Immigration, open borders, amnesty, etc.

[doctork]

I've been reading about the horrendous backlog in the State Department because of the new requirement to have a passport for air travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Carribbean. State is very surprised that the new requirement has caused many more people to seek a passport, now that it is required where a driver's license and birth certificate used to suffice, so they are unprepared to handle the onslaught. It now routinely takes 10 - 12+ weeks to obtain/renew a passport when the standard is supposed to be 4 - 6 weeks.

This is the same agency that would handle the registration and visa issuance for the 12 - 25 million illegals now in the country. If they can't handle the existing statutory requirements for our current citizenry, how would State handle an additional law for up to 25 million new applicants all at once?

I am glad I renewed my passport last year - a bit prematurely, but I wanted to avoid the "Big Brother" RFID. Just in case the legislation passes.

[rmn]

doctork said:

The very fact that GWB had to go to the Congress to beg for support for his plan speaks for itself. He is someone who previously could not be bothered to mingle with the low lifes on Capitol Hill. Now he is really desperate to do something to avoid his presidency being labelled a total failure, or at least divert some attention from Iraq.

Congress is not buying. They spent time at home during the recess hearing all the objections from their constituents. They have to stand for re-election, Bush does not. Any possible merits of the bill (namely, the business and economic necessity of those 12 - 25 million workers being here) are lost in the silly fear-mongering of "we need this to secure our borders."

Agreed on all, save the last. Surely, DocK, you must envision a need to establish at least a modicum of security at our borders. Notwithstanding the shrill vocals from a few, I think we have a legitimate concern of "unfriendlies" making their collective way up north along with prospective lettuce pickers, roofers, fry cooks, cab drivers, and dishwashers...you know, the jobs that real Americans would never do.

[rmn]

doctork said:

I've been reading about the horrendous backlog in the State Department because of the new requirement to have a passport for air travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Carribbean. State is very surprised that the new requirement has caused many more people to seek a passport, now that it is required where a driver's license and birth certificate used to suffice, so they are unprepared to handle the onslaught. It now routinely takes 10 - 12+ weeks to obtain/renew a passport when the standard is supposed to be 4 - 6 weeks.

This is the same agency that would handle the registration and visa issuance for the 12 - 25 million illegals now in the country. If they can't handle the existing statutory requirements for our current citizenry, how would State handle an additional law for up to 25 million new applicants all at once?

I am glad I renewed my passport last year - a bit prematurely, but I wanted to avoid the "Big Brother" RFID. Just in case the legislation passes.

Absolutely correct. But Washington isn't thinking about the myriad repercussions. The scoundrels didn't the last time comprehensive immigration reform legislation was passed. The bums are betting on America falling asleep with all the boring talk on immigration. They are betting that conservative radio talk show hosts will veer to another issue.

[gailkate]

I've asked before about the Canadian border, RMN, and I don't think you answered. Is there a reason to think it doensn't need a fence? And Chertoff is quoted today as being ticked off by the idea that his dept. isn't on schedule. 367 miles of fence will be done in a year. Since it seems to take forever to finish any construction project - including the average schmoe's kitchen remodel - a year doesn't sound that terrible.

[rmn]

gailkate said:

I've asked before about the Canadian border, RMN, and I don't think you answered. Is there a reason to think it doensn't need a fence? And Chertoff is quoted today as being ticked off by the idea that his dept. isn't on schedule. 367 miles of fence will be done in a year. Since it seems to take forever to finish any construction project - including the average schmoe's kitchen remodel - a year doesn't sound that terrible.

Yes, GK, the northern border is a problem. Terrorists have indeed been apprehended along this border. The overwhelming difference is that the Americans can trust that the Canadians are doing far more than we in stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Were I a terrorist from abroad, I would undoubtedly make my way to Mexico, then to America. I'd have no fear of the authorities. None whatsoever. The government of Mexico is beyond repair. The Three Stooges, acting as one, could portray greater legitimacy at the pinnacle of govt. There is no focus there. The govt is engaged in a lifelong siesta. Just an empirical observation.

