will go to conference and most of the Senate plan will be become law. This will be amnesty, pure and simple.

    I sincerely hope not. I cannot see the Republicans in the House going any further out on this limb. Instead, I see them washing their hands of it, saying that it is the Democrat’s poison pills that prevent illegals from having a better life, and that the Democrats only want the votes and don’t care about the people involved.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:19 pm

  79. My needs are simple. I just don’t think I should have to be fluent in Spanish to order food, to get my driveway snowplowed and the trees pruned. I don’t think American teachers should all have to be bi-lingual. The American people are reticent about immigration reform not because they don’t welcome immigrants–we do and always have– but because of all the unkept promises of the past and the unprecedented lack of assimilation currently.

    At the last election voters could hardly even negotiate the ballot in my county because after the most recent census by law all the races had to be readable in both English and Spanish, and the wording was all smooshed in. More and more grocery/food packaging including the nutrition chart and directions for use are in two languages, which requires smaller printing that nobody can read.

    Past immigrants to the United States were never so resistant to becoming English speakers. They considered it to be important and proof of a tangible commitment. Our pols could do the country and the immigrants themselves a huge favor by incentivizing the use of English as a national language.

    Comment by elissa (5db7fc) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:20 pm

  80. You might convince me if you could point to staunch Democrat support for measures like E-verify,

    Democrats don’t care about non-union labor. Union labor doesn’t have these issues.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:21 pm

  81. Amphipolis wrote:

    How about starting with the principle that the United States has borders, and laws, that ought to be respected?

    When was that principle abandoned?

    Years and years and years ago. We’ve got millions of people who think nothing of smoking pot, we’ve got millions and millions of people who are perfectly content to shop at a Seven/Eleven and just assume that the Mexican behind the counter is here legally, we’ve got people giving up on homosexual marriage, we’ve got all sorts of wink-and-a-nodding going on all around us.

    Comment by The historian Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:22 pm

  82. I was so hoping that someone like the esteemed Mr. Westlake would do a drive-by to this site and pompously call us racists. Because forget the whole delineation between legal and illegal immigration; they didn’t cross the borders, the borders crossed them, right Larry?

    And the bonus accusation of us being anti-Catholic (I’ll have to confess that one before Mass tomorrow afternoon) leads me to believe that Mr. Westlake is from the Roger Mahoney school of immigration debate — just ascribe the most intolerable base motives to your opponents and declare victory.

    Comment by JVW (46aeb7) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:23 pm

  83. elissa wrote:

    Past immigrants to the United States were never so resistant to becoming English speakers. They considered it to be important and proof of a tangible commitment. Our pols could do the country and the immigrants themselves a huge favor by incentivizing the use of English as a national language.

    Past immigrants to the United States came by boat, and knew that they were never going back, could never go back.

    Comment by The historian Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:25 pm

  84. 43. Excellent analogy.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:25 pm

  85. Dana,

    (74) We don’t disagree, except maybe about Nixon. His Southern Strategy was to pick up the disaffected whites from the Democrats. He succeeded in that, but (coupled with Goldwater’s ongoing hostility to civil rights legislation) the Democrats stole the entire plot.

    The reason I bring this up is that if you asked who would benefit from voting rights for blacks in, say, 1957, the obvious answer would be the Republicans. But they allowed themselves, time and again, to miss the opportunity. If they had hung together in ’57 on the CRA of the day, and not let the Dems put it in a Dixiecrat-controlled committee for gutting, they would have blacks voting for them today. It is interesting to note exactly who voted to gut the bill. Sure, there’s Goldwater, among 5 Republicans, but there’s also JFK among the 34 Democrats.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:31 pm

  86. Dana:

    I sincerely hope not. I cannot see the Republicans in the House going any further out on this limb.

    They won’t have to. Democrats in the House will to join Boehner and his supporters to pass the bill.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:32 pm

  87. BUt I digress. It is not clear who, at lest in the long run, will benefit from adding millions of hard-working, family-oriented, traditional Catholics to the national family. The voting thing is best understood as a penalty and a precedent: illegal immigration bars you from ever attaining citizenship, so try the legal route.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:34 pm

  88. They won’t have to. Democrats in the House will to join Boehner and his supporters to pass the bill.

    Name the last time Boehner did something that stupid/suicidal.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:35 pm

  89. Kevin M:

    Instead, I see them washing their hands of it, saying that it is the Democrat’s poison pills that prevent illegals from having a better life, and that the Democrats only want the votes and don’t care about the people involved.

    Nevertheless, once again, the Democratic message to Hispanics will be that Democrats are the only ones who care about them and amnesty for illegals. Republicans will be the bad guys voting “No.” Who do you think they will believe?

    PS — My comment 85 should have been addressed to Kevin M, not Dana.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:37 pm

  90. Kevin M:

    Name the last time Boehner did something that stupid/suicidal.

    The debt limit vote from October 2013:

    U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has been telling fellow Republicans that he won’t allow the U.S. to default on its debt, even if that requires Democratic votes, according to two Republican congressional aides.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:39 pm

  91. That is Erick Erickson’s point, Kevin M. Boehner is following the debt limit template in this immigration legislation. His goal isn’t to beat the Democrats. His goal is to undermine the conservative Tea Party part of the Republican coalition — and he’s willing to do it because he’s retiring, and it’s his gift to the Chamber of Commerce, the K Street lobbyists anxious to hire him, and the GOP leaders coming up behind him.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:43 pm

  92. I guess that’s where we disagree. Maybe you’re right but I think this will be the roller coaster that never ends, because the Democrats don’t want it to end and there will always be more Mexicans waiting to come to the promised land. If I’m right, the House plan is another nail in the Republican’s coffin.

    There’s another side of that coin, DRJ: A majority of Americans, including many that vote for our preferred candidates, seem to really really like their entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, public pensions, etc. As we all know, these are in effect pyramid schemes and require a ever-growing population to support them. Since American citizens are no longer reproducing at an adequate replacement rate — let alone one sufficient to support a retired population that is going to live longer on average than ever before — we have to import in new workers, much like Western Europeans have done to address their plunging birth rates.

    So the reality is that unless we are going to accept a paring back of entitlements, or unless American families decide to start having large families again, we are going to keep bringing in immigrants from all over (but especially Latin America). Sure many of them will be doctors and engineers, but lots and lots of them will be busboys and hotel maids too.

    Comment by JVW (3ea5c8) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:43 pm

  93. 87. /sarc off

    17. Cont.

    Here’s another example, the compassionate conservatives(cough) in MI administering Detroit bankruptcy propose to pay pensioners at twice the rate of vendors.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-31/bankruptcy-ussa-detroit-bondholders-about-be-gmed-favor-pensioners

    Which will definitely get the vendors attention. The pensioners, for their part ought to be mollified.

    Until the next bankruptcy.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:46 pm

  94. “Democrats don’t care about non-union labor. Union labor doesn’t have these issues.”

    Kevin M – Sure they care. Just look at the case in front of the Supreme Court about mandating home health care workers in Illinois join a union even if they are the parent of the person they are caring for. The Democrat governor mandated that as payback to the unions. They are looking to add to union ranks wherever they can to offset losses elsewhere. Minimum wage is a big issue for Democrats and unions because many union contracts are pegged to it.

