As noted on most news outlets, the senate just reached a deal on a new immigration bill. As I understand it, it allows all the illegals in the country to now come forward and gain probationary status. Once the proposed security fences are built, the people on probationary status get what they call a "Z Visa" and are on their way to citizenship.

Moreover, the current illegals do not have to pay back taxes and may be able to bring their entire families here in some cases.

Question for debate: Is this immigration deal good policy? Why or why not?

I don't think it's a good policy. I would have taken gridlock over granting citizenship to illegal aliens. Spector (R-PA) says this compromise will restore the rule of law. If you want to restore the rule of law you enforce existing law, you don't amend it to accommodate people already breaking the law. It's not fair to immigration applicants who follow the rules and wait for their compliance with the law to pay off. Additionally, while I think it's great that the bill would double our border patrol agents and provides for a border fence, the bill doesn't address the wage inequalities that make crossing the border an incentive worth the risks.

Edited to add: I don't like Mickey Kaus, but he mentions a few things about the bill that I think will only make matters worse:


I'm not sure how the final version between both legislatures will be reconciled, but what both legislatures want to do requires a competent executive willing and capable of enforcing the law. If the administration hasn't fined companies at the same rate the Clinton administration did, even though we have more illegal aliens than ever before, what makes Congress think more agents/aerial flights will make a real difference?

I'm also disappointed it appears asylum seekers won't be addressed. Way back when UJ and I said border patrol agents weren't qualified to decide who deserved a judicial hearing and who did not, and asylum seekers would "accidentally" be turned away, two months ago a bipartisan commission unsurprisingly found that asylum seekers are being deported.

Is this immigration deal good policy? Why or why not?

It's a very bad deal; but for reasons that are way beyond just illegal immigrants. It is another in a continuing "fact of present day Americana" that we don't follow our own laws, do not abide by our treaties or Constitutions, and generally will "spin solutions" rather than follow principles. We are not trusted or believed; because of these types of practices!

For example:

A We drafted Viet Vets. We then punished Viet Vet "Whistle Blowers", by sending them "out on patrol point" (often a death sentence), sending them to Long Binh Jail (affectionately and appropriatly known as LBJ), dishonerably discharged them, then fully pardoned the Canada runners.

B We've broken Article V (?) of the UN charter and waged "illegal wars".

C We've initiated "War by Resolution" over the Constitutional "Declaration of War" process.

D We've faked the data on the Kyoto Protocols and refused to sign, against overwhelming contrary data!

E We elected and did not prosecute an Air Force reserve AWOLer!

F We used the Guard and Reserve as safe havens for the privileged of the Vietnam era, an impropriety as a minimum.

G We are using the "militia" to fight overseas, non-Constitutionally.

H Now we want to essentially make the blatently illegal, both legal and cost effective as a means to work aroung our principles.

It's way more than just the touted "illegal alien" issue that's at stake here. It's saying what America is and isn't "officially" while the majority of us I don't believe agree with those "hidden statements" of what we are or want to be.

This is a big sellout and you can see it above. Unless the states are going to pick up the pursuit of “maids and landscapers” which would also include most other “jobs” we are toast and will not only have the 20 million but millions more flooding across the border.

We know Dems don’t really want to stop the flow (just read any Teddy K remarks) and if the Feds don’t go after “maids and landscapers” and the states are not required and funded to do so – WHO will???

The oldest trick in the book is to pass a nice looking law and then don’t fund the enforcement part of it. Who will chase down those who never identify themselves? Who will go after businesses and how will this be funded?

Well, Ted, the executive is tasked with enforcing the law. Congress appropriates for enforcement. I don't worry about a Democratic Congress running things on the cheap. It's just not their style. But Bush has used his agencies to subvert existing laws or ignore them despite the fact that agencies like the EPA are not underfunded. That's a problem, along with this bill being unfair to legal immigrants.

I agree lesly. Bush is a big part of the problem with his stance that there is no way we can get the 12-20 million people to leave the country and I see no way this bill will get compliance either since it carries a fine.

I don’t worry about the Democrats and funding for things they want to get done I am just not sure this is one of them.

We can get illegal aliens to “go home” or register etc. IF we fund the enforcement part of the law so that if they do not comply they will not be able to find jobs – how this will be done will be the key to the programs success. And if as you say we are going to “he going to pull Border Patrol agents off the immigration beat in order to put them on the anti-drug smuggling and terrorism beats?” who will enforce the law and cover the border?

I think you're quoting Mickey Kaus. My guess is once the border patrol workforce Congress is supposed to appropriate doubles, Chertoff or the next DHS Secretary can split the workforce between patrolling the border and drug trafficking/terrorism. If this is the case in reality it means that we're not doubling border security; we're increasing law enforcement, so I find any news reporting saying we're doubling the size of the border patrol misleading. On top of this, if Bush has shown me anything it's that the executive can subvert laws that control executive agencies with impunity. He's not going to be in office forever but what if another Bush comes along?

For that matter, Democrats could have doubled patrol agents and looked into the asylum problem, increasing the federal government's immigration infrastructure and then offer a process towards naturalization and citizenship if they were dead set on it. At least you'd have the enforcement in place, ready to (hopefully) stop more illegal immigrants from crossing the border. But now there is a huge incentive to do so and the current border patrol workforce won't be able to stem the flow.

