President Bush is not running in Nov. HE can afford to be "wrong".
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
True, but what's his motivation.
elextnixon
· 3 years ago
I'm with you on this one, Whistler. Why should illegals from Mexico get all the breaks. Increasing legal immigration is the best way to keep the US the great melting pot that it is. Enforcement of our border and our laws should go without saying.
Surrendering to Mexico and giving Mexicans preferential status just because they walked here would be a big mistake. We need engineers from India and China more than we need greenskeepers from Mexico. Who do you think pays more taxes? Who do you think is a bigger burden on government services?
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
It's also very misleading when the pro-amnesty crowd claims that ALL illegal aliens work. I heard on the radio that Illegals (in California?) were twice as likely to be on welfare as legal immigrants.
robert108
· 3 years ago
The message that needs to be sent is to vote for those Republicans who promise to enforce laws against illegal immigration.
WOOF
· 3 years ago
Bush's motivation is to satisfy business interests (large Republican dollar supporters) who want cheap , stable labor. He also does not want to piss of the Hispanic voter.
The House wants to molify Americans who see an invasion of foreigners threatening the "American way of life", as diversely as that is interperted.
Any real reform is likely to piss off many people, so expect little.
robert108
· 3 years ago
The cost/benefit of illegal immigration doesn't work. The cost far outweighs any possible benefits. All the rest is partisan politics, as Woof so aptly illustrates.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
I can agree with much of what you say. However quit blaming Business for this problem. As I proved in this post, businesses are not allowed to NOT hire those that have "reasonable" looking identification. It's quicker, cheaper and easier to get false documents.
robert108
· 3 years ago
TW: Woof has to blame business; he's a leftie. Notice how he doesn't deal with the Dem/leftie reasons for supporting open borders. Not exactly fair and balanced, is he?
Ontario Emperor
· 3 years ago
Business will do whatever they must to maximize profits. While business can complain that they can't check falsified documents, they have no inclination to try very hard - unless the hiring of illegal aliens becomes politically unpopular and hurts their business.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
TW: Woof has to blame business; he's a leftie.
President Bush's Press Secretary did much the same thing when he was on the Rush Limbaugh show. (Of course even Rush makes that claim)
Rush talks about the time when some midwest meatpackers were targeted by immigration enforcement. They apparently got their Congresscritters to intervene.
I don't think this is as nefarious as it sounds. As the law is interpreted these meat packers have to hire those with reasonable looking documents. When the government shows up and starts accusing them they're stuck in a bad place.
1. They followed the rules. And now the government's enforcing different rules.
2. They are losing a large chunk of their workforce that they hired in good faith by the rules.
3. They must wonder why out of millions of employers they are being singled out.
If the government gave employers the tools to enforce their responsibility it'd be a different thing. However blaming them for something they can't do differently is wrong.
WOOF
· 3 years ago
The cost/benefit of illegal immigration doesn't work
Works quite well for some sectors. Bush is not pushing a path to citenship cause he likes foreigners.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
While business can complain that they can't check falsified documents, they have no inclination to try very hard
From the Link:
"The system is broken because, from the moment the employers begin the paperwork process, the law places them between a rock and a hard place. That is while one provision punishes them with heavy fines if they fail to sufficiently inspect the documents, another provision makes thtem liable for discrimination if they too vigoursly inspect the documents."
"The employer may not refuse to "honor documents tendered by the employee that on their face reasonably appears to be genuine....that section of law also prohibits employer retaliation...against an employee....such as dismissing the employee, even if he suspects him to be and illegal alien, and such retaliation...is considered discrimination per se under the law.
They have no inclination to try very hard unless they want to defend themselves against an EEOC lawsuit.
Blaming the employers is merely window dressing when you look at the facts.
Zsa Zsa
· 3 years ago
That would be considered discrimination? So under the law you can be in trouble if you don't check for illegal alliens? AND, you can get in trouble if you do check?
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Under the law if the employee's documents (drivers license and Social Security card usually) look reasonable you cannot question them.
It's easier, cheaper and faster to get fake ID than real ID from what I've heard.
I think 99% of employers are more than willing to do the right thing. However they cannot enforce our immigration laws the way the governments interpreted it.
Frankly I doubt that if we cracked down on illegals getting legitimate jobs we'd see much improvement. I think illegals would stay here for the welfare benefits and pick up jobs totally off of the books. That's why we need internal enforcement of our immigration laws.
Zsa Zsa
· 3 years ago
Whistler,...How do they get on welfare when they are illegal? Are fake ID's that hard to detect? My biggest concern is AlQaeda getting into the US. That is scary.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Michelle Malkin has a webcast on this problem over at Hotair.com.
The one thing that I think she's a bit off on is that I don't think most employers are aware of the law so they shouldn't be blamed for not using it.
Plus do we know you aren't going to get in trouble if you use it?
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
How do they get on welfare when they are illegal?
I'm sure a lot of states don't worry that much about it. In fact suppose an illegal couple had a baby born in the US. I'm sure they'd qualify in a lot of states.
