May 12, 2006
IMMIGRATION PROGRESS....When we last heard from the Senate, Harry Reid had scuppered a compromise deal on immigration because Bill Frist had refused to provide assurances that he'd back the compromise by (a) limiting the number of amendments offered on the floor and (b) appointing serious supporters of the bill to the conference committee that will hash out a final markup with the House. Reid had the balls to kill the deal when it became clear the fix was in, and it looks like this has paid off. A new agreement is now in place:
Frist said the Senate will send 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats to negotiate with the House, with seven of the Republicans and five Democrats coming from the Judiciary Committee. The remaining seven Republicans will be chosen by Frist and the remaining seven Democrats by Reid.
....Frist said a "considerable" number of amendments will be considered when the Senate begins debating the bill early next week.
....Reid acknowledged on the Senate floor yesterday morning that he "didn't get everything that I wanted" in the agreement, but he said Frist did not either. Reaching the agreement is "not easy with the political atmosphere," Reid said.
This isn't perfect, and things might eventually blow up in conference anyway. But it's better than what we had before.
—Kevin Drum 1:46 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (37)
The Senate wants to double legal immigration to two million per year.
And, they want to give amnesty to untold millions of illegal aliens.
Even if they spin it as not an amnesty, that's not how it will be seen around the world.
Millions upon millions more illegal aliens will come here to take part in that or future amnesty schemes.
And, they'll do it with the full knowledge that all they have to do is march in our streets, making a show of force and demanding that we capitulate like the Senate did. That will also make us look weak to countries like China.
Meanwhile, the GAO says that the USCIS - which would administer any "guest" worker or amnesty scheme - is already tremendously backlogged and won't have a fraud management system in place until 2010.
As pointed out in the 9/11 Commission Staff Report, past terrorists have had an in-depth knowledge of and have attempted to find loopholes in our immigration system.
Given the facts above, how many terrorists will be able to gain legal residency here under the Senate's plan?
Immigration "reform" is a recipe for disaster.
The senators who support it do not represent the vast majority of Americans and are not doing what's in the best interests of this country.
Posted by: TLB on May 12, 2006 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK
Oh, ya gotta love the racist tendencies of the right. Most would be terrorist come from Canada, where it's easier to cross the border, or they fly in from some other country. But it's easier to hate on us "darkies". It's amazing how dreadfully ignorant the right-wingers are. How many of the 9-11 hijackers would have been stopped with a wall separating the U.S. and Mexico.
If you're a racist, you may as well admit it. Quit trying to hide it behind God and national security--or job security or "upholding the law".
Posted by: gq on May 12, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK
BTW, right-wingers need to get their stories straight. Ya'll are constantly talking about how "Islamic" terrorism is the big threat. Now it's heavily Catholic/Evangelical Latinos (who we all really know will benefit from this so-called amnesty)? Dios mio. It's hard to figure out who to be afraid of in this war on terror.
Quack. Quack. Quack.
Posted by: gq on May 12, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK
Just a question, but does TLB read what (s)he types?
Posted by: fishbane on May 12, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK
I don't know why Democrats would hail this development.
The idea is to get them on record as supporting "amnesty" going into the 2006 election, and mobilize the demoralized Republican base and Perotistas.
I'm a leftist. I think amnesty and open borders are a fine idea.
But that doesn't change the fact that Washington Democrats are no good at either principles or politics anymore.
Posted by: The Blue Nomad on May 12, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK
There is no immigration "crisis". I wish they would work on something that might make a difference, like medical care, alternative energy, minimum wage, the ridiculous deficit, etc.
Enforcing the existing laws would go a long way to limiting the desirability of illegally entering the US. But then, they'd have to arrest half the business owners in California, Texas and Florida.
Posted by: Mysticdog on May 12, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK
I have to wonder if the benefits of this deal are really enough to make it worth while. All the coverage I've seen make it look like a Republican issue that is driving a wedge into the party. If nothing passes no one is going to blame the Dems -- the Repubs tried to make that charge and it didn't stick.