The purpose of law is to allow for systematic support of the values that we hold dear.

Frankly, I value the quality of human life more than the more esoteric concern over "the sanctity of law."

Drive any American freeway and you'll see how "sacred" laws are when they inconvenience us.

Illegal immigration is, in the vast majority of cases, as much a victim-less crime as doing 60 in a 50 and its generally done for far better reason.

That said I do recognize the problem of the exception, the security concerns are reasonable.

Control the border sure, but the sour grapes attitude towards harmless people who did only what's reasonable (provide for themselves and their families) is a bit overwrought.

It's terrible policy. It relies on people who have already demonstrated that they do not respect the law to come forward to law agencies and attempt to work toward legalization. And here's the punchline...they pay a fine. This policy is a joke and I've gotta think that the American people will put some pressure on their elected officials to alter it...Almost said that with a straight face.
Right, except when we speed on highways, we're pulled over and ticketed [in theory].
That assumes they're all innocent, hard working people. The fact is that these people committed crimes and the government is relying on their good will to turn themselves in in order to get back on the legal track...Forgive my cynicism.

CP

...ocassionally.. depends on how fast. Studies say 10% of driver do 10 mph or more over the speed limit regularly. I think that's pretty optimistic.

The point is not that enforcement is non-existent, of course we get ticketed, but we aren't deported, and generally don't lose our licenses for a single offense.

Let the punishment fit the crime. Hand them a $300 fine and let's get on with our lives.

The vast majority are just that.

You're losing me Turnea...We don't get deported? Of course not, because we're legal citizens. If you come into this country illegally, you don't belong here. Now, that's true but impractical and I see the need for some kind of amnesty because realistically we cannot deport all 12-20 million illegals in this country. That said, it is absurd to create a law that says, "please come here so we can identify and fine you".
And it takes about six to form a functional terrorist cell. Let's err on the side of caution and assume that people who have already broken the law will not hestiate to ignore this one, after all, the law is written in such a way that gives them the option of ignoring it. There's no "or else", and that's what's wrong with the bill.

CP

I beg to differ. I think that it's far more important to consider why a person actually came. Breaking the law is not, in and of itself, wrong.

One must remember the purpose of law, which is ultimately to protect human rights.

On a practical note:

We ticket speeders to discourage speeding and increase safety. We don't simply impound every vehicle whose owner who can't find 55 on the speedometer, there is a balance between enforcing the law and being a nuisance, officers are explicitly allowed discretion in recognition of that fact in many cases. Prosecution is not always mandatory.


What "or else" do you propose and why?

I just can't see what all the fuss is about. Until a few years ago, this country was supported by a lower class, mainly illiterate, desperate, and hardworking, which did all our menial jobs for us, for extremely low pay. Because they weren't citizens, we didn't have to pay for their medical aid, their educations, or any other of the myriad fiscal responsibilities a government has with a normal citizen. It was this boon, a lower class that we could repress, and exploit without repercussion, that our fine country has succeeded economically. Now, bleeding heart immigration activist are calling to give them rights.

Are they insane? To lend rights to illegal immigrants will defeat the purpose of allowing them here in the first place. What good is a menial labor class, if you have to pay them?

Of course, this will probably be passed off as a cynical, typically crass American response, but any rebuffs will stink of hypocrisy. You live in this country too. You benefit off of exploited labor. It's the reason that we can sit around debating, while the rest of the world starves. Suffering, is America's commodity, misery is its greatest export. And America, like it or not, will never get around to solving poverty problems, like immigration, because its poverty problems like immigration that makes this country rich.

I have enough heartburn simply allowing people who butted in front of everybody who is trying to immigrate legally to stay. If they have complete disregard for the laws they beak getting here, I have no doubt they have plenty of disregard for others. And looking at the top most wanted list in the southwest portion of our country, there might be something to that.

But with that aside, here's my biggest grief: Not all these illegals coming over are honest (which they aren't be to begin with, but I digress) hard working Mexicans. There are plenty of Arabs taking advantage of this mess. Bush not vetoing this bill solidifies my objection to the Iraq war - Bush's foreign policy is like welding without a mask. It makes no sense to make sure every country in the world hates us while creating more terrorists then we can kill, while leaving our back door open. It defies common sense.

The reason he does this, is he knows he can count on the 28 per centers like some supporters here here to vote for republicans no matter what because they aren't brave enough to use their vote as a tool for change. Bush is sacrificing our national security for votes.

No, but breaking the law in and of itself is illegal. If you don't like the law, try to get it changed, but if the law is on the books, you have to enforce it. This bill is not an enforcement of immigration law.
The difference is a few speeders cannot cause 3,000 deaths, a few illegal aliens can. The analogy doesn't work because the damage potentially done by a speeder does not equal the damage potentially done by illegal immigrants.
If an illegal alien does not turn him or herself in and is caught, he or she should be deported, no questions asked. I'm sure our esteemed representatives could think of several other "or elses", but sadly, none will get them Hispanic votes.

CP

Of course, on the whole those speeders killed a lot more people.

...and legal immigrants can (and did) kill three thousand people as easy as the illegals.


Oh, but it is. It simply recommends a different method of enforcement.