Are fake ID's that hard to detect?
I've never detected one so why ask me. It'd be very easy to fake the social security card. I think there's big money to be made in the fake ID business so they probably do a pretty good job.
Zsa Zsa
· 3 years ago
Sorry Whistler. I ask way too many questions.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
No apologies are necessary. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
Zsa Zsa
· 3 years ago
It just seems too easy. Someone could go State to State ripping the American people off it sounds like.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Woof: Absolutely wrong, as usual. Why do the Dems support open borders?
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
It just seems too easy. Someone could go State to State ripping the American people off it sounds like.
I live in a border town. All of the migrants live across the river in Minnesota. Around here most of the jobs are on the North Dakota side.....
WOOF
· 3 years ago
Which Democrats are calling for open borders? It is the President who wants to declare that the borders, that were closed were actually open , if you snuck through early enough.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
Good title. Your choice of the unfair and politically loaded word "amnesty" makes it completely clear you have absolutely no interest in compromising.
Nor any interest in any real back-and-forth on this issue.
Why then, bother with the posts on this subject?
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Actually Carrick it is very much amnesty. Giving the illegals exactly what they want is amnesty.
A small fine that they can pay with money that they earn here is amnesty.
Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.
Letting them pay 3 out of 5 years of back taxes is amnesty.
Only requiring them to work three out of five years is amnesty.
Having no plan to do anything about the people in this country that don't take the amnesty plan is also amnesty.
I do have a compromise amnesty plan I would support. If they turn themselves in we won't hold it against them when they try to come here legally.
I wouldn't call it a compromise if the President is forced to sign a bill the way I would like it. Why does the AP call it a compromise to give the President and the Senate Cabal what they want?
Why don't you quit quibbling on the term used and explain why we should reward those that break our laws with exactly what they broke the laws to achieve. While you're at it you should explain how that won't encourage more illegal immigration.
docdave
· 3 years ago
Which Democrats are calling for open borders?
Woof, where were you when I posted a blog showing that the Democrat senators voted to as a unit to block any amendments that would put immigration enforcement before amnesty? The amnesty bill passed by the senate is a product of the liberal Republicans and the Democrats. So the answer to your question is ALL OF THEM.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Woof: If the Dems backed locking down the border and deporting the illegals, they would win in '06 and '08 in a walk. The President and the liberal Reps have handed them the opportunity on a platter, but they can't seem to do it. Wonder why? BTW, I ask you why you support open borders, or at least, don't want strict border enforcement? What is your answer to that one, since you can't answer why the Dems want illegal immigrants to be made legal? I know the answer(s), but wanted to see if a leftie has the courage to stand up and be counted for his beliefs, instead of merely sniping from the sidelines, while the big boys take the risk of standing up for their beliefs.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
If the Dems backed locking down the border and deporting the illegals, they would win in '06 and '08 in a walk.
Absolutely correct. This issue can make or break the political parties. Neither side wants to pick it up.
docdave
· 3 years ago
Why many people are considering 3rd parties. Unfortunately no 3rd party has come out strong for border control and strict immigration enforcement.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Why many people are considering 3rd parties. Unfortunately no 3rd party has come out strong for border control and strict immigration enforcement.
I think in the past the new parties arose out of the old parties. Ala the Republicans arose out of the Whig party.
Peggy Noonan (too old for me; but a babe) has an article on this I just read.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
We've covered the meaning of the word amnesty before, so this isn't exactly news:
Amnesty(n): An official pardon for people who have been conviced of crimes; an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.
Is reducing the penalty then amnesty? Of course not.
You are right on this:
Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.
This is completely fucked up, and yes is amnesty.
Only requiring them to work three out of five years is amnesty.
Check the word definition again. How does this fit in?
Having no plan to do anything about the people in this country that don't take the amnesty plan is also amnesty.
No, that's just incompetence.
Why don't you quit quibbling on the term used and explain why we should reward those that break our laws with exactly what they broke the laws to achieve. While you're at it you should explain how that won't encourage more illegal immigration.
Because word choice really does matter. Amnesty has become a loaded word, and is used inappropriately in order to get a desired "gut punch" reaction.
The words you use affect how the debate gets framed. Or in some cases, word choice can be used to stop any debate, "chickenhawk" is a good choice of that, "amnesty" is quickly becoming another.
I've been harping over the misuse of the word "amnesty" because it has become such a loaded word, that it prevents any further dialog. Stopping dialog is not in your interest, unless your views represent those of the overwhelming majority.
As to the rest...I happen to have grave reservations with reducing penalties (technically "clemency," but that sounds so damned boring doesn't it?) because of exactly the same problem that you mentioned with encouraging more aliens.
I've laid out "my plan" before which is:
1) deny the borders using a defense in depth strategy 2) deny employment to illegals by improving the verification process, eliminate loop holes in existing law that makes it easy for them to work without valid social security numbers, 3) enforce existing laws regarding employers who are blatantly violating the law, while making it easier to catch illegals.