Passing a more moderate bill may please some moderate Repubs and Independents and thus benefit incumbents while pissing off some part of the conservative base. The exact proportions are impossible to know in advance. It's hard to see Dems getting much credit for forcing a "better" outcome and anyone who doesn't like the final bill can rightfully say deadlock was preferable.
I have to say I think the status quo is perfectly acceptable -- it is damaging enough to the Republicans and there is no immigration emergency that has to be dealt with before the next term.
Posted by: Tentakles on May 12, 2006 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK
Let me know if I've got it:
The Minutemen really got this whole thing going. So, the wingers demand that the Repugs save them from the brownies. Repugs think this is a great issue and introduce bills essentially further criminalizing undocumented workers. Moderate border state Repugs are confused. Dems don't know whether to play along in hopes of adding new workers to unions and new voters to Dem rolls. Of course, passed immigartion reform could look like a Repug victory. Both sides sense trouble and adopt a risk averse position--sabotage the compromise legislation.
So where are we now?
Posted by: ecoboz on May 12, 2006 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK
"Kev is hardly a Washington Democrat ; )"
That's because cat people are above politics.
Posted by: The Blue Nomad on May 12, 2006 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK
Cats are evil. Down with cats.
Posted by: MNPundit on May 12, 2006 at 4:16 AM | PERMALINK
Especially calico cats.
Posted by: John on May 12, 2006 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK
Since my cat IS a calico... YES.
Posted by: MNPundit on May 12, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK
Some of us were concerned that Reid would not be a strong minority leader. Some of us were wrong. I tip my hat to Senator Reid - AGAIN.
Posted by: pgl on May 12, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK
Can any of the libs answer me this question? What is wrong with securing the borders - both north, south, and coast line? I won't even get into the debate on what we should do with the illegals who are currently in the country. I would like to know what your thoughts are on securing the border (fence, wall, oil/fire filled moat, land mines, killer bees).
Posted by: Harry Crumb on May 12, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK
OT (hat tip to Josh Marshall): Bush at 29% in Harris Interactive poll
Matches Daddy's low point.
Only 1 point higher than Carter's low point.
Americans are finally getting it.
Bush is corrupt.
Bush is incompetent.
Bush is immoral.
Bush is a coward.
Bush is a liar.
Bush is wrong for America.
And so is the GOP he leads.
After all, they picked this corrupt, incompetent, immoral, mendacious coward as a representative of all that they stand for.
We should take them at their word!
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 12, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK
. . . how about we start enforcing the existing immigration laws in States that did not vote Bush-Cheney?
The Bush administration and its state-level cohorts aren't enforcing them in the states that did vote Bush-Cheney and they similarly enforce none of the other laws that protect Americans from corporate greed and rapaciousness.
When they start, then we'll know that it's the serious issue that conservatives say it is.
Actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than conservative lies.
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 12, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK
Floyd Patterson died yesterday.
RIP.
Posted by: Down goes Frazier on May 12, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK
advocate comes through again with objective debating points, reasoned arguments and a non-partisan approach to furthering the conversation of illegal immigration. How refreshing.......oh wait. Must be dark up there.
Posted by: Jay on May 12, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK
As to Calico cats (since I've given up attempting to reason with ya'll about the sheer wrongheadedness of supporting mass immigration and illegal mass immigration in particular) - one of my favorite Star Trek Next Gen gaffes was a calico named Rags which Jean-Luc refers to as 'he'.
Not likely.
There are very occasionally male calicos and torties born - they usually die within days and are severely compromised (brain damage).
Now I'll go back to contemplating what may be the best candidate for the Triple Crown since the Bid and Charismatic.
"Barbaro possesses a combination of speed and stamina that is rare in contemporary American Thoroughbreds. It is a combination that has been missing in most of the horses who have pursued the Triple Crown in recent years. Smarty Jones (2004), Funny Cide (2003), and War Emblem (2002) all won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, but they were the sons of sprinters, and their shortcomings caught up with them in the 1 1/2-mile Belmont. Other Derby and Preakness winners failed in the Belmont because they were off-the-pace runners lacking the tactical speed that is vital in the Belmont.