    My point is that just because some jackholes in Washington or labor or the Chamber of Commerce say jump does not mean we actually have to react. Nothing has changed. Lucy will just pull away the football again unless it is done right.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:48 pm

  95. Immigrants use larger amounts of welfare-related entitlements so I don’t see how that helps in the short run, JVW. Expanding legal immigration and making sure it excludes the destitute is a better plan.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:49 pm

  96. What’s important to Congress (and the President) are two important principles:

    (1) Will this help get me (and my party) re-elected, and

    (2) Will this help my (and my party’s) funding (see #1.)

    Nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING is more important — or even in third or fourth place. For a scattered few, sometimes some other concept — the welfare of the nation, how we will be seen in a century, what will the world be like when even my grandchildren are dead — will sometimes appear for a while in fifth place, but such delusions are soon shouted down.

    We have an “I’m in power” system, and both parties act to keep it that way. I stopped being a Republican when being Pro-Life was became a state-wide litmus test for membership at the precinct level, late 1980s. I carried a lot of water for the elephant, but no more.

    It’s broken, and they don’t want to fix it, they are not going to fix it, they want to use it as it is to maintain and increase their power.

    The first book of Tom Kratman’s Carrera series, A Desert Called Peace, is available at the Baen Free Library; a multi-class society that’s darker than Heinlein was, and in someways seeming more attached to our coming reality.

    I heard you, Republicans, you told me to FOAD. Now you want me back? There could be NO ompromises, remember, none? FOAD yourself, elephant. (And the same to you, donkey.)

    Comment by htom (412a17) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:57 pm

  97. “…..Democrats only want the votes and don’t care about the people involved.”

    DRJ – I don’t think this can be stressed strongly enough given past actions. Look at the actions of Clinton and Gore to accelerate the naturalization process in the late 1990s. Look at their continuing refusal to fund border security measures without legalization. Look at their refusal to consider employment verification without legalization. The record speaks for itself.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:03 pm

  98. 91. No doubt Blue States believe they have the muscle to make every solution fit their circumstances irrespective of the consequences elsewhere.

    Unfortunately the “window of opportunity” is closing fast.

    The current emerging market liquidity crisis that has catalyzed a bear S&P, was set off because of he aforementioned $35 Trillion Stimulus of the PBoC, Federal Reserve and BoJ being currently wound down.

    We are entering a period, of unknown duration, of deflation. There is not enough currency to blow the global bubble higher and it must collapse by fits and starts.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:04 pm

  99. 95. ” NOTHING is more important ”

    Hear, o sleeper, awake!.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:07 pm

  100. daleyrocks,

    That is a quote from Kevin M but I agree with you both that it’s true. The problem is that voters who view amnesty as an important issue aren’t going to care why Democrats support amnesty. They will only care that Democrats support amnesty with more reliability and fervor than Republicans.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:09 pm

  101. DRJ – I knew that was a quote from Kevin M because I pulled it out of your comment replying to him. :)

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:21 pm

  102. The Declaration of Prrinciples shows they haven’t thought this thing through.

    Apparently what they did is they tried to do is figure out what could get Democrat votes.

    I went through some of the problems with these proposals on the other thread.

    Border Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First

    Just what does that mean anyway?

    If taken seriously, it means that nothing else will happen.

    How much border security is enough, anyway?

    Aren’t there enough people getting killed who cross the border? Don’t think enforcement can get any stronger without getting more people killed. Anybody that thinks there can be more enforcement without more deaths – of children too! – is living in a dream world.

    Well, what would work, is offering instant amnesty to anyone who crossed the border provide they explaioned truthfully how they did it, but too many people are stuuck on the idea that thes eklaws are something moral and just that must be enforced for that to be a live proposal.

    Now what President Bush II said was that if you want a law to be enforced, then have a law that fewer people want to break. People can also be channeled.

    Implement Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System

    I think there are a lot of people who don’t want that, because, need I point out, that could bar a lot of Europeans and other tourists – and Canadians – from the United States for a long time, and create all kinds of trouble for anything that draws an international audience – medical conferences, even.

    The penalty for overstaying a visa is too strong. If it was a small, not too unreasonable fine, and nothing more at all, it might be tolerated.

    Right now, if somebody quietly leaves too late, there’s no record and no problem.

    There’s a reason this wasn’t implemented.

    Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement

    Charles Schumer was the first (or a very early) backer of that.

    This of course, will only drive more of the economy underground. Certainly, if you don’t do a complete amnesty first. And this proposal says not to.

    People will have an incentive to figure out a way around it. People will figure out a way around it. In certain localities and states it will be unpopular.

    It will also force businesses to act idiotically or discriminate illegally because the way this kind of thing works now, no verification is allowed before a hiring decision is made, but only afterwards. So go hire people and then fire them after three days. Right.

    It will never be applied to small businesses and homes. And it will never work except at the cost of closing down many businesses during the transition period. I didn’t know the Republicans wanted to wreck the economy.

    It will make many businesses, particularly farms, but also construction, dependent for their very continued existence on the vagaries of what’s going on in Congress. Who has confidence in Congress like that? Do you? So why would you want such a law to be enforced?

    One day they can hire people to pick the crop and then another they can’t.

    I can really see this helping politicians get re-elected..

    This also will drive more young women into prostitution. It will greatly harm homeless people. It already does. It will trap many other people.

    Now if you just want to make sure a Social Security number is real – but what you get then is identity theft.

    For far too long, the United States has emphasized extended family members and pure luck over employment-based immigration.

    No law that reduces any form of currently legal immigration wll pass. And not supporting family reunification is exactly what will repel Hispanics and other recent immigrants. The human element comes first.

    Youth

    The problem here, is that they want to say this is a one-time thing, which they do by touting enforcement. This is the logic trap the Republican Party is in.

    Obviously what is true in 2014, will also be true in 2034. Everyone knows there will never be and can never be enough “enforcement” to trigger any amnesty.

    Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law

    Amnesty in other words, but the problem is the conditions are too tough, particularly the requirement to pay back taxes. Now I would say, if you want to actually collect taxes, rather than prevent amnesty, you have people report their employers and have the employers owe the taxes. Because after all the wage agreed to was net.

    If you mean taxes in the future this is starting to happen.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:34 pm

  103. 95. As Steyn has begun referring to the “toxic husk” of the GOP, conservatism is without representation in Government.

    And frankly, if not our fault, it is conservatives responsibility. Perhaps a parliamentary system would have been a better choice, but no matter, we must fix our system of government and the Potemkin opposition is unreformable.

    To abuse John Donne, if you found a candidate true and fair, by the time we visited with him in office, he would be Mavericks bitch.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:38 pm

  104. 12.DRJ wrote:

    Democrats want to give illegal immigrants amnesty. For Hispanics who think that’s a make-or-break issue when it comes to their vote, I don’t see how promising to give illegal immigrants something less than amnesty will win their votes.

    Democrats want to milk the issue and split the Republican Party.

    To counter that the Republican Party must agree to disagree internally and make the issue mostly dead by passing amnesty, and also run somewhat on his left. Local option would be a good proposal.

    It actually conforms with the U.S. constitution which gave the Congress power over naturalization, not immigration just like it gave it power over bankruptcy and not contract law. Federal power is either a result of sovreignity or derivative of the poower to regulate foreign commerce.

    If this is not done a trap awaits the next Republican Presidential nominee. Will he continue Obama’s non-enforcement, or not?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:39 pm

  105. 12. Comment by The Republican Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 9:06 am

    The battles over the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were over in the 1960s, but, because they were proposed by Democrats way back then, blacks gave their wholehearted support to the Democrats, after being mostly Republicans previously.