Chertoff? Why is he chiming in with his boss, expressing a pronounced lean toward the reform? My guess is that he’s got his eye on a political future or he is simply a sycophantic, hairless troll. Either guess is as legit as the other.

The fence line? Forget it. It’ll never happen.

[gailkate]

sycophantic, hairless troll

[rmn]

Listening to NPR last Saturday, I was disturbed by a report from one of NPR’s senior political correspondents. This fellow, name unknown to me, was talking about the genuine impact conservative talk radio had on the current immigration reform legislation. This person continued, stating that had similar conservative talk radio been around in the 1960s, the civil rights movement might have been adversely impacted.

I can’t remember the name of the show’s host. Perhaps it’s of little matter.

The fact that she didn’t respond with an inquiry/objection suggests it is understood (at least by NPR) that those who oppose today’s immigration legislation are those who would have opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

All this at about 4:45 PM, directly prior to Garrison’s show. What a monumental downer. I was upset until Paula entered with her good will and wit.

R

[hartlikeawheel]

Well, as GK, I get confused about this.

First I think it is greatly egregious to give amnesty in light of those who have worked so hard to do it all legally.

In this part of the country we have lived lifetimes with Mexicans coming and going and doing the work in the fields and the factories which the rest of us didn't do.

Their parents wanted so badly for them to receive decent educations that they would come early in the season and send the kids to school for a month or two.

Mom, as a small school teacher, used to feel really divided about her responsibilities and even took some classes in Spanish. But the parents would come in and beg her to help make their children Americanized and she just couldn't do it in a couple of months and at the expense of her other students. I remember that it really confused her how to handle the situation.

It would only be a blink of an eye and they would all be back in the fields again.

Incidently I spent three summers in the fields and we used to get so angry with the transients because we'd all be working our butts off because we got paid by the row and they got paid by the hour. So several would sit in the ditches having a toke or two and then take turns who would have to work next!

We'd cross the road and really give them a lotta flack for being so lucky. And, of course, laugh and be friendly. And they'd laugh at us for being so white and responsible.

Now we have a huge population of Hispanics in several towns nearby and all I can see is that they have improved the nature of dying small towns.

There are several small towns here which have thrived because of the influx of Hispanics. New restaurants, hard-working, family-oriented people. Many have deep respect for the elderly and for their religion.

When they have their tradional celebrations it is not uncommon for them to invite all the locals to join in their festivities. And can they throw a party! The food! The dancing!

There are also, just as in all societies, the "bad guys." We have American women making their livings by marrying Hispanic illegals in succession to make them legal citizens and getting a nice car in return.

It is indeed a conundrum. But it does seem to me that we need a way to pay attention to each Ameican living here for legal and safety reasons.

But, as in so any things nowadays as the world seems to spin more quickly, we've probably already missed the window of opportunity.

There are several choices for solutions but none of them seem workable to me.

[hartlikeawheel]

Please don't forget that White Northern Europeans are not the center of the universe. In fact we are the true minority. That may call forth some humility fairly soon.

[joew]

Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe's token conservative op-ed columnist, has, surprisingly perhaps, come out in favor of the bill. In today's paper he takes on the argument that the "illegals" now in the country should not be able to "jump the line" ahead of those who waited for their turn. He said that for the Mexican or Central American who wants to come here and work, "there is no line" for them to get in. We need them, but there is no way to enter except ilegally. He also answers the argument that they are lawbreakers by pointing out that lots of things are illegal, but we don't make a big deal of it, because we benefit from the crime. For example, it is against the law to put anything but U.S. mail if the postal patron's mailbox. So every time somebody puts their flyer about a neighborhood party, or a lost pet, in your mailbox, he/she is breaking the law and is a criminal. Where is the clamor for a crackdown on these illegals?

[doctork]

hartlikeawheel said:

Please don't forget that White Northern Europeans are not the center of the universe. In fact we are the true minority. That may call forth some humility fairly soon.