But Barbaro has the whole package. He is fast enough to run with fast sprinters. Yet he possesses a strong finishing kick and a pedigree that suggests he will be even more effective at longer distances. His sire, Dynaformer, is one of America's leading sires of distance runners."
Andrew Beyer - DRF
Posted by: CFShep on May 12, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK
Jay: advocate comes through again with objective debating points, reasoned arguments and a non-partisan approach to furthering the conversation of illegal immigration. How refreshing.......oh wait. Must be dark up there.
Jay mindlessly supports Bush again by calling the opposition partisan, unobjective, and unreasoned, while spouting partisanship and no arguments at all (reasoned or unreasoned).
And he's as objective about Bush as Laura is.
If the debate isn't serious, and it isn't since Bushco really doesn't believe the things they say (their actions show this to be so - thus, a reasoned argument based on objective fact), then reasoned argument would be fruitless, but I some anyway out of compassion for your ignorance and delusion.
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 12, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK
Totally off topic, but why didn't the democrats fillibuster the latest round of the republicans tax cuts for millionaires and additional debt for everyone else? Is there a better issue that shows the difference between the parties?
This was a bill that should have been filibustered for at least a while to draw attention to what the republicans are doing. With a fillibuster, both sides would have had to explain why they are for or against the bill, which would only help the dems.
I don't get it.
Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on May 12, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK
It is interesting that conservatives want to enforce the laws against the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Mexicans, the Venezuelans, the Haitians, but not against American-Cubans or white men like DeLay, Libby, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Ney, Burns . . . or companies like Halliburton or totalitarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
When you get consistent in your opposition to the things you call evil and illegal, then you can talk, Jay.
Until then it's all blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 12, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK
Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher (R) indicted.
Democrats actually enforce the laws when Republicans break them.
Republicans refuse to enforce the laws when white Republicans break them, but do want to enforce the laws when brown people break them, even though the white Republican lawbreakers are hurting the public interest and stealing taxpayer dollars while the latter are actually furthering the public interest by performing work Americans won't or can't.
Republicans consistently refuse to obey or enforce the laws when it comes to certain Cubans (e.g., Elian Gonzalez), but gratuitously and with tortured interpretations enforce the laws against black immigrants (e.g., by ruling that rape is not a form of torture - maybe the Republican judges that so ruled should spend a day as a prison b*tch so they can see for themselves whether rape is torture or not).
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 12, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK
Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher (R) indicted.
The Fitzmas season just rolls along . . .
At this rate, maybe the GOP will have no one left to run for office in November . . . unless it's from a jail cell.
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 12, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK
>>
Nothing is wrong with securing the borders. We don't want drug dealers and terrorists crossing nor do we want people striving for a better life dying in the desert. But draconian measures like the current bill won't solve ANY of the problems; they will only satisfy xenophobic old-timers. We need a large LEGAL immigrant population. But we need an INS that is well-funded and well-staffed to do the job.
Posted by: coolz on May 12, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK
Apparently neither Kevin Drum nor any of his readers have any contrary evidence or counterargument to provide, and they've completely conceded my points.
The reader should assume that the Democrats and some Republicans plan to go ahead with a plan that they know is completely unworkable and will have a devastating impact on this country.
-- Illegal immigration news
Posted by: TLB on May 12, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK
More accurately, TLB, neither Kevin Drum nor any of his readers take your shilling for your shallow, one-note blog seriously.
Posted by: cmdicely on May 12, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK
The reader should assume that the Democrats and some Republicans plan to go ahead with a plan that they know is completely unworkable and will have a devastating impact on this country.
TLB: After the country is "devestated" by bringing into the sunlight what has been going on in the shadows, would you all do us a favor and, um, emmigrate?