    Actually the big switch tiook place between about 1932 and 1936. African Americans were as universally repoublican in 1928 as they were Democrats 50 years later.

    What did it was machine politics in the North, and the fact they did not associate these democrats with the otehr kind, and the depression.

    Also Hoover had started in 1928 to try to create a white Republican Party in the south.

    Republicans need to be attacked by Numbers USA.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:45 pm

  106. Splitting the Republican party is not an issue.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

    Leadership is an issue. Fidelity to principles, ideologies, and traditions are an issue.

    Third party elections of Senators are unlikely, of Representatives difficult but in these days of WWW surely a candidate for President could weasel into second place or better.

    Look at what they have to compete against. The problem isn’t a candidate its us.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:49 pm

  107. Who the hell cares what Blue State ‘conservatives’ think or want? They can’t elect a dog catcher of their liking.

    ‘Eff them, pick some one the Red States can leap off their chairs over.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:54 pm

  108. daleyrocks #100,

    My earlier comment sounded like I was correcting you but I didn’t mean it that way. I simply didn’t want it to seem like I was taking credit for Kevin M’s observation. Unfortunately, now I’m in jeopardy of looking like Ms. Nit Picky.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:58 pm

  109. gary gulrud:

    Leadership is an issue. Fidelity to principles, ideologies, and traditions are an issue.

    Well said.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 1:59 pm

  110. “Anybody that thinks there can be more enforcement without more deaths – of children too! – is living in a dream world.”

    Sammy – If you are claiming that the U.S. Government is responsible for killing illegal immigrant children I suppose you have some good support for that claim you could provide, right?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:01 pm

  111. “My earlier comment sounded like I was correcting you but I didn’t mean it that way.”

    DRJ – Heh. That’s what I thought, but I think we’ve been on the same page on this thread. No problems here.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:03 pm

  112. Sammy Finkelman:

    To counter that the Republican Party must agree to disagree internally and make the issue mostly dead by passing amnesty, and also run somewhat on his left. Local option would be a good proposal.

    The issue won’t be dead if amnesty passes. It will be resolved, but that resolution will alienate the GOP base and may, in fact, drive off a portion of the base.

    As for a local option proposal regarding immigration, that’s not possible. Immigration is a matter of federal law that local governments and laws can’t supersede. (See, for example, Arizona.)

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:04 pm

  113. daleyrocks,

    I, too, think we are on the same page here.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:05 pm

  114. 111. The problem of Amnesty for conservatives is not the immediate consequences, that the sweet little Mexican kids bring lice into school, get immunizations and school lunches off our property taxes.

    Sure we notice those things, and occasionally blow hot over them.

    But that is not the high crime, preposterous scandal here. It is that these parasites we elected to represent us, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, who have every perk their heart desires can perpetrate this sham over our insistent objections and continue to roll over on their duty.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:12 pm

  115. When we say ‘let it burn’ none of us has a torch, lit but unused, in our hands.

    Rather its buckets of water our arms are weary of toting.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:15 pm

  116. Boehner is awful. His “negotiation strategy” is even worse. His principled amnesty plan is now his best case scenario. When negotiating, it tends to be not-at-all helpful to tell the other side that you are desperate to resolve a matter, and will act in a manner contrary to your best interests to resolve it.

    Comment by JD (2bd35e) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:17 pm

  117. Not helpful?

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/shock-video-oklahoma-constituents-call-for-impeachment-execution-of-moron-obama-at-town-hall-meeting/

    Falling asleep on watch earned it, am I missing something?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:30 pm

  118. One more for the hill of ignominy:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/breaking-obama-signed-russian-nuclear-deal-in-2013-despite-knowledge-of-russias-illicit-missile-tests/

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:35 pm

  119. And the GOP wonders why I no longer give them money. If I find a candidate I like, I’ll support them directly.

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:44 pm

  120. 117) thanks Scott Brown and Mtxlplck, no seriously,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:50 pm

  121. Time to reopen the retracto file;

    http://minx.cc/?post=346852

    and go down Zernike memory way;

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 2:56 pm

  122. Mr. Speaker, a little advice if I may – don’t go to confession.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/31/2014 @ 3:27 pm

  123. Is it a federal crime to avoid regulations and labor laws by hiring, importing, illegal aliens, which they don’t apply to, so you can pocket the difference?

    Seems like a form of slavery to me. I’d be so overjoyed to read about the CEO of Armor being convicted to a hundred years at hard labor for slave trafficking.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/31/2014 @ 3:32 pm

  124. So i’d consider her words with a grain of salt;

    http://patterico.com/2006/11/02/new-york-times-lies-to-its-readers-about-the-content-of-kerrys-remarks/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 3:39 pm

  125. Teh Rethuglican War on Mexicans!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (03222e) — 1/31/2014 @ 3:54 pm

  126. Speaking of the Rethiglican war on brown peoples, a musical interlude:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbV3CrQ6Sa0

    Luciano Pavarotti – Montreal – 1978 – Adeste Fideles

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 3:56 pm

  127. Does any sane person really think it’s in the best interest of America – let alone the Republican Party – to grant amnesty and open our borders to tens of millions of ill-educated, low skilled people? Our civil society can not afford it, it will further entrench the politicians who win votes thru giveaways and lower the common denominator even more.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (03222e) — 1/31/2014 @ 4:03 pm

  128. Is Luciano Pavorotti a brown people? I’ve lost track. In any case, I’m sure brown peoples wuz harmed in the making of this video. So, enjoy!

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 4:04 pm

  129. Coronello @126

    No, it’s not sane. That’s why it must be policy.

    Comment by Steve57 (5b9a77) — 1/31/2014 @ 4:06 pm

  130. Neat hat trick, making Hezbollah seem reasonable;

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/hezbollah-and-assad-plan-offensive-on-jihadists-in-yabrud.html

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 4:18 pm

  131. If the d.c. hacks would have only enforced the laws.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/31/2014 @ 4:37 pm

  132. Breitbart is reporting in a couple of stories, that the House Retreat has not gone as hoped for by Leadership, primarily Boehner and Ryan. Where Cantor and McCarthy were was not stated.

    Evidently between ‘Not a Good Time’ and ‘Never a Good Time’ enjoyed support of 70 to 80% of the speakers.

    Obviously, just a probing attack by point men.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 4:58 pm

  133. floating trial balloons with propane, what could go wrong, gary,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:05 pm

  134. 129. Can’t they both lose?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:06 pm

  135. Good luck with that third party thing. I’m sure you’ll win lots of elections.

    Comment by JEA (fb1111) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:13 pm

  136. I am waiting for Obama to try “granting amnesty” to all the illegals. Pretty sure he can’t since it isn’t, technically amnesty (there is no law they are charged with breaking, and no sentence has been applied or threatened). But he will anyway and the usual suspects will conflate everything.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:21 pm

  137. One would think that doing something about the lawlessness of the Executive branch would be higher on the list of priorities. As long as laws are enforced or not willy-nilly, what difference does it make as to what law you propose, especially if 90%+ of the nation doesn’t care about it at the moment.

    FWIW, Dick Morris says the people of Mexico have been electing people that are more conservative and that there is some reason to think many Hispanic voters could vote “Repub”.

