What should be done about illegal immigration?

Has anyone noticed this contradiction yet?....

Many of the people saying that illegals are coming here to work are the same ones saying that NAFTA sent all of our jobs to Mexico.

So,if all of our jobs are going to Mexico,why are so many illegals coming here?

They are not victims of America. They are criminals. Certainly not the same sort of criminals as murderers, rapists and dope pushers, but they are criminals. They have neither a legal or moral right to be in this country without obtaining our permission.

The punishment for illegal entry at least should be deportation. Reducing it to a fine doesn't rule out application of the term amnesty.

Having said this I, generally, support the bill. We are not ever going to round up and deport 12 million illegals. Leaving them here in their undocumented status doesn't make much sense to me, but if the solution is amnesty, then that is what we should call it, and not offer tortured explanations of why it is not what it is.

I think most people for whom amnesty doesn't sit well, would accept it if they felt confident that we will not need to give millions more amnesty ten years from now.

This amnesty deal is a great one for them. If it leads to actually sealing our borders, it will be a good deal for us.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

They are not victims of America. They are criminals. Certainly not the same sort of criminals as murderers, rapists and dope pushers, but they are criminals. They have neither a legal or moral right to be in this country without obtaining our permission.

According to this "bill", all a gang member (MS-13, etc.) has to do is "renounce" his membership on his application. That's all. Read the bill.

Quote:

The punishment for illegal entry at least should be deportation. Reducing it to a fine doesn't rule out application of the term amnesty.

According to this "bill", the taxpayers of the United States will be asked to pick up the tab for all legal fees associated with any illegal fighting deportation. Read the bill.

Quote:

Having said this I, generally, support the bill. We are not ever going to round up and deport 12 million illegals. Leaving them here in their undocumented status doesn't make much sense to me, but if the solution is amnesty, then that is what we should call it, and not offer tortured explanations of why it is not what it is.

I support "a" bill. Not this one. It does not make sense to me to give gang members, rapists, murderers, and child-molesters legal status in this country. The current bill would make that happen. Read the bill.

Quote:

I think most people for whom amnesty doesn't sit well, would accept it if they felt confident that we will not need to give millions more amnesty ten years from now.

I agree, but neither do I trust this bill to accomplish what most people want in regard to illegal immigration. Secure the border first. Add the thousands of additional border patrol and get busy on the fence to show good faith. Begin to enforce the existing laws - immediately.

Quote:

This amnesty deal is a great one for them. If it leads to actually sealing our borders, it will be a good deal for us.

It won't - too many loopholes. Read the bill.

I have not read the bill, but I am familiar with all of your arguments. I "generally" support the bill. It must be improved from its current state. However it will never be perfect. Such is the nature of compromise.

There are pinheads, and worse, on the opposite position, and yet, sad to say, they have power and cannot be ignored. Since Republicans screwed their own pooch (see 2006 elections) they have to deal with a new reality. I reserve a good deal of my anger for the GOP. This, however, is a major problem for our nation and we have to address it.

We can be ideologically anal and insist on each and every point, but that will leave us with a major problem unresolved.

There are issue to go to the mat on, but the ability of Mexican gang members to slip through the net, because of this bill, is not one.

We are not searching out and deporting these thugs now, there really isn't much hope that if this bill is changed in their regard we will suddenly round them up. The notion that criminality can be eradicated is irrational. Even in the most totalitarian of nations, criminals exist. It's the nature of Man. There will always be some segment of our society that will live and thrive outside of our mutually agreed upon rules.

This is not to say that we should tolerate criminality. We should not., but we need to understand that in a democracy, compromise is required and compromise always means that all parties are swallowing something that tastes bad. Does the good outweigh the bad? If not fight the bill; but if so, then stop expecting perfection.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I have not read the bill, but I am familiar with all of your arguments. I "generally" support the bill. It must be improved from its current state. However it will never be perfect. Such is the nature of compromise.

I was a supporter of the 'compromise', but after reading the bill, I agree with the critics that the government cannot be trusted to enforce and defend the border provisions of the bill in its current form. In my opinion, amnesty is not warranted until the government proves that it is competent enough to enforce the law. I say, secure the border (the fence, the thousands more border patrol agents), institute the employer provisions and within a proscribed time (say 3 to 5 years), if the flow of illegal immigration has been reduced substantially, we then think about amnesty.

Quote:

There are pinheads, and worse, on the opposite position, and yet, sad to say, they have power and cannot be ignored. Since Republicans screwed their own pooch (see 2006 elections) they have to deal with a new reality. I reserve a good deal of my anger for the GOP. This, however, is a major problem for our nation and we have to address it.

Bush and many of the Republicans have really faltered on this. I remember seeing an opinion piece in the NYT that Al Gore should throw his hat into the ring and run on an anti-illegals platform. If the Democrats were to adopt a defend the border first policy, they'd have a good chance of becoming the majority party for a generation.

Quote:

We can be ideologically anal and insist on each and every point, but that will leave us with a major problem unresolved.

