Resolving the Immigration Issue

So now we talk about amnesty? What about those who are "waiting in line"? IS this bill fair to them??

"McCain-Kennedy offers a good compromise. They say, we will provide a way for you to keep the workers you rely now (through legalization) and to get the workers you need in the future (through guest worker visas) in a way that is legal and regulated. In return, you will accept stricter enforcement of the new laws. "

What does "stricker enforcement" mean??

"McCain-Kennedy will save families. There are many people who now have deep connections, even family connections, to the United States. Breaking up families simply because one has crossed a border is cruel and unnecessary. "

Why is that a US Citizens problem? They strangle our resources without paying taxes.

How is this a fair plan to taxpayers?? Not very convincing.

ebrown, I voted for #3. Besides making guest workers legal, we must make sure those that apply through the legal system must also get preference ahead of the illegals. If we are to remain a country of laws, we must enforce them or change it to reflect current conditions. I agree with the McCain-Kennedy solution.

Interesting.. I seem to recall Bush proposing an amnesty for illegal aliens that were already in the country a while back and he was roundly criticised in the press and by the left here on A2K.

This bill looks like a combination of Bush's amnesty proposal and his Immigration Reform proposal.

My recollection is that what Bush proposed couldn't really be called an amnesty. Violation of the law should never be rewarded. That always sets a precedent. Amnesty would be a slap in the face to all the would be immigrants who obey our rules for immigration.

Brandon,

You don't offer much in the way of a better solution.

What you are saying is staight off of an special interest group position paper. The term "slap in the face to ... immigrants who obey our rules" is quite cliche.

Can't you think about the problem deeper than that?

There are real issues in terms of businesses, communities and families, that concern many Americans. Parroting trite statements like "violation of the law should never be rewarded" doesn't at all address these issues.

Are you advocating the status quo?

Do you think it is possible (let alone a good idea) to hunt down and ship off the undocumented workers here without having a drastic effect on our economy and perhaps our culture?

Do the the concerns of your fellow American citizens who believe that undocumented immigrants should be treated with dignity and given the chance to become legal give you pause?

Does the reality of the economy and the concerns of the business community give you pause?

Instead of glib comments-- please tell me what your solution would be.

Please make sure you answer, or explain why you are dismissing, the concerns that have been raised.

While it's nice in theory, the idea of never rewarding anyone that violates the law doesn't lend itself to any practical solutions that actually fix the problem.

For myself, I'd rather budge and accept that some people will be rewarded in teh effort to get the issue resolved (or at least significantly under control).

Sorry, I thought the implication was clear. Arrest the illegal immigrants and send them back to whatever their point of origin. I suppose that if someone has been here for decades, we might consider on a case by case basis forgiving the original sin, and occasionally do so.


Why would I care what anyone else thinks about it? I am giving my opinion. I am more concerned with my position being correct than with whether or not it is a cliche. A cliched opinion can be either correct or incorrect, and, therefore, the fact that it is a cliche is immaterial.


On what basis do you decide that my opinion is more shallow than your opinion?


I do not care much about the business interests of people who knowingly hired illegal workers. As for the interests of companies who hired them innocently, I believe that the issue of the impact on them is less important than the issues of enforcing the law, setting a precedent that we will enforce our laws, evicting people whose first act here was to disrespect our laws, and the fact that there may be a few truly unsavory people mixed in with the people who sneak into the country.


I object to your assumption that my opinions constitute parrotting. My opinions are my opinions, and you have zero information on how I arrive at them. How would you like it if I said that since your opinion is shared by many, and since you don't appear smart enough to be original, I will assume that you are merely parrotting the thoughts of your betters? As for my opinion being trite, you would be amazed by how much I don't care. And finally, I do believe that violation of the law should virtually never be rewarded. It sets a counterproductive precedent.


No, the status quo is dangerous. I am advocating arresting and deporting all illegals and welcoming the people who chose to come here, but who show enough respect for us to follow our laws.


We have indeed waited much too long to enforce the law, but we should do so before the situation is completely beyond our control, even if we have to suffer a certain amount to accomplish that.


Not really. I believe in treating the illegal immigrants with dignity too - the same dignity that I believe should be shown in the treatment of any minor lawbreaker.


Like I said, we've waited too long to enforce our border security, and now it's going to hurt to do so, but we should before the situation is even further out of control.


I have. My opinions are definite, but no more glib than yours. You have my solution as to what to do about people who are here illegally.


Because they're stupid.

Thank you Brandon.

It was a pleasure.

First (and the sooner the better) I would make north american (Canada-USA-Mexico) a virtually free pass zone much the same as most of europe is now. people would migrate to the jobs available just like they now do from state to state within the USA.

Dys,

This idea is nice in theory...but alas, it is about as likely to happen as Brandon's solution to the problem.

McCain-Kennedy is a decent compromise.

Don't know if you got the idea from a segment on Lou Dobbs show on CNN last evening but...here's the transcript. There are some Washingtonites kicking the idea around.