    But I don’t care about repubs or dems, I care about people taking a serious stand about this being a nation of laws and principles.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:21 pm

  138. R.S. McCain on the Mann libel suit against Steyn:

    Steyn’s recent column about the case doesn’t capture what is so outrageous about Mann’s lawsuit: A tenured academic whose particular hustle is the taxpayer-funded “climate change” racket ought to have the decency to pocket his ill-gotten cash and leave honest men alone, but Mann is evidently the shameless sort who thinks he deserves both government money and a good reputation.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:25 pm

  139. 134. How’s whatever passes for winning treating you, Pilgrim?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:27 pm

  140. Good luck with that third party thing. I’m sure you’ll win lots of elections.

    The only person with a chance of winning as a third party Presidential candidate in living memory was Ross Perot, and he blew it by going a bit crazy in the summer of 1992. Before that you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt.

    It is just barely possible that a Tea Party candidate could win, IF “Tea Party” wasn’t just a euphemism for the right edge of the Republican Party.

    If it was a broad-based populist a pox on both of you movement, focused on the debt and the size of government, capable of appealing to the disaffected center, it might fly. But if it’s a anti-abortion, anti-gay nativist party it will just elect Hilary.

    Been there done that. Voted for Perot ’92, then spent the 90′s in the Libertarian Party. The vote for Perot elected Clinton, but it at least put the fear of God in both parties and led to some temporarily balanced budgets.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:29 pm

  141. Well the problem is the GOP has gotten very whiggy of late, or like the early 20th liberal party in the UK,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:31 pm

  142. Let’s say that the TEAs field some candidates and they blow out the Republicans in some red districts (which is the way to build a party organization without sabotaging the overall cause).

    Then what? Do they merge back, having made their point? Or do they supplant the Republicans entirely over a few years? If the latter, have they done more than change names?

    I really don’t get what the idea of this third party is, except perhaps as a necessary demonstration. Can’t this just be done in the primaries?

    Also note that the TEA track record includes losing critical seats in Nevada, Connecticut (twice) and Indiana(!) and probably others I can’t think of offhand. Sure Rubio in Florida, but don’t we hate him now?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:39 pm

  143. Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:21 pm

    Constitutionally, the President’s pardon power is broader than that. He can grant a pardon, for any prior crimes against the United States, regardless whether the crime has been charged alleged, or even committed. See Nixon’s pardon by Ford. I see a minor difficulty in identifying the person being pardoned. Nazis are now basically extirpated, but there are other serious immigration law violators – traffickers, terrorists and such – whom we might still want to deport.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:40 pm

  144. 140. As Gallup points out less than a quarter of the population will admit to being Republican.

    Small wonder.

    Nonetheless, the lion’s share of the money available to the Right at the outset, until a contest might appear to be decided in their favor, is tied to ‘Moderates’, ‘Centrists’, ‘Pragmatists’, what have you that appeal to the big donors.

    For the most part, the loyalists are swayed by the most simplistic of appeals to ‘electability’, ‘appeal to party switchers’, etc. And these sorts are more commonly found in the sophisticated Blue States, where their electoral college supremacy within the party and total ineffectuality proper without are a millstone around conservative necks.

    What good are they? Anyone?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:44 pm

  145. Like the song goes ‘absolutely nothing say it again’

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:45 pm

  146. 141. No, not a temporary separation. Divorce.

    We are already seeing other people.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:51 pm

  147. So the Right has to accept that it can’t blow a wad on TV air time when it has no wad to blow.

    But why is that a problem, when no one is watching.

    The Right has to accept that it doesn’t have zillions to retain campaign consultants, like your Schmidts and MacKinnons and Wallaces.

    But why is that a problem, when no one is watching.

    The Right has to fight an asymmetric war.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 5:59 pm

  148. The important thing the Right has is foot soldiers, the volunteers that knock on doors, that handout flyers.

    These days the regulars can print the flyers they hand out.

    Why compete in Blue States at all if there is no constituency? Let the Collective split the vote and kick each other’s teeth in.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:23 pm

  149. “You might convince me if you could point to staunch Democrat support for measures like E-verify,”

    E-verify is in the Senate bill that passed with a lot of Democratic votes.

    Comment by d.wildst (ae20f1) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:24 pm

  150. Far be it from me to discourage the faithless allies among us from following some grandstanding demagogic Pied Piper off into a third party. While it would accomplish nothing positive, at least it would provide the rest of us some relief from their incessant whining.

    Allow me, however, to point out yet again (as I did in 2011, 2012, & 2013 when “Boehner’s imminent betrayal on amnesty” was the source of many hissy fits) that there is NO BILL. No committee hearings have been held or even scheduled. And Boehner himself did not endorse any legislation, even “in principle,” to be brought up this year.

    But don’t let me get in the way of the nutbars having their cows over it, yet again. When all your gnashing of teeth and renting of garments and otherwise demonstrating that Pavlov was oh-so-correct is done, don’t forget to apologize to Boehner and the others you have maligned.

    Just kidding. I know that calling yourself “Tea Party” means you never have to apologize for being wrong and smearing others, it just affords you the right to cry like sissies when others hit back at your attacks.

    Have a tissue.

    Comment by Estragon (19fa04) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:24 pm

  151. E-verify is in the Senate bill that passed with a lot of Democratic votes.

    Comment by d.wildst (ae20f1) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:24 pm

    The Senate bill “implements” e-Verify over TEN YEARS, giving plenty of time to eviscerate it.

    It’s been tested. It works NOW. A year is plenty of time to implement it nationally. So why take TEN unless it is to provide opportunities to get around it.

    Comment by Estragon (19fa04) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:27 pm

  152. Well that ignores the Chamber of Commerce committing 50 million to the Main Street Partnership, and Crossroads (Rove) derivative factions to defeat the Tea Party, Boehner hiring one of McCain’s staffers,
    Taillent, who worked on the last immigration bill,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:29 pm

  153. When an idea’s time has come it pops up everywhere:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-beck-sean-hannity-mark-levin-end-foolish-feud-prepared-to-move-together/

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:32 pm

  154. I found it acceptable, but unremarkable,

    http://spectator.org/articles/57589/cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-botched-speech

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:34 pm

  155. 149, 150. That’s the anti-purity crowd we’ve come to know and disrespect.

    Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving, lest you turn and be healed.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:38 pm

  156. 153. Preparing a response in advance seems to have been the instruction given, a box that constrained too tightly I imagine.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:43 pm

  157. “The Senate bill “implements” e-Verify over TEN YEARS, giving plenty of time to eviscerate it.”

    Twice as fast: 5 years. It tiers the rollout based on things like federal contracting, critical infrastructure and employer size.

    Comment by d.wildst (ae20f1) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:44 pm

  158. All this is of course moot, as Boehner has no intention of offering a single bill that the Dems can festoon.

    He will start out with a Secure The Border NOW!! bill and the House will pass it. Then he’ll tell the Senate that nothing will happen until that passes and the President begins to implement it. I doubt anybody on the right will have an issue with that.

    Then there will be a change to current immigration policy moving to a jobs-basis instead of a family basis. And again nothing much for the Dems to tack on.

    Etc.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:53 pm

  159. “Twice as fast: 5 years. It tiers the rollout based on things like federal contracting, critical infrastructure and employer size.”

    Wow! More quicker than Obamacare!

    What could go wrong?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2014 @ 6:58 pm

  160. 153. Well, Lord certainly is brave, and lucid and insightful. He’s wrong about Cathy, she’s no ‘Cuda.