Seventy percent of Americans don't agree on much of anything, but we agree on this: effectively control the borders before we start talking about normalizing anyone. Otherwise, we'll have fifty million illegals twenty years from now. Once you can stem the tide to an acceptable level, then we can kick the criminals out and start seriously discussing what to do with the rest of them.

Quote:

There are issue to go to the mat on, but the ability of Mexican gang members to slip through the net, because of this bill, is not one.

We are not searching out and deporting these thugs now, there really isn't much hope that if this bill is changed in their regard we will suddenly round them up. The notion that criminality can be eradicated is irrational. Even in the most totalitarian of nations, criminals exist. It's the nature of Man. There will always be some segment of our society that will live and thrive outside of our mutually agreed upon rules.

This is not to say that we should tolerate criminality. We should not., but we need to understand that in a democracy, compromise is required and compromise always means that all parties are swallowing something that tastes bad. Does the good outweigh the bad? If not fight the bill; but if so, then stop expecting perfection.

I agree with you. We are a generous people, but we don't tolerate thugs and bandits who take advantage of our generosity (Palestinians excepted).

Link to the Amendments

Talk Shows Influence Immigration Debate

Saturday June 23, 2007

By CHARLES BABINGTON

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Immigration has supplanted Iraq as the leading issue on television and radio talk shows, complicating the prospects of a Senate bill desperately wanted by President Bush.

Conservative talk radio's impact on the immigration debate reached new heights last week, with one host effectively writing an amendment for when the Senate returns to the imperiled bill this week.

National talk show hosts have spent months denouncing the bill as providing amnesty for illegal immigrants. Some top Republicans who support the legislation have defied the broadcast pundits. Others GOP lawmakers have tried to placate them, even to the point of accepting their ideas for amendments.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the key conservative negotiator behind the compromise bill, told reporters Friday that California-based radio host Hugh Hewitt ``had several ideas'' that ``we are trying to include'' in amendments to be offered in an upcoming series of crucial votes.

Hewitt, a conservative who has criticized many aspects of the bill, had Kyl as a guest on Thursday and asked: ``Does the bill provide for any separate treatment of aliens, illegal aliens from countries of special concern?''

Kyl replied: ``It's going to, as a result of your lobbying efforts to me.''

People seeking entry the U.S. from countries that the U.S. has designated as state sponsors of terrorism will get a higher level of scrutiny, Kyl said Friday.

Other Bush allies have tried more confrontational approaches to the talk hosts, sometimes with bruising results.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., told reporters last week, ``Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.'' Some hosts, he added, do not know what is in the lengthy bill.

The comments incensed conservative talk show hosts who generally had supported Lott over the years.

Lott is ``upset that the American people got right into the middle of the conversation over the problem with illegal aliens and it didn't turn out all that well for the pro-amnesty forces,'' Atlanta-based talk show host Neal Boortz wrote on his Web site.

``If Trent Lott and his other buddies up on the Hill aren't listening to 'talk,' then what are they listening to? The answer is either their wallet or their legacy.''

Radio host Rush Limbaugh asked his audience: ``What are we going to do about Mississippi Senator Trent Lott?''

Lott's treatment contrasted sharply with that given to Kyl. In a column posted on his Web site, Hewitt called Kyl ``perhaps the single most effective and principled conservative in the United States Senate.''

The immigration bill would tighten borders and workplace enforcement, create a guest worker program and provide ways to legal status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The legislation faces showdown votes this coming week that lawmakers on all sides agree will be close.

If the measure fails, talk radio and TV - where CNN's Lou Dobbs has been especially critical - will deserve substantial credit, academics and politicians say.

``Talk radio and talk TV are most effective when there's an immediate action pending,'' said Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvania, who is an authority on media and politics. ``It's a classic instance of mobilization with all the pieces in place and it's sure to have an effect.''

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading opponent of the bill, said in an interview that ``talk radio has had a significant impact on this issue.''

A frequent guest of Dobbs, Hewitt and other conservative hosts discussing immigration, Sessions said, ``I think people have learned more from talk radio than from reading the newspapers.''

As for Lott, Sessions said: ``I can't imagine what Trent was thinking. Maybe his mouth was moving and his brain was in neutral.''

Michael Harrison, editor of the talk show industry magazine Talkers, said immigration has replaced the Iraq war as the most discussed topic and has led many conservative hosts to show more loyalty to the anti-amnesty issue than to the Republican Party.

``I think talk radio should be credited with possibly saving the American people from George Bush's immigration bill,'' Harrison said, adding that he and his magazine are nonpartisan.

Some Republicans who recently announced their opposition to the bill said constituent concerns were their main reason. But they acknowledged the intensity of talk radio hostility in their states.

``Neal Boortz, he popped us pretty good,'' said Lindsay Mabry, a spokeswoman for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who shifted from qualified support to opposition to the bill in recent days. She said Chambliss consulted with Boortz on immigration even though the senator was not an on-air guest during the debate.