Posted by: Meestah Reconquista on May 12, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK
Look you've fucked up in the Middle East and Central Asia so why not look south of the border for energy?
I hear Venezuela has more crude than Saudi Arabia.
Be sensible for once in yr idiotic Homer Simpsonesque lives and institute a common currency ( Cocaine...just kidding. ) and a sane travel regime. Free trade means free travel. Social capital flows. Something like the European's Shengen travel agreement would work and then you won't have El Presidente Fox standing tall at the border shouting..."If you seek peace; if you seek prosperity for the United State's AND South America. If you seek liberalization... Senor Arbusto - TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!
Posted by: professor rat on May 12, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
professor rat: Something like the European's Shengen travel agreement would work
To emphasize, the Schengen agreement is a travel agreement that has nothing to do with work or residency visas. We could probably have something like the Schengen agreement if we emulated those countries and actually enforced our own work and residency visa laws.
Posted by: alex on May 12, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK
Preview of speech? There is text of El Presidente's oration (illustrated) in "Our First Mexican President."
Posted by: gringoman on May 12, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK
Bush told them to go back to work and they did.
Posted by: republicrat on May 12, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK
Folks,
You seem to be having a hard time admitting to yourselves that you and George W. Bush are on the same side on illegal immigration: you both like it.
Posted by: Steve Sailer on May 13, 2006 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINK
I find it amusing that some folks keep referring to the immigration issue as a racial matter.
I am married to a Latino. He is a legal citizen and went through all the proper channels to become an American citizen.
It's pretty apparent those of you that continue to refer to and use the phrase whites and darkies; have some racist bones in your own closet or you wouldn't be using the terms in this forum.
Saying that whites get preferred treatment when it comes to the law is just as laughable as the thought of immigration reform being racist.
When is the last time you checked the prison population? There are plenty of darkies in the system. They're there because they willingly broke the law. Same as illegal immigrants in America.
Illegal immigrants know they are breaking the law when the cross the border. That's the reason they "sneak" across the border instead of riding across the border like a legal citizen would.
A criminal act is a criminal act regardless of who does it. Illegal immigrants are guilty of a misdemeanor crime and they know it. No one cares what color your skin is. If your commiting crimianl acts; you have to pay the price. And crossing the border illegally is just that...illegal.
It amazing me that anyone would think that we owe illegal immigrants the right to protest in our streets. To wave a country flag that belongs to another country on American soil for the purpose of protesting illegal activities. To change the words of our national anthem to suit their own needs. To demand that real Americans learn to speak their language instead of vice-versa.
Illegal immigrants demand the use of our health care system at our expense, when many true citizens cannot get health care of their own.
I obviously am not racist as I am married to an immigrant. But I am furious at the fact that my husband had to wait and go through all the red tape to become a legal citizen, only for that to become a slap in the face for him.
Everyone deserves to live a better life, but not at the expense of millions of Americans.
Comments have been made regarding how illegal immigrants risk their lives to come to America. Well, I propose a law that would require illegal immigrants to join the US Armed Forces before they can become an American citizen.
Lets weed out the less desirables from becoming citizens. The last thing on the less desirables minds is serving our country. They think more along the lines of drug trafficing and smuggling.
If an illegal immigrant really wants the "American dream", then part of that dream is defending this country and its borders. All illegal immigrants should have to join our boys and girls in Iraq or Afghanistan. Illegal immigrants should have to prove their loyalty to the US before they can earn citizenship.
Stop breaking the law. Illegal immigrants are criminals regardless of how you look at it. If it bothers you to think that some people in America doesn't like darkies, then go home. No one asked for the illegal immigrants to come here and commit crimes, ruin neighborhoods with drug trafficing, trash lining the streets, and violent crimes.
If you want the American dream, then act like an American and follow the rules. Leave your old living habits in the country you came from, and stop using real Americans to pay your way, and foot your bills.
Posted by: Mexican Wife on May 15, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK
Hi, great site
Posted by: adult on May 16, 2006 at 5:34 AM | PERMALINK