    Prolly is actually liked by other women.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:00 pm

  161. 149. I do like that line “faithless allies among us”. Nasty.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:03 pm

  162. Estragon,

    Your comment is worth remembering and I, for one, promise to remember it.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:04 pm

  163. I don’t agree with it but I will remember it.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:05 pm

  164. If anyone is interested about a propaganda piece on gun control in the Central Time Zone, you can tune into 20/20 right now to see Diane Sawyer’s righteous indignation.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:07 pm

  165. I think your confidence in Boehner’s reliability is misplaced, Estragon.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:11 pm

  166. Have a tissue.

    here’s some cheese to go with your whine, Mr. Projection… share it with the rest of your friends in the Party of Stupid.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:13 pm

  167. “What could go wrong?”

    Who knows. One guy thinks 1 year is enough, another guy is worried 5 years is too quick. Can’t please everyone.

    Comment by d.wildst (ae20f1) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:13 pm

  168. 163. She must overdub before lunch, she sounds sober.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:20 pm

  169. 163. How could those creepy journos handle that gun party without Kevlar?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 7:30 pm

  170. Codependancy in need of intervention:

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/01/guest-post-in-abusive-relationship-with.html

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:01 pm

  171. —-But if it’s a anti-abortion, anti-gay nativist party it will just elect Hilary.

    Sounds like you’ve sucked up the main stream / Democratic media narrative about the Tea Party pretty deeply. Meanwhile for those who are interested in political reality, the Tea Party is about Small Government, Adherence to the Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility.

    Try taking off the left colored glasses.

    As a social conservative I reluctantly support this focus because if we go full Detroit the social issues won’t matter very much.

    Comment by red (ac28a9) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:17 pm

  172. What’s really behind il Douche’s Iran initiative?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-31/guest-post-petrodollar-petroyuan-%E2%80%93-coming-proxy-wars

    Hmmm, could it be he’s trying to protect our interests or just the reverse?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/31/2014 @ 8:23 pm

  173. The famous Dana follows up on ABC’s gun trolling:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/dana-loesch-takes-on-abcs-young-guns-propaganda-piece-video/

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 2/1/2014 @ 7:39 am

  174. 59. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/31/2014 @ 11:23 am

    How will this hurt the Democrats and/or help the GOP in 2014?

    I think they’re trying to prervent this from hurting the Republican candidate for president in 2016 by getting this out of the way, although they probably will fail, because they don’t understand the pitfalls and booby traps in this issue.

    As for 2014, most House districts are solidly Republican or Democrat. This could only affect a few Senate races, mostly in the mountain states, and they may figure the Senate candidates can take care of themselves, and there will probably be no protest 3rd pary candidates.

    Some House Republicans want to act on this only after this is past the filing date for primaries.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (344836) — 2/1/2014 @ 4:06 pm

  175. Sounds like you’ve sucked up the main stream / Democratic media narrative about the Tea Party pretty deeply. Meanwhile for those who are interested in political reality, the Tea Party is about Small Government, Adherence to the Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility.

    As I understand. I am a member of the TEAs myself, and proudly so. But there are any number of people who call themselves tea party who are just as I suggested. Usually people who are constantly talking about “the base” (which to me sounds like socons) and those darn “RINOs” and how true conservatives need to bolt the party.

    It is not clear to me that people running as “tea party members” will be small government types.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 2/1/2014 @ 4:30 pm

  176. Sammy Finkelman:

    “To counter that the Republican Party must agree to disagree internally and make the issue mostly dead by passing amnesty, and also run somewhat on his left. Local option would be a good proposal.”

    The issue won’t be dead if amnesty passes. It will be resolved, but that resolution will alienate the GOP base and may, in fact, drive off a portion of the base.

    No, it won’t.

    Once it is done, it is no longer an issue, (unless somebidy triesd to reverse it) just like amnesty for Vietnam War draft evaders was not an issue.

    Similarly, if Obamacare is repealed, that’s the end of it, and it stops hurtting the Democratic Party.

    There is, of course the issue of future immigration, but it’s not such a cut to the core
    matter. And yes, some people might not like it, but

    1) When disaster doesd not happen.

    And

    2) Other issues exist.

    It won’t lose many votes, although some will fell bad about certain politicians. But they will be a distinct minority.

    As for a local option proposal regarding immigration, that’s not possible. Immigration is a matter of federal law that local governments and laws can’t supersede. (See, for example, Arizona.)

    The federal government can delegate power to the states, and give states the right to admit more immigrants, or not admit some. (admitting some people only to states that would have them.)

    Arizona did not pretend to regulate immigration, or specify at all who was allowed to settle there or not, but only to add restrictions on the same people federal law dealt with without any permission from the federal government.

    It’s a little bit difficult to enforce, but the difference between different states is not so great, and the benefits of legality high enough, that most people would abide by state laws.

    And the states hat were more restrictive would find they had trouble recruiting new businesses and so on.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (344836) — 2/1/2014 @ 5:55 pm

  177. Well, well, well.

    Last August I was here on PP, hollering in the wilderness about the Losers in the GOP, Losers who demand the troops follow them on nonsense Loser issues, squander whatever goodwill remains, and then expect the rest of us to back up “Other Shoe” Christie, Don “Wetback” Young, Todd “Rapey” Akin, Pete “BabyDaddy” Domenici, etc. and actually play that boring “yes, but what about…” rhetorical distraction game where the Losers somehow blame RINOs and gays and Mexicans and everybody else they have alienated and kicked out of the party. So I’m happy to see Ace, Patterico, and a few others step outside that ‘echo chamber’. It feels liberating to free yourself from Losers who don’t represent you, your wallet, your principles, or your future. Enjoy your freedom!

    Comment by TimesDisliker (a7c037) — 2/2/2014 @ 1:38 pm

  178. “TWENTY YEARS AGO, California voted to shut off all government services to illegals. Prop 187 would have required proof of legal residency for schools, unemployment insurance, welfare, etc. It passed overwhelmingly.

    And the Federal courts struck it down”

    No!
    A single District Court Judge struck it down, and Grey Davis refused to appeal his decision to the 9th-Circuit.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/2/2014 @ 4:22 pm

  179. Past immigrants to the United States came by boat, and knew that they were never going back, could never go back.
    Comment by The historian Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2014 @ 12:25 pm

    Except, there are studies of immigration data from the Pre-WW-1 era that shows that upwards of 1 in 6 did go back.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/2/2014 @ 4:34 pm

  180. I would remind everyone of the sage advice of Milton Friedman:

    You can have open-borders as the Libertarians advocate, or you can have a Welfare State as the Left wants, you cannot have both.
    Pick One!

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/2/2014 @ 4:38 pm

  181. i want closed borders and no welfare.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 2/2/2014 @ 5:25 pm

  182. Why does everyone INSIST that the choice is between “universal amnesty” and “send’em all home” ??

    First, SECURE THE DAMN BORDERS.

    Then-

    Illegals who run drugs, or drive drunk & kill someone, or otherwise call the attention of law-enforcement to themselves, thus ensuring that their illegal status is discovered, get deported.

    Illegals who live peacefully, raise their families, and go about their business DON’T get deported because they DON’T call attention to themselves or their status. No, they don’t get Social Security and the other niceties of citizenship — because they’re NOT citizens. Presumably, they draw satisfaction from knowing their children are (or will be made) citizens, and will have a better life than was possible in the Old Country.

    Since the BORDERS ARE OF COURSE CLOSED, there are no (OK, very few) new illegals arriving; the problem of “people living in the shadows” (because they’ve broken the law and don’t want to get caught out and punished) gradually diminishes over the course of 3 or 4 decades.