Actually, in North America, white northern Europeans are the interlopers, as there were red-brown people exclusively for millennia before the white folks arrived.

I agree rmn, that we sorely need greater security of our borders than currently exists. Recall, I am the person who was requested by a random New York City taxi driver to help smuggle his illegal friends across the northern border of our county.

A wall at the Mexican border has limited effectiveness in achieving greater security, as I think terrorists are far more likely to enter legally (tourist or student visas, or forged documents) than climb over a wall. I base my dissatisfaction with the immigration bill partly upon what you have told us of its many faults, and the Heritage site to which you directed us.

I still feel opposition to the bill is based on prejudice and fear-mongering stirred up by the President and his politically motivated cronies and opponents. Conservatives are urged to oppose "blanket amnesty" for wetbacks, while liberals oppose the creation of a cheap labor non-voting underclass to support the wealthy.

While partisan political grandstanding is going on for the benefit of the careers of our elected "representatives," who is minding the security store?

Homeland Security has 360 politically appointed leaders in its ranks of 180,000 employees, while Defense, with 2.1 million employees, gets by with 260 political appointees to executive positions. Where is the strong and experienced professional leadership we need, when the criteria for hire are how much money and votes do you garner for the Republican party, and how do you feel about partial birth abortion?

Rmn, please tell me that I am wrong in my assessment of this news story (if I am indeed wrong); tell me that leadership at DHS and our national security are in the hands of hundreds of highly qualified and dedicated professionals.

[gailkate]

I think many will say your example compares extremely unlike offenses, Joe, but I see what you're driving at. I think I said awhile ago on this thread that the illegal workers are not criminals in the sense of actively harming others. (Of course, some are, but the vast majority just want to make a better living than they can at home - probably the very reason all of our ancestors came, too.)

I'm dubious about what seems like a very tall order in terms of procedures - as DrK has said, we can't even make the far less complicated passport process work. This proposal sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. But it also sounds like a genuine effort to ease a situation which, as anja says, has no clearly acceptable solution.

I've tried to put myself in the place of legal immigrants, and I can't think of a good comparison. But try this: I put years of effort and indebtedness into getting a master's degree. Suppose someone said that M.A. candidates no longer need a B.A. and don't have to write a thesis. From now on, you just have to take a test and pay a fee. Even though many of my B.A. courses didn't actually contibute to knowledge of the subject in which I got a master's, I think I'd be furious.

Somehow we need a fair, orderly and enforceable process. I don't know how we can do that in the current uproar.

[gailkate]

Oops - crossed posts. I think all your points are excellent, DrK, but see RMN's assessment of the Honcho of Homeland Security. I don't think he's going to defend all those sycophants.

[rmn]

hartlikeawheel said:

Please don't forget that White Northern Europeans are not the center of the universe. In fact we are the true minority. That may call forth some humility fairly soon.

It's not about humility and it's not about white supremacy. Never has been. This nationwide discussion stems from an angry, disheartened electorate intent on holding the feet of legislators to the fire.

[doctork]

gailkate said:

Oops - crossed posts. I think all your points are excellent, DrK, but see RMN's assessment of the Honcho of Homeland Security. I don't think he's going to defend all those sycophants.

I think rmn and I agree that Michael Chertoff (Secretary of DHS) is not doing a good job. To me, Kip Hawley (head of TSA) appears totally and dangerously incompetent.

I was kinda hoping that the other 358 political appointees might have been selected for ability, experience and qualifications in security (in addition to their contributions to the Republican party and membership in the Texas buddies club). But since they are all chosen by Chertoff and Kippie & Co., I'm not confident of this. That would rely on Republican Party operatives scraping the top of the barrel to find qualified individuals.

[hartlikeawheel]

I can speak on both sides of this question., unfotunately. I can't think of a solution or even the base problem but I'll offer one perspective I have.

Here is an analogy which disturbs me:

Fire departments have limits for how many people can occupy a building before it becomes unsafe for everyone there.

I think Malthus and Sanger had it right in the first place but it's scary to talk about them because I feel as though I am creepiong close to Nazi principles.

