What should be done about illegal immigration?

Stop mistating my point. I do not say that most Americans want "wide open borders".

I am saying that most Americans want compromise, a path to citizenship combined with border security/workplace enforcement. The polls back me up on this.

McG: It doesn't matter if the bill is passed or not, now or in the future until the borders are secure.


Until then it's just paper sitting on someone's desk like the fence that isn't being built, yet was funded.

_________________

That's been my contention all along; without controlling the borders, any legislation approved by congress isn't worth the paper it's written on.

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG: It doesn't matter if the bill is passed or not, now or in the future until the borders are secure.


Until then it's just paper sitting on someone's desk like the fence that isn't being built, yet was funded.

_________________

That's been my contention all along; without controlling the borders, any legislation approved by congress isn't worth the paper it's written on.

This was posted two days ago; it still holds true now - after the senate deep-sixed the new immigration legislation, and it won't change in the future until the border is secured.

ebrown_p wrote:

Stop mistating my point. I do not say that most Americans want "wide open borders".

I am saying that most Americans want compromise, a path to citizenship combined with border security/workplace enforcement. The polls back me up on this.

Stop being so full of yourself.

I used your post as a launching point, and made no attempt to state, restate or mistate your point.

What you now say you are saying is somewhat correct, but the emphasis in on border security - a path to citizenship is not desired as much as it is accepted.

Let's talk about the politics involved here. There is no need to wonder... the position of all of the Senators on this issue is public. No one has hidden their position (nor could they).

There are two reasons the Democrats gave for opposing this bill.

1) There are a few conservative Democrats (i.e. Democrats from conservative districts) who are saying they will not vote for "amnesty". James Webb... a former republican from a conservative state is the best example of this. They oppose it for the same reason that the majority of Republicans oppose it.

There is not a very big number (Byrd and Webb are the only Senators I can list off the top of my head who oppose this bill because of the so-called amnesty). They are the equivalent of Snowe on the Republican side.

So Dems like Rockfeller in WVA didn't vote NAY because of the take on the sense of constituents?

2) A far greater number of Democrats opposed this bill for labor reasons. The temporary worker plan (in particular) is hated by the vast majority of progressives and Democrats (including me).

There are a many Senators who are on record of supporting a path to citizenship but opposed the guest worker provisions of this bill as anti-labor.

Like whom?

I'm sure I could list the Labor shills of the Democratic Party, but I wonder if our lists would compare well.

3) Some Democrats (Harkin included) were upset about the point system which makes it harder to bring families together. Many of them feel this is against the goal of family reunification.

And yet Menendez of NJ who has been the most vocal (far more so than Gringo Tom) in his concern for family unification voted Yay.

------
The Conservatives who voted against the bill are only playing one note.

This is the sort of thinking that will assure there will never be a compromise: "WE are right and well intentioned - YOU are wrong and mean-spirited, but let's see if we can work this out."

The Democrats were looking at the many issues involved-- and they voted against it for many reasons. Several of them have gone on record as supporting a path to citizenship even though they voted against this bill.

Evan Bayh (the first on your list) is a good example of a Senator who has gone on record as supporting a path to citizenship... he voted in favor of the much more liberal 2006 attempt (which passed the Senate as you may recall). I was surprised (perhaps I shouldn't be) that he made absolutely no statement on this vote.

As far as your last point... this was a very anti-immigrant (and I mean anti-illegal-and-legal-immigrant) bill. It had high fines, it had new penalties and new bars. It changed certain immigration misdimeanors into felonies. It had hundreds of miles of fence and billions of dollars for border security. The only concession it made to my side was a (very weak and very difficult) path to citizenship that would have been nearly unreachable for a large number of migrant workers.

I really doubt the conservatives are going to do any better than this.

But what matters now is that the conservatives are willing to take the blame for the status quo-- something they appear very happy to do (and I won't stop them).

Of course... the damage this is doing to Republican party unity (since the business community really wanted this bill) is more than worth the price of admission. You don't see prominant Democrats launching personal attacks against each other over this, and you don't see the Democratic base threatening to stop supporting Democrats.

The poll at the top of this page appears to cross political parties. There are more Dems here than Reps, yet 63% of the responses to the poll are "negative" towards illegals and their employers.

Objective voters/citizens/patriots want boarder security FIRST.

Then we can deal with who is here legally or illegally.

In my view there is no compromise on security FIRST.

Quote:

Objective voters/citizens/patriots want boarder security FIRST.

Then we can deal with who is here legally or illegally.

In my view there is no compromise on security FIRST.

Keep saying this woiyo...

No I am serious, keep saying this-- loudly and publically. The more angry conservative making hardline statements on national news... the better. The best thing is that people like squinny are going to be on the uncomfortable position of being on the same side as you.

The term "objective citizens" is a good one. At least now you admit that there are Americans who disagree with you-- but now we will say that anyone who disagrees with you is not "objective".

Mysteryman... you are arguing two points at the same time... in one post you trying to tell me what Americans think, in the next seem to be telling me what Americans should think. There is a difference I think you understand, but I don't want anyone to get confused.

This is getting silly...

From the very beginning of this very long thread I have argued that a good solution will have both compassion AND border security. I have never argued against border security. I am just saying you need compromise that the many different voices in America can agree with... and you need to address all of the issues involved.

You guys are dancing in the streets over the death of yet another compromise bill. And (although I wasn't real sad it died either) I am happy to let America give you the "credit".

The fact is that you killed a bill that had border security. It had harsher enforcement for both immigrants and employers. It had a wall. It had 4 billions of dollars for the border. It forced immigrants to return home before they could legalize. It put new bars for overstaying visas.

The conservatives didn't kill this bill because it lacked enforcement measures... it had all the enforcement measures that anyone could expect.

The conservatives killed this bill because of it offered a path to citizenship, even a costly difficult path to citizenship, to people here now. They killed it because they can't accept even the least bit of compassion for these "illegal" foreigners..

Let's be honest here about what happened . You all killed a border security bill because it offered "amnesty". Now we are stuck with the status quo for another two years at least.

You are in a very leaky boat alright. It seems very odd that you refuse to fix it.