    NOT. ALL. THAT. HARD.

    It doesn’t require another thousand-page “comprehensive” bill to make it happen, either.

    Comment by A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf) — 2/2/2014 @ 5:59 pm

  183. Social security is not limited to citizens.

    Comment by d.wildst (ae20f1) — 2/3/2014 @ 4:41 am

  184. According to democrats, voting is not limited to citizens either… or the living… or limited to one vote… etc.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (c840dd) — 2/3/2014 @ 6:44 am

  185. People like the pretentiously titled Dana and KevinM come in here and make the same damned arguments we’ve heard before. Nativism! Racism! Hordes of Republican Voters!

    1) I’m a descendent of German immigrants – I trace my family through Ellis Island back to Germany. I have worked and lived in majority minority areas for the last several years, including Hispanic neighborhoods. If you put Poland or Germany or Australia or Japan or India or whoever else on our southern border, I would still be opposed to mass illegal immigration because sovereign states need to control their borders.

    2) Speaking of bias and other countries, what about immigration from countries other than Mexico? Isn’t it unfair that we basically have a giant exception in our immigration system for Mexico? Why should we cut deals with Mexico rather than Cuba or the Philippines, both former US colonies? What about China and India, who have the largest populations and considerably skilled workforces? Europe, the source of our most successful past immigration wave? Hell, why not Kurdistan and other areas of US support in the Middle East?

    3) Were I move to Germany, I would not expect everything to be written in English for me, nor would I expect that Germans change all kinds of things to accommodate me. My admission to Germany would be based on German needs, not mine.

    Do we really need to add a vast amount of job seekers when our unemployment is this high? Why are we not working to assimilate our immigrant subcultures to the point that they are no longer a political bloc? This is simply applying the same standards as we would expect if we moved to another part of the world.

    4) People like Kevin and Dana don’t like to talk about the large amount of criminals crossing our completely unsecured southern border. We need a fence just to have some control over who we let in, even if we want to grant amnesty. Secure the border now, and the rest of the issues can come later. Until the border is secure, forget it.

    Comment by OmegaPaladin (f4a293) — 2/3/2014 @ 8:49 am

  186. It’s very simple. Unemployed native-born American workers cannot compete with Mexicans for productivity. Not even begin to. From the Europeans, I have seen only the Polish measure up — the rest are as worthless as Obama at age 17. Asians compete for different jobs than Mexicans — they employ Mexicans.

    The rest of what you said is bulls**t. Immigration should not be used as a foreign policy tool when our foreign policy is a clusterf**k at the best of times. The Tsarnaev brothers, and the Albanians who plotted to bomb Fort Dix, are a good example of what happens when we do that. We should look ONLY for people who provide a measurable benefit to America.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 2/3/2014 @ 9:01 am

  187. 185. Comment by OmegaPaladin (f4a293) — 2/3/2014 @ 8:49 am

    Isn’t it unfair that we basically have a giant exception in our immigration system for Mexico?

    Of course, but there’s something called pragmatism.

    Until 1968, the exception (that is no quota, only the no public charge = sponser requirement needed to be met) was for all of the Western hemisphere, except colonies.

    That’s why in 1959-1961 people from Cuba jkust bought plane tickets.

    Why should we cut deals with Mexico rather than Cuba or the Philippines, both former US colonies?

    There still is an exception for Cuba. It mainly applies to those who succeed in immigrating illegally.

    The Coast Guard triesd to intercept them, but for anyone who manages to land in Florida or Puerto Rico and get on dry land, they can stay.

    Do we really need to add a vast amount of job seekers when our unemployment is this high?

    This is the lump of labor fallacy. Adding more job seekers does not increase unemployment – in fact it reduces it, and results in higher wages for most people. This has been proven time and again.

    I’ll give just one example: The end of racial discrimiation in the south did not result in whites in the south getting less income.

    Secure the border now, and the rest of the issues can come later. Until the border is secure, forget it.

    First of all, this “deal” cannot be made, and secondly, you can’t secure the border until you grant amnesty and ease legal immigration.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7) — 2/3/2014 @ 10:52 am

  188. The Coast Guard triesd to intercept them, but for anyone who manages to land in Florida or Puerto Rico and get on dry land, they can stay.

    Unless their name is Elian Gonzalez.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/3/2014 @ 11:08 am

  189. First of all, this “deal” cannot be made, and secondly, you can’t secure the border until you grant amnesty and ease legal immigration.

    BEE-ESS!

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/3/2014 @ 11:09 am

  190. “The Coast Guard triesd to intercept them, but for anyone who manages to land in Florida or Puerto Rico and get on dry land, they can stay.”

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/3/2014 @ 11:08 am

    Unless their name is Elian Gonzalez.

    Elian Gonzalez was an exception, because he was underage, and his mother died on the trip, leaving him with no parent in the USA, and his father claimed custody – no doubt of course, under pressure from the Cuban government, but the Clinton Administration pretended not to realize that his father was in no position to make a independent decision.

    Fidel Castro did it, because he liked to get the US in the position of trying to keep out Cuban refugees. In 1980, during the Mariel boatlift, he had specially selected people who would be excluded under general U.S. immigration laws, settling eventually mostly on homosexuals (then barred from immigrating into the United States) or criminals.

    (of course some of these common “criminals” turned out to have very good claims for politial asylum, because some people were arrested for stealing small amounts from the state and got sent to jail, and also whenever some common person had a relationship with a child of some official, whom the official didn’t approve of, if it was a boy he was charged and convicted of rape, and if it was a girl, she was charged and convicted of prostitution.

    The INS also relied entirely on admissions, so if somebody was honest they got detained, and if someone was dishonest, they got released

    And Castro then did manuever the U.S. into doing his dirty work for him.

    Many of the homosexuals later died of AIDS, when they might not have in Cuba. Castro quarantined people with AIDS, whle the US was the center of the epidemic.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7) — 2/3/2014 @ 11:49 am

  191. 189. “First of all, this “deal” cannot be made, and secondly, you can’t secure the border until you grant amnesty and ease legal immigration.”

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/3/2014 @ 11:09 am

    BEE-ESS!

    This deal absolutely cannot be made. How would anyone determine when the goal had been reached? And can the goal in fact ever be reached. It’s not like any other border in the world which people are trying to cross has been completely controlled. You have examples? I mean, aside from the border between North and South Korea.

    Everyone knows this business of waiting until the border is controlled is just a talking point.

    Increasing legal immigration indeed makes the border more controllable, by reducing the amount of business the smugglers have, and the incentive to figure out a way around it, or around internal controls.

    Amnesty is necessary to make any employment controls, if you want them, to have any chance of working.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7) — 2/3/2014 @ 11:54 am

  192. ” This deal absolutely cannot be made. How would anyone determine when the goal had been reached? {…} Everyone knows this business of waiting until the border is controlled is just a talking point.”
    - – - – -

    Oh, really?

    What do you say we actually GIVE IT A TRY before we go all defeatist on the idea of “secure the borders”?

    Let’s build a big honkin’ fence –kinda like Israel did– and let’s patrol it. IF we’re still seeing 100,000 illegal crossings a month, I’ll admit the idea is a loser. But I recollect that Operation Hold-The-Line in El Paso (several years back) *DID* reduce illegal crossings, and *DID* reduce crime in the city. The Israel fence *DID* reduce terrorist incursions.