DOBBS: Border security is arguably the critical issue in this country's fight against radical Islamist terrorism. But our borders remain porous. So porous that three million illegal aliens entered this country last year, nearly all of them from Mexico.

Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.

Christine Romans has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.

ROBERT PASTOR, IND. TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA: The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole.

ROMANS: That's the view in a report called "Building a North American Community." It envisions a common border around the U.S., Mexico and Canada in just five years, a border pass for residents of the three countries, and a freer flow of goods and people.

Task force member Robert Pastor.

PASTOR: What we hope to accomplish by 2010 is a common external tariff which will mean that goods can move easily across the border. We want a common security perimeter around all of North America, so as to ease the travel of people within North America.

ROMANS: Buried in 49 pages of recommendations from the task force, the brief mention, "We must maintain respect for each other's sovereignty." But security experts say folding Mexico and Canada into the U.S. is a grave breach of that sovereignty.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: That's what would happen if anybody serious were to embrace this strategy for homogenizing the United States and its sovereignty with the very different systems existing today in Canada and Mexico.

ROMANS: Especially considering Mexico's problems with drug trafficking, human smuggling and poverty. Critics say the country is just too far behind the U.S. and Canada to be included in a so-called common community. But the task force wants military and law enforcement cooperation between all three countries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed, an exchange of personnel that bring Canadians and Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security.

ROMANS: And it wants temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union. Yet, just this week, voters in two major countries in the European Union voted against upgrading -- updating the European constitution. So clearly, this is not the best week to be trying to sell that idea.

DOBBS: Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don't have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It's astonishing.

ROMANS: The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in one, rather than alone.

DOBBS: Well, it's a -- it's a mind-boggling concept. Christine Romans, thank you, as always.

Task force site

Don't know if you got the idea from a segment on Lou Dobbs show on CNN last evening but...here's the transcript. There are some Washingtonites kicking the idea around.

DOBBS: Border security is arguably the critical issue in this country's fight against radical Islamist terrorism. But our borders remain porous. So porous that three million illegal aliens entered this country last year, nearly all of them from Mexico.

Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.

Christine Romans has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.

ROBERT PASTOR, IND. TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA: The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole.

ROMANS: That's the view in a report called "Building a North American Community." It envisions a common border around the U.S., Mexico and Canada in just five years, a border pass for residents of the three countries, and a freer flow of goods and people.

Task force member Robert Pastor.

PASTOR: What we hope to accomplish by 2010 is a common external tariff which will mean that goods can move easily across the border. We want a common security perimeter around all of North America, so as to ease the travel of people within North America.

ROMANS: Buried in 49 pages of recommendations from the task force, the brief mention, "We must maintain respect for each other's sovereignty." But security experts say folding Mexico and Canada into the U.S. is a grave breach of that sovereignty.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: That's what would happen if anybody serious were to embrace this strategy for homogenizing the United States and its sovereignty with the very different systems existing today in Canada and Mexico.

ROMANS: Especially considering Mexico's problems with drug trafficking, human smuggling and poverty. Critics say the country is just too far behind the U.S. and Canada to be included in a so-called common community. But the task force wants military and law enforcement cooperation between all three countries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed, an exchange of personnel that bring Canadians and Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security.

ROMANS: And it wants temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union. Yet, just this week, voters in two major countries in the European Union voted against upgrading -- updating the European constitution. So clearly, this is not the best week to be trying to sell that idea.

DOBBS: Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don't have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It's astonishing.

ROMANS: The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in one, rather than alone.

DOBBS: Well, it's a -- it's a mind-boggling concept. Christine Romans, thank you, as always.

Task force site

Like using ther north star, I seek a direction more than a destination. The direction I seek is that eventually all men/women/children will have equality. Nation states are tribal states no longer relevent in this modern world. (also I am an idealist)

Damn you, you weren't suppose to post til I got that other post deleted.

so it goes.

You could just have OnStar installed in your RV, dude.

The above quote is from e-brown's Washington Post Article. Since this is the vital provision that makes the compromise acceptable to me, I'm surprised that he didn't include it in his extract.

Now, I continue to have issues with the Fourteenth Amendment providing that anyone born within the U.S. or possessions is a citizen from birth. As one of the reconstruction amendments, it was surely intended to protect former slaves from disenfranchisement. I think it should be amended. It has not been.

The McCain/Kennedy plan is virtually identical to Bush's first proposal way back in 2000, and one he again proposed just after the November election. One difference is that the visas would be issued in the immigrant's country of origin (a suggestion by McCain in one of his meetings with the President and which Dubya readily agreed to).

One stumbling block will be Hillary's aversion to the 'backdoor amnesty' -- allowing illegals already here to become legal.

In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them," she said.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants," she said. "I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work."
In contrast, Mr. Bush backs a guest-worker program that allows foreign citizens entry into the United States and an eventual path to citizenship. One of the president's first acts after his re-election was to push for it again, before both domestic and foreign audiences.

Unless she's changed stripes (again) I wouldn't count on her support of this bill. She's also in favor of a national ID card, mostly to aid in the clamp-down of illegal immigration.