It's an end run to be sure, but a legislative one.


Why not just up the fine or suspend some social service, put them at the end of the citizenship wait list. What is attractive about deportation?

That's not the point. The point is that one or a small group of illegal aliens has the capacity to do more damage than one or a small group of speeders. All of this detracts from the orginal point that just thinking we're letting hardworkers and honest people in illegally is dangerous and naive.
The difference being that they've established a legal right to be in the country. This is also irrelevant as my only point, again, was that a group of illegals has the capacity to do more harm than a group of speeders...Do you agree or disagree?
That being ask illegals to turn themselves in to authorities [the very authorities they evaded to come here in the first place] and hope to God that they do so...I don't consider that to be enforcement.
Because then by that time they will have broken the law twice with the goal of staying in this country. Fining them and allowing them to stay would be the equivilent of fining a burglar and allowing him to keep what he stole.

CP

I think Turnea makes an incredibly relevant point. How many illegal aliens have committed terrorist acts vs. how many legal aliens did? I think the idea that there are potential terrorists among the mostly Latin population of immigrants is bordering almost on hysteria. (btw, a total of 0 suspected terrorists have been found crossing the border from Mexico.) Of course, it's possible, but the evidence from the past actually points to the fact that legal, documented aliens have actually committed more terrorist acts in the US. So...shouldn't we actually be focusing our energy on making sure those people dont enter the US, instead of scapegoating those who cross the border via Mexico?

I doubt any Hispanic will guide a plane into a building, or blow themselves up—and xenophobes will continue saying immigrants are spawns of Satan. The possibility we should worry about is someone from the Middle East, Indonesia, heck even the Balkan Peninsula crossing the border. The thing is, the more you focus on Satanic Mexicans and concentrate resources in the south, the more likely a terrorist will cross from the north.

Building a "fence" costs money. So does legalizing several million people and enforcing their rights. Although in the end I doubt the government will defend their second-class status rights as vigorously as our own. I want to think Democrats are pushing this bill for the welfare of illegal aliens, but it's a business cave in:


That's a lie of course. Corn producers alone receive 9 billion in federal subsidies each year. In 2002, the Farm Bill "provided a total of $176 billion in farm-related assistance, a 74-percent increase over the assistance the previous Farm Bill would have provided in the absence of any additional emergency assistance". On top of receiving the biggest percentage of subsidies thanks to their generous political contributions, this bill will give corporate farms a guaranteed, ready supply of cheap labor. A win/win for agribusiness.

We have tried the guest worker program before and exploited unskilled workers:


Other, more liberal countries have tried the guest-worker program too:


I'm not even sure building a fence is a solution. It doesn't take a genius to realize that patrolling the border or blocking access to the U.S. is doomed to failure as long as there are plenty of jobs for illegal immigrants. Sanctioning employers was supposed to be addressed in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It has been enforced with varying success. It's hardly enforced today*. Rep. Berman (D-CA) played a role in that bill, and he's playing a role in this bill. Nothing will change.

*I just thought it's smart of Bush not to enforce existing law at all. It's business friendly. Just like failing to enforce administrative laws among his agencies is business friendly. You (1) appoint a faithful hack to run a program, (2) watch the program come apart, then cover for belligerent management decisions by arguing government is an inadequate provider of social services and (3) the public is better served by privatizing government services. Democrats are, at least subconsciously, embracing this argument by giving Bush a pass on his refusal to enforce existing law. Well, I'm sure some Democrats are also voting with their pockets. They're more and more like Republicans and I never understood why Hillary isn't loved by them.

Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue at hand is not whether or not illegal immigrants are more dangerous than legal ones, that doesn't matter. Once an immigrant legally comes here, what he or she does illegally while a citizen is no longer an immigration issue. When a person comes here illegally and commits a crime, what he or she does is an immigration issue because his/her crime should have never occured in the first place, it could've been prevented by enforcing immigration laws.
What does the population being mostly Latin have anything to do with anything? And the last part of that statement is entirely factually inaccurate. The Fort Dix terrorist plot was going to be carried out by, you guessed it, three illegal aliens. It is very commonplace for terror suspects to have been illegal aliens, that's why this is such a pressing issue.
I'd prefer enforcing the law of the land, even if that comes across to some as "scapegoating".

CP

Obviously, this is sort of the point I was trying to make. I am not against enforcing the border to the south, per se. However, to try and say that terrorists are crossing the border through Mexico is wrong, because they aren't.



Indeed, building a fence costs money, and what Congress has passed is merely a feel good measure...As the fence doesnt cover the whole border, nor is it even funded (Link). And the sheer irony is that guess who's building it? Illegal aliens.



Agreed, for the most part. Unlike you, I am not adamantly against giving citizenship to the people who are already here; however, before someone jumps on me, I am not adamantly for giving them citizenship either. I find our immigration policy incredibly screwed up, and it's hard to address certain problems, because really...The whole apple of immigration policy is rotten. In my opinion, we need an overhaul of the whole thing, but that's not going to happen. Instead, we're just going to pass laws amending immigration policy and making it more convoluted and confusing than ever.

Additionally, I agree with what you previously wrote. This current proposal does little to actually address the underlying wage disparities and economic reasons that make people want to cross the border.