I truly believe that there is no more serious problem the world faces than overpopulation.. It is the basis of many other problems we face.

Now what?

[gailkate]

I am very wary about overpopulation, too, although some argue that we've leveled off and it's no longer a concern. Those are often people who look at the issue strictly from an anti-abortion/birth control point of view, but I think it's true we are, in fact, leveling off.

The trouble is, had we gone way past saturation before leveling off? Parts of the world can't sustain themselves agriculturally now, and global warming will only make that worse.

It's not about humility and it's not about white supremacy. Never has been. This nationwide discussion stems from an angry, disheartened electorate intent on holding the feet of legislators to the fire.

RMN, I accept that it isn't about white supremacy for you, but for a good many people it is. I don't think it helps the people fighting this bill to pretend that isn't a significant motivator for a significant number of people. It's blatant, and denying it only makes the bill's supporters more convinced that ALL opponents are racist. To complicate matters, there is another significant number of people who see racism in the willingness of wealthy corporations to hire this century's coolies to do scut work for indecently low wages.

So I don't think we can talk about the "electorate." Too many different points of view are clashing to speak of one electorate. In the meantime, I believe the rancor and distrust make us all the more vulnerable to terrorists. Between immigration and Iraq, we don't have our eyes on the ball.

[liriodendron]

joew said:

For example, it is against the law to put anything but U.S. mail if the postal patron's mailbox.

Well, I'll have you know that I put my water bottle in my mailbox every time I go for a walk in my neighborhood. That way I can have a drink each time that I go past my house without bothering to carry the darn thing with me. Go ahead. Arrest me. I dare you.

[gailkate]

That's our Lirio, Scofflaw Extraordinaire. Expect to see her mug on your Post Office "wanted" board any day now.

Dangerous and Well-Hydrated.
Approach with caution!

[rmn]

George Bush broke bread with members of the Senate a few days ago, ostensibly to apologize to the conservatives at having labeled them anti-American for failing to support this legislation. He promised four billion dollars plus in border security in immediate fashion. These federal monies, says Bush, would be balanced out from monies confiscated from the fines levied on the illegals in question. Some bought this. Many did not.

Trent Lott offered thanks to the prez and scolded talk radio conservatives for their collective misdeeds. He said that talk radio would have to be taken care of. I don’t know what this means. Kinda sounded like Tony Soprano. Frankly, when looking at Trent Lott, I’d be more comfortable with Tony Soprano running the show in Mississippi.

Four billion dollars is a rain drop when speaking of federal dollars. Bush says he’ll put this money on the border immediately. He fails to mention that legislation has already been passed, mandating a fence of sorts along the Mexican-US border. Perhaps the fence could be constructed faster were illegals constructing the thing. Obviously, the American effort is falling short.

This proposed legislation is a ruse. No entity, as it now stands, is able to enforce it. It hasn’t been enforced before. This is no different. Except, of course, that there are politics involved. Bush wants to escape from this abysmal failure of a presidency with a shred of accomplishment. It’s all about legacy. It’s profane.

Lindsey Graham, the stooge from S. Carolina, referred to opponents of this legislation as bigots. This man is a rube, an ignoramus.

This entire affair will make or break many in public service, including George Bush. As if his fiasco in Iraq were not enough. The current president makes Carter look like FDR.

[hartlikeawheel]

lirio, you made me laugh.

I always leave my postmaster's Christmas present in the mailbox and he leaves me a thankyou without a stamp in return.

Could end up in prison doing that kinda stuff.

[rmn]

Yes indeed, that’s a hoot.

Back on topic, I phoned the offices of five US senators this afternoon [[phone]] in attempts to leave a message RE: this absurd legislation. These are five men who are backing Bush on this reform nonsense. Trent Lott and Saxby Chambiss were included. A switchboard operator was onboard and politely forwarded me to all the offices. I was greeted by a full mailbox message (three senators) or no answer at all (two senators). Incredible.