    So I think I’ve got at least TWO valid data points in FAVOR of the Big Honkin’ Fence idea.

    Comment by A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf) — 2/3/2014 @ 2:19 pm

  193. Comment by OmegaPaladin (f4a293) — 2/3/2014 @ 8:49 am

    Some things I didn’t comment on:

    If you put Poland or Germany or Australia or Japan or India or whoever else on our southern border….

    There is such a country. It’s called Canada. It’s on the northern border. You may have heard of it.

    With such a country, there probably would be little or no restrictions on visitors, and the border would not be a factor. (Now they wanta lot of control because of people in Canada, not eligible to go to the United states)

    People from Poland can now, since they joined the European Union, enter cuntries as far away as England and Ireland (but not people from Ukraine – and the western part of Ukraine used to be part of Poland between the wars.)

    Hope of this happening – being able to enter Germany, say, is one thing motivating
    the political conflict in the Ukraine now. That plus the fact even the older Ukrainian oligarchs don’t wnat to be too close to Russia = Putin because then all their money could be taken away as happened to a few Russian oligarchs – they want to keep their pile and be completely legitimate now.)

    It used to be very easy to enter and leave Canada – only a birth certificate was needed. Now a passport or passport card is needed.

    I would still be opposed to mass illegal immigration because sovereign states need to control their borders

    Even when immigration is not so easy, the border is not a factor if visitors can come without advance notification.

    Nobody really is in favor of illegal immigration, but that’s what happens when it is not possible to do it legally. And people sneak across the border when they can’t come as a visitor.

    Were I move to Germany, I would not expect everything to be written in English for me, nor would I expect that Germans change all kinds of things to accommodate me.

    It’s not immigrants who are asking for this.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b4888e) — 2/4/2014 @ 10:49 am

  194. “This deal absolutely cannot be made. How would anyone determine when the goal had been reached? {…} Everyone knows this business of waiting until the border is controlled is just a talking point.”
    - – – – -

    Comment by A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf) — 2/3/2014 @ 2:19 pm

    Oh, really?

    Yes, really. It’s purely a talking point to stop arguments.
    Oh, really?

    What do you say we actually GIVE IT A TRY before we go all defeatist on the idea of “secure the borders”?

    First of all, that’s not really the approach that should be made to Mexico. Secondly, this is just the truth. The border is definotely reinforced – more and more people are dying and the smugglers abandon people.

    I do not believe a party that considers itself “Right to Life” shold go any furtehr in this direction. Of course you may not be right to life and may be quite content to see people dying in the desert. I think taht makes the border much more violent.

    Another thing is that actually this has been tried. Presidents Bush and Obama really have d
    does a lot in this direction. But it’s never enough.

    Let’s build a big honkin’ fence –kinda like Israel did– and let’s patrol it.

    No fences are impermeable. Furthermore, you can patrol without a fence. You can have sensors. You could do that alot faster than building.

    How much money do you want to spend?

    It turns out you can’t make a deal to spend X number of dollars. Somebody wants a measure of success. How would you measure that?

    IF we’re still seeing 100,000 illegal crossings a month, I’ll admit the idea is a loser.

    All numbers are estimates, and unofficial. How would you measure this? Apprehensions? Detections? There are two ways to get that down.

    The only way to know is to offer instant amnesty to anybody who gets across. Then, they’ll come to you, except for gang members, and victims of human trafficking. Perhaps you might declare little holidays – that might lead to higher numbers as people would wait for the holiday or cross earlier amd claim to have crossed later.

    There is a lot of double counting here. There are not 100,000 crossings a month, but many keep on trying until they succeed. Probably about a little less than half of the entries are stopped. the probability of eventual success miht be in the high 80s. Who knows?

    Some give up, others keep on trying especially if they have a strong personal motivation to go to the United States.

    If caught they can claim asylum and tie up procedures and fill up jails – Congress has done a very unusual thing now with immigration – they’ve mandated that 34,000 people be held – good maybe for the prison industry – as it would be cheaper with ankle bracelets and the like – but the floor is also pretty much a ceiling.

    So people from Mexico who are caught mostly are offered the opportunity and agree to be sent back to Mexico, if that’s where they are from, under the condition that that their illegal entry into the United States will not be held against them as an additional disqualification, and then they try again.

    The economy of Mexico is actually getting better, so more now come from places like Ecuador and Honduras.

    But I recollect that Operation Hold-The-Line in El Paso (several years back) *DID* reduce illegal crossings,

    At that location. It’s not that difficult to divert.

    and *DID* reduce crime in the city.

    Very possible because of the severe problems on the Mexican side, and because crime is local.

    The Israel fence *DID* reduce terrorist incursions.

    Not so much illegal workers, because of corruption, which you must expect of course. The corruption did not apply to terrorists.

    The fence didn’t even make it impossible for terrorists to cross, because it did not fence off everything, but it made the trip take longer, and made it more likely for a would-be terrorist to get lost and need guidance, and that, combined with other measures on the other side of the fence, was enough, plus the fact that the terrorist organzations didn’t want Israel to completely block the possibility of them crossing, or continue with other measures, so they stopped.

    It only looked a little bit like the fence was doing it.

    Now there’s another fence on the Sinai, mainly to stop African migrants (terrorists wanted to take weapons and vehicles which are more noticeable)
    and that cut it down, but not to zero.

    So I think I’ve got at least TWO valid data points in FAVOR of the Big Honkin’ Fence idea.

    The problem with a “deal” is that you could never measure success. A deal to build a multi-billion dolalr fence without any metric might get some Democrat votes, especially if unions were involved.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b4888e) — 2/4/2014 @ 11:30 am

  195. “The border is definotely reinforced – more and more people are dying and the smugglers abandon people.

    I do not believe a party that considers itself “Right to Life” shold go any furtehr in this direction.”

    Sammy – What the hell are you talking about?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 11:36 am

  196. The border is definotely reinforced – more and more people are dying and the smugglers abandon people.

    I do not believe a party that considers itself “Right to Life” shold go any further in this direction.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 11:36 am

    Sammy – What the hell are you talking about?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/us/immigrant-death-rate-rises-on-illegal-crossings.html?pagewanted=all

    TUCSON — In the Pima County Medical Examiner’s Office here — repository of the nation’s largest collection of missing-person reports for immigrants who have vanished while crossing the United States-Mexico border — 774 sets of remains awaited identification in mid-May, stored in musty body bags coated in dust….

    “Less people are coming across,” said Bruce Anderson, the chief forensic anthropologist at the medical examiner’s office, “but a greater fraction of them are dying.”

    That’s what I am talking about.

    More:

    There were 463 deaths in the past fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30 — the equivalent of about five migrants dying every four days, according to an analysis by the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights group. In the time federal statistics have been compiled, only 2005 had more deaths, and in that year, there were more than three times as many apprehensions.

    As security at the border has tightened, pushing migrants to seek more remote and dangerous routes, the largest number of the deaths last year occurred along the punishing stretch of desert that spans the southernmost tip of the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, the busiest along the border.

    The only riskier stretch is the Rio Grande Valley sector in Texas, where, from Oct. 1 to April 30, law enforcement officers or ranchers found the bodies of 77 immigrants, or more than half the number of bodies recovered there in all of the past fiscal year: 150.

    In that sector, the most deaths have occurred in Brooks County, small and struggling at 944 square miles, where the average household income is $25,000. The number of migrant remains recovered is on pace to double that of last year, a record for the county, at 129, said a county judge, Raul Ramirez. Most of the dead are believed to be from Central America, Judge Ramirez said….