I dont get what youre saying here. Not all aliens who come here legally are citizens; therefore, crimes committed while legal residents and students and tourists are immigration issues. Hence, my remark ...It wasnt legal naturalized citizens that committed 9-11, nor was it Mexicans who crossed the border illegally.



My quote is still factually accurate. The Fort Dix terrorist plot was not carried out by illegal immigrants who crossed the border through Mexico. That's my point. Many people are claiming that terrorists are just waltzing through the border in the South, which is untrue. I stand by my statement that a total of ZERO suspected terrorists have come through the South. Does that mean we shouldn't take it into consideration? No. However, it's also a little hysterical and paranoid to think that all the terrorists are coming the same way Latin immigrants are. Clearly, they're not. And while I agree that there's a problem with how many Latin Americans are crossing the border, if we're really worried about terrorists, maybe we should be focusing our resources on preventing them from actually coming into the US..Since it seems their preferred method is coming in legally and then overstaying a visa or something similar.



If I thought our immigration policy was for the good of the US, I would whole-heartedly agree. However, I dont think that our current immigration policy is working towards the US's best interest. I really dont want to get into a huge debate about, so Ill just post this link to a previous thread, which I think explains my stance. A Fence to Nowhere


Obviously, this is sort of the point I was trying to make. I am not against enforcing the border to the south, per se. However, to try and say that terrorists are crossing the border through Mexico is wrong, because they aren't.



Indeed, building a fence costs money, and what Congress has passed is merely a feel good measure...As the fence doesnt cover the whole border, nor is it even funded (Link). And the sheer irony is that guess who's building it? Illegal aliens.



Agreed, for the most part. Unlike you, I am not adamantly against giving citizenship to the people who are already here; however, before someone jumps on me, I am not adamantly for giving them citizenship either. I find our immigration policy incredibly screwed up, and it's hard to address certain problems, because really...The whole apple of immigration policy is rotten. In my opinion, we need an overhaul of the whole thing, but that's not going to happen. Instead, we're just going to pass laws amending immigration policy and making it more convoluted and confusing than ever.

Additionally, I agree with what you previously wrote. This current proposal does little to actually address the underlying wage disparities and economic reasons that make people want to cross the border.



I dont get what youre saying here. Not all aliens who come here legally are citizens; therefore, crimes committed while legal residents and students and tourists are immigration issues. Hence, my remark ...It wasnt legal naturalized citizens that committed 9-11, nor was it Mexicans who crossed the border illegally.



My quote is still factually accurate. The Fort Dix terrorist plot was not carried out by illegal immigrants who crossed the border through Mexico. That's my point. Many people are claiming that terrorists are just waltzing through the border in the South, which is untrue. I stand by my statement that a total of ZERO suspected terrorists have come through the South. Does that mean we shouldn't take it into consideration? No. However, it's also a little hysterical and paranoid to think that all the terrorists are coming the same way Latin immigrants are. Clearly, they're not. And while I agree that there's a problem with how many Latin Americans are crossing the border, if we're really worried about terrorists, maybe we should be focusing our resources on preventing them from actually coming into the US..Since it seems their preferred method is coming in legally and then overstaying a visa or something similar.



If I thought our immigration policy was for the good of the US, I would whole-heartedly agree. However, I dont think that our current immigration policy is working towards the US's best interest. I really dont want to get into a huge debate about, so Ill just post this link to a previous thread, which I think explains my stance. A Fence to Nowhere

Kim, your statement is simply not true, there's nothing to argue here. LINK

Granted, they were not terrorists when they crossed, but that doesn't alter the fact that if we had a secure boarders, they wouldn't be in this country. In addition, what exactly IS stopping a terrorist from entering our country through the Southern boarder? That's the point. You may call it paranoia, but it isn't unreasonable to want a secure boarder with Mexico given what can reasonably happen if we do not.
My point is that an illegal alien doesn't have legal right to be in this country. Therefore whatever crimes he/she commits should never have occured because proper enforcement of immigration law would have resulted in their deportation which would have prevented those crimes. If a legal alien comes into this country he/she DOES have a legal right to be here and therefore his/her crimes could not have been prevented by immigration law.

Again though, I think we're straying. The bill that our Senate has created relies on people who have already ignored US law to voluntarily turn themselves in to a law enforcement agency, that alone should raise flags. In addition, the bill does not properly secure the boarders in such a way that prevents more illegals from coming in. The bill simply, as Chris Matthews said, "kicks the can down the road". What has or what can anyone say in defense of this bill?

CP

Disagree, fact is illegal immigrants are less often terrorists than legal immigrants or born and bred citizens. Heck, the speeder could be a terrorist too .

I also think its a moot point as giving immigrants incentive to appear for background checks improves the situation a lot more than driving millions of harmless people to ground along with the terrorists who, if we aren't targeting specifically, ain't gonna be caught in a deportation dragnet.


The analogy doens't work because stolen goods actually belong to someone else. Illegal immigration is the classic victim-less crime.

Strip away the emotional phraseology for a moment and let's talk turkey.

Why exactly are we up in arms about people who commit a victim less crime to care for their families?

Simply because its illegal?

That's as backwards as it gets.

Law is meant to approximate our values, if the law fails to do so it should be changed. I see no reason to care one whit that these people broke a law. It's a law I would break in a heartbeat were our positions reversed.