[joew]

Once in a while, I decide to e-mail senators from states other than Massachusetts about an issue. Maybe they just gave a speech on the Senate floor which I saw on C-Span 2, and I want to tell them why they are wrong, or I want to comment on an issue under consideration in a committee they are on, or something like that. Almost universally, the (automatic) response is that they don't have time to respond to communications from people from outside their state; usually they also encourage me to communicate my concerns to my own state's senators. It's very annoying.

[doctork]

That's my experience too, joew, if you approach a Senator/Rep from another state as an individual, though it may be better if you represent an organization.

If you have expertise in the subject in question (immigration and border security in this case) and you offer to answer questions and provide detailed information on the subject, you may get some interest from the Legislative Assistant (LA) who works on that topic for a specific Senator/Rep, even if you are not a constituent.

Another strategy: someone in your state's delegation is likely on a relevant committee, or the delegation (at least all the R or all the D) acts en bloc. Contact your Rep, and they get the word to the rest.

Eventually this legislation may get out of committee and will come to a vote before the entire House and Senate. Each will be held accountable for his vote then.

My own Senators usually send me formula responses, but they are definitely counting the number of communications received, pro and con. When I contact my Congressman (Rick Larsen, D-WA), he or his LA or district staffer almost always gets back to me. They don't have all that many constituents they hear from frequently. (translation: sometimes I might be a pest)

[gailkate]

Any thoughts on the final vote today? It seems this will be the end of the immigration issue till after the '08 election. I don't know why it had to be such a time-consuming issue anyway, other than that Lou Dobbs and talk radio made it into a crisis.

The votes seemed to be all over the map - liberal Dems voting against it, liberal and conservative Reps voting for it - with Maine's Snowe and Collins on opposite sides - what a fascinating hodgepodge of people and positions.

I don't actually care. The illegals can stay and the folks who want a fence can waste a few billion building it.

[rmn]

It's over. Thank goodness. The conservative movement has come back from the dead. The most corrupt legislature in American history has been defeated. By whom? Conservative talk radio and many, many who give a rat's tail about border security.

I might have written this before. If so, my apologies for the repeat. My wife spent years becoming a US citizen. Nine years, in fact. We rolled our collective eyes years ago during conversations involving US immigration policies. Tonight, she's resting peacefully, I guarantee it.

This is a good day. Americans have spoken. GailKate does not actually care. I most assuredly do. Kimi would have cared.

God bless America, indeed.

r

[joew]

According to a bit I heard on one of the news networks (MSNBC, I think), a number of Democrats were in favor of the bill, but when it became clear that it was going to lose, they switched to oppose it in order not to make their constituents unhappy (so as to improve their prospects a the next election). IOW, they are unprincipled self-servers.

Is your senator one of them?

[joew]

Here's the list of those who voted, in effect to kill the bill.
NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Landrieu (D-LA) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA)

Now, here are the Democrats (and the socialist independent who caucuses with the Democrats) who voted against the reform:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Harkin (D-IA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

By my count, that is sixteen. How many of them were truly opposed to the bill? If fourteen of them had voted for cloture, the bill would not have been killed. How many "Profiles in Cowardice and Expediency" were there among the sixteen, and how many of them were standing tall for the principles they believe in?

[gailkate]

Hey, pretty nasty rhetoric there, Joe. Couldn't one as easily group the Repubs voting against it under "Profiles in Cowardice and Expediency"? I'm curious enogugh to check the websites of many from both parties to learn what they think and what motivated their votes.

I'm sorry I hurt you, R, with what apparently seemed like callousness. May Kimi rest in peace.

[rmn]

gailkate said:

Hey, pretty nasty rhetoric there, Joe. Couldn't one as easily group the Repubs voting against it under "Profiles in Cowardice and Expediency"? I'm curious enogugh to check the websites of many from both parties to learn what they think and what motivated their votes.

I'm sorry I hurt you, R, with what apparently seemed like callousness. May Kimi rest in peace.

You have never been callous with a response to my missives. Never.

Thanks, GK. She does. I speak with her daily. She's in a far better place, I'm convinced.