    Early this month, the office unveiled a computerized mapping database bearing the records of 1,826 migrants who died in the desert, listing GPS coordinates for where they were found and, if known, their sex, age and cause of death. It gives the public the first comprehensive glimpse of the complexity of the problem.

    This recent Op-ed surveys the situation worldwide:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/opinion/the-walls-that-hurt-us.html

    About the U.S. Mexican order it has:

    Barbed wire also spins cruel calligraphy along the United States-Mexico frontier, but crossers have more to fear than just the violence of the barbs. Doctors at the University of Arizona Medical Center treat about 40 migrants each year for broken bones and spinal injuries suffered from falls off the border walls.

    There are bullet wounds, too. According to a 2013 investigation by The Arizona Republic newspaper, American border patrol agents have killed 42 people since 2005. Some, like the teenager José Antonio Elena Rodríguez, were killed on the south side of the border by American agents shooting through the wall into Mexico.

    This article is somewhat biased in not talking about other deaths tghan by U.S. government employees, but says many female migrants are raped (although I wonder if those are people they have tricked whom they want to turn into prostitutes.)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b4888e) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:03 pm

  197. “That’s what I am talking about.”

    Sammy – Rhetorical question – What does people dying from causes unknown in the process of freely choosing to break U.S. immigration and possibly other laws have to do with the phrase “Right to Life”?

    A few days ago you stated the U.S. government was killing an increasing number of children at the border. I’m still waiting for your data and source.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:29 pm

  198. Another “0bama First”, Sammy?

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (24650e) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:42 pm

  199. Colonel – Obama sponsored post partum government funded choice at the border for foreigners?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:46 pm

  200. Yes! You’re in the wrong line of work, daley!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (24650e) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:48 pm

  201. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 12:29 pm

    Sammy – Rhetorical question – What does people dying from causes unknown in the process of freely choosing to break U.S. immigration and possibly other laws have to do with the phrase “Right to Life”?

    Because they don’t deserve to die for that, and people are calling for more enforcement, which inevitably leads to that. (although it seems the level of deaths is mostly stable, partially because there are many rescue efforts.)

    The same principle applies to the drug war. You don’t carry things too far.

    Remember, the current level of law violation is not causing a problem that anybody can point to..

    And at some point you hit the law of dimishing returns. That has been reached and over.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:24 pm

  202. A few days ago you stated the U.S. government
    was killing an increasing number of children at the border. I’m still waiting for your data and source.

    I didn’t say that. I don’t have separate statistics on children, and I didn’t say the number of children dying was going up, just the total number was going up, and some of them were children becaus ethere is nothing that says they should not be.

    There is this general database, which apparently does not give age.

    http://www.humaneborders.info/

    I also have this:

    http://www.nfap.com/pdf/NFAP%20Policy%20Brief%20Moral%20Case%20For%20a%20Temporary%20Worker%20Program%20March%202013.pdf

    This shows Deaths Per 10,000 Apprehensions at the Border. This used to be about 2 per 10,000 – it has climbed to 13, 14 and so on.

    There are also quite a few on the Mexican side of the border as it stated in this article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border

    One of the causes of this is that they have prioritized places where people are crossing and ignored where they are not crossing because conditions are too extreme, thus driving people to try more dangerous things.

    The proper way to do this would to be fence off the place where nobody is trying to cross FIRST and ONLY AFTER go to where it is of middling difficulty.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/4/2014 @ 1:26 pm

  203. Because they don’t deserve to die for that, and people are calling for more enforcement, which inevitably leads to that. (although it seems the level of deaths is mostly stable, partially because there are many rescue efforts.)

    The same principle applies to the drug war. You don’t carry things too far.

    Your rhetoric reminds me of the various liberals (and your posts in this thread convince me once and for all that you’re of their ilk) who snort that if conservatives dislike abortion so much, then why do they support the death penalty? An observation that’s merely a form of sloppy moral equivalency, in which the left fails to understand that one pertains to the taking of innocent life, the other pertains to the taking of NON-innocent life.

    And, Sammy, the mindset that made you conclude that Obama isn’t an innate leftwinger must be behind what triggers your desire to proclaim that — gasp! — enforcing the US/Mexico border is a mean and cruel thing to do because — gasp! — people may be hurt in the process.

    I wouldn’t be so irritated with folks like you if I could be ensured that you wouldn’t flinch — and hem and haw — if you were required to move to a typical border town in Mexico, or any of that nation’s various cities (full of joyous prosperity and progress, but void of crime and corruption), and — particularly if you were a parent — your children were mandated to attend a school with a predominantly “undocumented” student body.

    Comment by Mark (6cdc70) — 2/4/2014 @ 2:11 pm

  204. “Because they don’t deserve to die for that, and people are calling for more enforcement, which inevitably leads to that.”

    Sammy – Why is safety of people in other countries who freely elect to break our laws and attempt to hide their conduct the responsibility of the United States government?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 3:15 pm

  205. Sammy – Is your point really that illegal immigrants are too stupid to understand the risks they are taking to break U.S. laws so we just need to open our borders?

    Seriously?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/4/2014 @ 3:20 pm

  206. The better plan is to work on assimilating Hispanics into our naturally conservative culture.

    I agree. But forget about even the issue of whether the US should influence the political/ideological sensibilities of its people. Things are so bad that crud like the following keeps popping up in the news. Or merely the idiocy and lunacy of political correctness gone berserk:

    foxnews.com, February 4: Students and parents at a Colorado high school are outraged after administrators turned down their request for a spirit week day honoring America because it might offend non-Americans.

    “They said they didn’t want to offend anyone from other countries or immigrants,” a 16-year-old member of the student council told me. “They just really did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.”

    The irony, said the students, is that they are required to participate in Cinco de Mayo celebrations. One member of the student council pointed out the hypocrisy – and noted that students were not being forced to dress in red, white and blue for “’Merica Day.”

    Comment by Mark (267671) — 2/4/2014 @ 5:35 pm

  207. Estragon #150:

    Allow me, however, to point out yet again (as I did in 2011, 2012, & 2013 when “Boehner’s imminent betrayal on amnesty” was the source of many hissy fits) that there is NO BILL. No committee hearings have been held or even scheduled. And Boehner himself did not endorse any legislation, even “in principle,” to be brought up this year.

    One week later, Speaker Boehner is described as “undeterred” about letting his immigration bill dream die:

    “I think leadership’s focus and my focus is to get [immigration] done as early as possible,” said Rep. Jeff Denham of California, who Boehner recently met with on the issue.

    “It’s part of our conference agenda right now. It doesn’t go on the agenda without scheduling bills and scheduling time on the floor,” Denham added.

    “Clearly, the draft principles we outlined, members seemed to be supportive of them,” Boehner said at a press conference Tuesday morning in response to a question from Breitbart News, adding, “no decisions have been made” on whether to move forward.

    “I wouldn’t be surprised” if immigration legislation came to the House floor as early as this spring, one well-connected GOP member said.

    Boehner’s office has released several documents touting the GOP principles since the retreat, some of which include almost cartoonish defenses of a proposal.

    The “principles” would “eliminate the ability for any administration to arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce,” a Q&A posted on Boehner’s website says.

    Meanwhile, top amnesty proponents outside Congress say they were relatively pleased with the principles and how they were received by the GOP.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/5/2014 @ 9:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4796 secs.