I mean really.

Feed self and family, provide for children's future....

Or

Die in squalor so that we can pat ourselves on the back as say we're law abiding?

Human rights trumps law every time.

You're premise is false. Law is not always for the protection of rights. There needs to be and there is administrative law that sets the guidelines for certain things...Like immigration. If that law is not followed, chaos ensues. There needn't be and normally isn't a victim in administrative law, but that does not mean it should not be enforced. My point with the burglar analogy is that someone breaking the law to enter this country does so so that he/she can stay here. The penalty for that should be deportation because it is the opposite of what the illegal wants. Similarly, if someone steals from me, they are imprisoned and whatever they stole is given back. At the end of the day, they don't get what they want. Leaving illegals in this country after finding them, even after a fine, allows them to stay here, which is what they wanted when they broke the law in the first place.
Emotional phraseology like, "law" and "crime". If we were having a verbal debate those two words would sound just as boring as they appear when typed. Law by definition is absent of emotion. You're bringing emotion into the mix when you speak of people just doing what's best for their families as if they cannot do so in a way prescribed by [emotionless] law. So yes, let's talk turkey.
Because administrative law exists to bring order in a process that, in the event of the absence of administrative law, would be chaotic. If we aren't going to enforce some parts of immigration law, then why enforce any of it. The line is arbitrary. We should be up in arms with anyone who sees two courses of action, one legal and harder and the other illegal and easier and picks the latter.
Or immigrate legally? And I thought we were elminating "emotional phraseology".
And from where is this human "right" to be in any country one wants, through legal or illegal means, derived from?

CP

Chaos in only undesirable if, you guessed it.. it infringes upon rights.

Order for order's sake is not, nor should it be, a vested interest of the government. A strict constructionist should, I think, see that if only one considers that any silly law could be justified on the grounds of "order."

In any case order can be provided by having the illegals file for citizenship without fear of deportation.


That not the point of law. It doesn't matter a criminal "wants".

Maybe they want to be in prison, is that reason to set them loose?

Punishing to make legal immigration more attractive, an understandable move.

Deportation is overkill.


Ah, but the rule of law is a value and a very emotion-laden one at that.

Pure reason does not dictate we must get up in arms simply because a law is violated and yet many do just that.

There's a reason politicians shout about the rule of law in stump speeches and it has everything to do with the emotion involved.

On the other hand i think the family angle is the more practical approach as it dispenses with the esoteric concern for rule of law and dwells on the down to earth fact that hey...

people gotta eat.


If that were so easy people would do it...

The rights to provide for one's basic needs and the right to pursue a better future for one's progeny.

I figured my use of such imprecise terminology would draw fire, but my point is clear. It's simply more important to satisfy the human need than the theoretical one.

Chaos, by definition, is undesirable.
Order for order's sake is only undesirable if, you guessed it, it infringes upon rights. In this case it doesn't because foreigners do not have an inalienable right to be Americans.
I'm not saying that it's the "point of law", I'm saying it's a common aspect of some laws. There's no reason to acknowledge that someone has essentially trespassed and then allow them to stay on that same land, ESPECIALLY when that person could have come to that land through legal means.
So stating that they broke the law and should be punished for doing so is emotion-laden. Claiming that, "yeah, they broke the law, BUT" and then explaining that they have family and needs is not?
People DO do it, Turnea. And those people are the ones who are being taken advantage of by illegals.
The right to provide for one's basic needs? By any and all means? The thing about using broad and nonexistent rights is that the line is hard to draw regarding their beginning and ending. No one has the right to "provide for their basic needs" by all means necessary.

CP

What is very true is that our current policy is broken. I don't believe that anyone, republican or democrat, can maintain otherwise. I'm impressed that both sides worked on this bill and yes,the die-hards in both parties will be unpleased, but those are the people who allow for our current broken policy to continue. If that's "government" than Henry Clay "The Great Compromiser" they are not. I do believe that it is good policy and that while some aspects of it may not enamor us to the bill, we have to take it for what it's worth-an overall improvement over our present situation.



I like Turnea's statement and often times, we lose site of this fact. People are literally dying to come over here to work. That is something that I don't fault them for. Yes, it's breaking the law, but a death penalty offense it isn't. Mr. Cornyn should seriously think about that fact. His statement is horribly ignorant of the plight of his fellow man and only shows a callous, if not superficial understanding, of the issue at hand. Fine them, have them earn their way into the good graces of the law, but callous disregard for human life(in a supposeldy "pro-life" country) is not the hallmark of enlightened government. Let's not lose sight of one basic fact-these are hard-working, decent people. They are much like our own ancestors who came from Germany, Ireland, Poland, and elsewhere. While the times and methods of coming here have changed, the overall reason why they come hasn't. I'm not thrilled by greater efforts at the border. I guess I can't help but feel that the money is effectively going to be flushed down the toilet in a lame effort that in the end, just won't work. I'd rather see giant Wal-Mart super-center processing stations created and manned to process immigrants in a friendly and organized manner. Something which is not occuring to this day.

I would like to see this bill passed. Heck, I'd like to see the president's immigration plan make it. I believe that both are common sense approaches and that even with the few wrinkles they possess, they are clearly better than the mess of a situation we have right now.

Really? but the thing is, not everybody from latin america who wants, can go legally to the US . There are Visa Quotas depending from which region of the globe you are from; and guess which region has one of the smallest numbers?. Here are the July numbers for the so called diversity immigrant visas (DV):

Africa: 35500 (Except Egypt:22600; Ethiopia:22900 and Nigeria:16150)
Asia: 7750
Europe: 23000 (Except Ukraine:13000)
North America (Bahamas): 12
Oceania: 1800
South America & Caribbean: 2500

Source: Visa Bulletin for june 2007

Quotas seem to change from month to month (but not that much). I also don't know if those quotas are the only way your government gives Visas, since there is much information to read and I was only looking for some kind of quotas to have a reference number and didn't have the time to read more. If I'm wrong, please, feel free to say so!

One thing is clear for me: the US has a big flow of immigrant from Latin America and the Quota is just not big enough.....23000 from Europe? Do they need so many?, I would say that the probability of one european wanting to immigrate is smaller than the probability of one latin american wanting to do so.

So for me, at least, what Turnea says make sense: If I and my family were having problems to survive in the country where we live and I cannot apply legally for a Visa just because of one (at first sight) not very good designed quota system, I wouldn't think much and would try to do it illegally...after all: it is that or the destruction of my family; and I doubt you, ConservPat, wouldn't do the same where you in the same situation.


As kimpossible wrote, maybe the whole immigration thing is a rotten apple that should be re-designed.

My answer to the debate question:

I don't know if the current deal is a good thing, in the sense that it will be a solution for future immigration issues, but at least seems like a practical solution for the people who are already illegal in the US. After all, what else there is to do: deportation? --> It is not practical and bad public relations. On the other side, I don't think that those who are illegally in the US are happy with their situation neither; as some have said, they are mostly honest and hard-working people who had no other options to survive one more day.

Precisely.

If that sounds a little odd consider that this itself is a direct affect of the emotion involved in legalism.

Often we view matters concerning the law as cold, impartial, and devoid of emotion. This leads to an attitude of reverence and awe or even the fear of "chaos" hardly negative by definition by the way, but the connotation is well you know...

an emotion.

When we allow that reverence and awe to supersede a concrete practical motive such as survival what else could we call it but the victory of emotion over reason?


Indeed, that right stops when another's rights begin...

Only illegal immigrants, in general, harm no one's rights by crossing the border to work.

I think the immigration issue is one of the most complex of our time. Part of it has to do with conflicting interests. I'm not particularly interested in this "deal," because it's a long way from becoming law. It hasn't passed the Senate and may go nowhere in the House. If I had to guess, I would almost bet, but not the ranch, that they kick the can down the road until after the 2008 election.

To his credit, Bush has softened the tone by using the euphemism "fines."

Yet, there are those who just have to let everyone know we are going to punish someone. As I mentioned in another thread, we have become a society obsessed with punishing people. It's not only an emotionally laden word, but the worst sort of pandering to the yokels back home. A video of Lindsay Graham on this morning's CNN Late Edition is an example.



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/20/le.01.html

Whatever happened to George H. W. Bush’s ”kinder, gentler America?” Do we really want to fine people whose work provides better things for us at a cheaper price?

About the most amusing thing to come out of this is John McCain’s dressing down of Texas Senator John Cornyn. ( Please forgive my inappropriate sense of humor.)

Now that McCain has basted the "Texas Turkey," maybe we can cook him the next time he’s up for election.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-bri...g_showdown.html

It is only "practical" to break the law when you judge that someone's actions are "good"...That is subjective and generally an emotional response.
And this once again brings us back to administrative law, whose existence and purpose you have yet to acknowledge. If we allow this kind of process to go lawless, chaos ensues, that's the purpose of immigration/administrative law.
For the record, I don't necessarily agree with quotas. That said, if I were to illegally immigrate here because of restrictive quotas and I were caught, I would fully expect to be subject to deportation. You can't just say, "I don't have a choice, I'm breaking the law" and expect that you do so with no legal repercussions if caught.

CP

Then why have borders? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just open the borders and let anybody who wants to come in stay?

I'm not convinced there is any "half way" if you are not opposed to people coming into this country illegally. It would seem arbitrary to deny other people that same opportunity.

You know, I'm down on Bush and his administration as much as the next guy. I believe he is a war criminal and has the foreign policy skills of a 6 year old. But it defies logic and common sense to believe people who have a history of slaughtering many Americans aren't coming through the open borders to plan more attacks. It's a simple military strategy that people only marginally smarter than Bush would employ.

It may well be, but that's not the point of the thread.

I acknowledge that there are theoretical benefits to controlled borders (though in practice our control is dismal and part of me says we might need to know when we're licked) and I agree than uncontrolled immigration has the potential to cause major economic problems.

..but the illegal immigrants in this country aren't causing those problems and I see no reason to punish people for having the common sense to find opportunity without harming anyone.


Good point. But subjectivity on that level is unavoidable, in order to come to any rational decision one must first define one's values.

I could say just as truthfully that your concern over the rule of law or the avoidance of chaos is subjective.

Question: What's so "good" about it?


Answer: Values, which are always subjective.

I postulate that is is "good" to provide for one's self and one's family without causing harm to other's rights.

You may disagree but that's a pure judgment call.


But we as a nation have a choice as to whether those repercussions must necessarily be deportation.

It's time to own up to our responsibility, nothing forces us to deny people a chance at a future.

We can say enough is enough and let people who intend to work as honest citizens do so without undue harassment.

It really costs us nothing. Failing to do so could cost them everything.

Whether or not it is good or bad, it violates administrative/boarder law and violating the law has consequences. Deportation is the major one in this case. If you come somewhere uninvited, you're asked to leave, it's common sense, if you come to America illegally, we make you leave. Harming someone is not the point. As I've said several times, and again, you've still failed to acknowledge, that administrative law exists to prevent just the kind of chaos that reigns on and around our boarder with Mexico. That is why we have boarder laws and that's why they need to be enforced. Again, why deportation? Because it makes no sense to have a guideline concerning how to immigrate to America and then allow people to ignore those guidelines while still living here. If proper immigration is so clearly spelled out, why should we allow anyone in who ignores the rules and regulations?

CP

I've watched this entire immigration debaucle with growing dismay. Niether party has any good ideas on how to handle this mess and while I am a liberal in most things, I absolutely cannot countenance giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the law and now claim the right to citizenship.

Illegal immigration is in no way a victim-less crime. Consider that the country has some unknowable but finite amount of resources, mediated by a great many things including what benefits said illegals may bring to the economy. That we as citizens are not allowed to decide where and how to appropriate those resources is a crime everyone should be angry about. In what way is it acceptable to have any group of people come into our country, take what we have and give what they feel is the fair amount of work for what they take, and tells us that's their right? And we as citizens pay for the costs of "their rights" out of our tax dollars, which never seem to be enough to take care of the issues we already have as a country. Now consider the large number of people saving together what they can to apply for citizenship, no matter how long it takes, and would take whatever jobs they could because it beats the shabby life they have now. As would-be American citizens, are they not victims of this outrageous behavior of illegals as well?

...and yet millions cross illegally and have done so for decades...

and guess what... the sky didn't fall.

Your argument is tortured. You argue for deportation because it is the law when the whole point is that we've passed a new law.


First in a global economy is makes far more sense to say that our resources are not limited to the confines of our border, the fact is illegals contribute more than they drain and making them legal could increase our tax base all the more.

Not only is illegal immigration a victim less crime, we actually benefit from it.

No, it didn't. Millions have crossed illegally and all we've done is pay for their education, medical care, legal fees, jail cells, housing, water, gas, electricity, etc. etc. etc. Victimless...ri-ight. The victims, as Vsrenard noted, are the American taxpayers.
You asked why I favored deportation, because it was the law. The reason why I'm against this BILL [which my School House Rock DVD tells me is NOT a law] because it "doesn't have an 'or-else'". Again, we say, "these are the rules, if you want to immigrate here, this is how you do it." An illegal immigrant ignores those rules, so we say, "Okay, you know what, just pay us $5,000". What GOOD are those rules if you can BUY THEM OUT? That's essentially what it is Turnea, pay $5,000 to ignore immigration laws.

CP

The deal is a bad one for the American people as usual and the “devil will be in the details” – as usual.

The key to it working at all will be in the enforcement. If the penalties to employers hiring illegal immigrants is weak nothing will happen. Why even pay the $5,000, “get out of jail free” fine if you don’t have to? Unless we lock down the border and really go after those employing these criminals the flow will only get worse.

And since we know the left wing of the Dem party wants more of theses folks so they can get them to vote for them I distrust anything Kennedy likes. They will simply not fund enforcement and that will be the end of it.

Indeed this is pretty much the only scrap of reason left to oppose amnesty.

If one twist the numbers just right one could come up with a set a criteria that shows illegal immigration comes at a net cost to the American taxpayer.

Even if one does so it boils down to a couple of dollars per capita (literally a couple, less than $5 I believe) which the fine makes seems ridiculous.

If one is fair however...

Abstract

Links to the full paper are below.


No, its simply changes the rules. Nothing underhanded about it, all public and above board. Replacing one punishment which is too harsh and replacing it with one more reasonable.

Clearly this is nonsense. Not only do these people cost the economy billions but they send 50 billion a year back home. They pay little if any taxes and they take jobs – mostly from minorities. Add in crime, traffic deaths etc. and you have the real story.

• “Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

• Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

• With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

• On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

• Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.

• If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

• Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.”
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Ted- though I agree with you on this subject- the natural argument to your cost-benefit analysis t me is "So what- the amount of money you are talking about is chicken feed compared to what we have spent on Iraq"-

I am not trying to get into a Iraq debate- but if the only real reason is a net loss to the American economy, and we are going bean counter logic- then you have to start at the top of money savings, and go for the biggest loss to the economy first.

It is like haveing a 200 dollar a month credit card debt and being all crazy about it- while ignoring the 10k dollar a month American express that must be paid every month.

However- Turnea- I get you on this, especially since these poeple that are coming here illegally, well, dude, they are being exploited and abused as well- the very illegals themselves are being harmed- so there is a victim there as well- the real criminals here have ALWAYS been the employers, and without teeth to correct this, then this law is less than useless, and helps no one.

There is more to dislike about this amnesty arrangement than sheer finances, but I will start there. Even if, as Turnea postulates, the net cost to the average American family for such a program is $5, why should I blindly accept that because a bunch of illegal aliens showed up in my country, even if it be to work, I now can't decide where that $5 goes in terms of resources. I had the great fortune of visiting my sister in Ghana last year when she was doing volunteer medical work. Her host family was a nice, earnest couple who opened up their home to doctors like my sister so they could make a few extra dollars (read $7/month) to save for the lottery to be granted a visa to come to America. The husband is a teacher who has 3 extra jobs on the side for this purpose. His wife has studied for years by correspondence to be a museum curator because her uncle in the States is a curator and is trying to get her a work visa. They have saved for the lottery once and while their fee was taken, they didn't win the lottery. Now that they are having a child, they are even more determined to find a better life for themselves. Both are willing to work any blue collar job they can, though both have higher skills.

Now why shouldn't my $5 go toward bringing them, and others like them who barely make ends meet but are so determined to work for a better life, over here? Why am I forced to allow people who barged their way in illegally to trump people like my friends? If we want to go down the scale of human misery, there are just as many needy people around the globe willing to work to feed and shelter themselves as our neighbors to the South. Why as a country do we let any group of people to tell us who we are to allow in our country, and who will not be able to because the resources are no longer there?

That said, I don't believe $5 is the net cost to each American family but even if it were, I would find this amnesty agreement an affront to every (taxpaying or not) citizen because it takes away our right to decide what we think is best for our country.

I'm well aware of that report and I can safely say you should be more judicious in your claims.

The CIS makes no estimate as to what illegal immigration costs the economy, they spoke of tax revenues vs expenditures which is a very different thing.

Nor can they claim illegal immigrants themselves are themselves a net negative tax wise, because they aren't.

I spoke of twisting numbers earlier and this is what I meant, let's check that data again.


Here's were they get a bit coy..

many?

How about the vast majority? That is why what the report I quoted was absolutely correct, the immigrants themselves don't receive food stamps, school lunches, or education aid. They contribute more than they cost the government.

Now I understand that to separate to two costs is to portray only one side, but it informs one as to the real nature of the costs, these are not free loaders and the costs are for the support of native-born Americans.

Using these numbers I came up with about $90 per household, though if we break that down along the tax brackets the average payer isn't catching nearly that much.

In any case $5 was too low so, touche.

In any case the fine of $5000 dollars is nearly double the average cost.

That of course ignores the fact that the CIS has already adopted an ideology of more restrictions on immigration.

It also ignores the contribution immigrants make to the actual economy in terms of purchases of good and services and labor, as the link I posted earlier noted many economists are of the opinion that the nation benefits substantially.

My argument is one of principle.
Human life is more important than a few dollars and a wounded ego, clamber down from the ramparts and lets deal with this like civilized human beings.

Edited to add:
I should clarify that by that I mean we should stop the demonization of illegal immigrants as the barbarians at the gates and just acknowledge they are only doing what is common sense, providing for themselves and their families without harming anyone.

This has got to be the funniest link I've ever read in a debate. You are proposing that a 1, 4 and 6 year old were breaking the law by entering illegally, intent on committing terrorist acts 23 years later? That's the type of thing I expect to read on Fox News (which is to say hilariously pointless), so I thank you for providing that link. Not only that, but at least one of the men charged with the Fort Dix plot was a naturalized citizen. And on top of that, they didn't get away with their plot. So in the end, nothing happened and these six men will go to prison (and/or be exported) for a very long time. We had a shooting here in Salt Lake City a few months back and the young man was an American citizen. So how exactly do you argue that illegal immigrants are somehow intent on breaking more laws?

It would seem to me that a terrorist would find a way to gain legal admittance into the country in order to prevent getting caught simply by crossing the border illegally. Most of the 20 hijackers in the 9/11 attack were admitted here legally (acknowledging, of course, that their visas expired and they were then living here illegally, but that's really not the point we're arguing). The anti-illegal immigrant groups shoot themselves in the foot by admitting that about 10-12 million illegal immigrants occupy the country, yet don't have much evidence to support the irrational belief that they will break more laws because they broke one law gaining entrance to the country. This is a bit like arguing that because I engaged in sodomy while it was still outlawed, I might as well start shooting up my local supermarket. I mean, if I have such disregard for the law and all, why not go nuts?

If the crime rate were suddenly spiking due to the sudden influx of illegal immigrants, I might see a point to the freakshow. If conservatives were not touting the strong economy, at odds with their claims that illegal immigrants harm the economy, I might see a point. But frankly, it's all a bunch of scare tactics.

Now, all the being said, this senate bill is a disaster and laughably so. That's pretty much all I have to say about it.

Fargo, there are so many things wrong with this paragraph I'm not sure where to start. First, it would be just super the next time you quote me if you either include "-snip" or something of that kind when you quote me out of context. I myself admit that very point and explain myself in the next sentence, which you omitted...Here it is, in case you're curious:My point is that if these men were properly dealt with my authorities, we wouldn't even be talking about them today.
Second, I NEVER said that illegal immigratns are "intent on breaking more laws"...that is a fabrication. I'm saying that it is not unfair to say that SOME illegal aliens COULD be terrorists or soon-to-be terrorists.
Thir