My prediction for the plan that will be settled on:
1) do nothing. 2) see #1.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Carrick then we've misused the word amnesty in nearly every other instance when it's been used. Most specifically the 1986 "Amnesty" plan.
Every tax "amnesty" plan is mislabeled because you have to pay the tax.
Even Jimmy Carter's Draft Dodger amnesty had conditions on it if my memory serves correctly.
You can get nitpicky about the word, but I'm using it as it's be used in the past.
Employer enforcement is part of the solution, but it's hardly a fix. We're going to still have a problem with the underground economy, illegals living on welfare. Illegals making a living on crime. Illegals picking up day labor. Off-the-books contractors (lawn maintainence is likely to become illegal-haven).
By the way I don't know this, but if an employer finds an illegal applying for work under the new law is the government going to remove the illegal? Why is it the employer is subject to a huge fine, and not the illegal alien?
We have to require government employees to do their part. I know that's tough on them, but it's got to be done. Didn't President Bush call it vigilantism when private citizens attempted to enforce our immigration law.
By the way, what are we going to do with illegal aliens that are here but don't sign up for the bill. How about those that have been here four years and don't go home. (I'll bet the Senate Bill Accomplishes nothing.)
One more thing on Amnesty:
Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.
This is completely ****** up, and yes is amnesty.
So even-technically I can call the Senate bill Amnesty.
WOOF
· 3 years ago
Doc the Dems voted against criminalizing immigrants. Reps first went for felony then misdemeanor. We have strict border enforcement, I get much more grief at US Customs than most anywhere else.
I am for strict employment enforcement.
We will see if the "big boys" back their words with action.
docdave
· 3 years ago
2) deny employment to illegals by improving the verification process, eliminate loop holes in existing law that makes it easy for them to work without valid social security numbers,
Carrick: By your own definition: "...an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period." That is about the most accurate description of the Senate bill anyone can give. Why do you have a problem with calling it amnesty? Passing a bill without an enforcement provision is what "...take no action..." means, isn't it? Since they do not now enforce the existing law, why should we believe they will enforce anything? If you want to be nuanced, call it "virtual amnesty" then, but the outcome is the same. We have been living with this in the border states for as least a generation, now, and it's getting really old.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Woof: Still can't take a personal stand on illegal immigration, eh? You want to make businessmen into unpaid border enforcement agents? How about making the paid border enforcement agents do their jobs? Why don't you support that?
Lock down the border. Dry up the welfare. Dry up the jobs. Deport the illegals as they are found out. Encourage as much legal immigration as is beneficial to the US.
See, it's not hard to stand up for your principles, if you have principles, that is.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Check out Malkins latest Hot Air vent on how Dunking Donuts is doing exactly that.
She didn't post a link to the US Government page.
Here it is. Apparently this trial version has only recently been rolled out with next to know employer notification.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
Why is it the employer is subject to a huge fine, and not the illegal alien?
Fines like that should be enforced when egregious conduct on the part of the employer is present.
So even-technically I can call the Senate bill Amnesty.
Well, that portion of the legislation, anyway. What a friggin' crock.
I wouldn't argue against the word use, even wrong, if it hadn't become so loaded. It's not like I argue over FICA versus FICO or any other inconsequential thing like that... 8-/
I would like to see an honest debate, because that is to everybody's benefit.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
I would like to see an honest debate, because that is to everybody's benefit.
Are you saying the politicians are being honest?
Tony Snow said on Rush last week that there was no penalty for illegals in the 1986 amnesty. Umm what punishment works except for deportation! It's not like we want to pay for their room and board.
The President said that the illegals weren't jumping in front of the line during his address to the nation. Let's see, there's people living in Third World Countries waiting to come here and the illegals get to stay here....
Carrick
· 3 years ago
By the way, Bush could take the leadership position, and get congress to split the bill into separate acts.
A Border Security Act. A Legal Employment Act.
and finally,
An Illegal Immigrant Remediation Act.
And promise to sign them only in that order. Trying to do all three at once probably will produce my Plan B from above.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Fines like that should be enforced when egregious conduct on the part of the employer is present.
It's not egregious to take a job from a legal resident?
Frankly you don't know how things work. The bureaucrats that come around don't care whether or not you hire illegals. They care about whether or not you have done your paperwork right. It won't matter one little bit whether or not you ever gave a job to someone that wasn't eligible.
I wouldn't argue against the word use, even wrong,
Are you mad when they talk about tax amnesty?
Carrick
· 3 years ago
Robert108:
That is about the most accurate description of the Senate bill anyone can give.
Here is a description of what you are trying to call amnesty:
Under the Senate bill, illegal immigrants who have been in the country at least five years can continue working and eventually become legal permanent residents and citizens after paying at least $3,250 in fines, fees and back taxes and learning English. Illegal immigrants in the U.S. between two and five years would be required to go to a point of entry at the border and file an application to return. Those in the country less than two years would have to leave.
That's not amnesty. Plain and simple.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
The Whistler:
Frankly you don't know how things work. The bureaucrats that come around don't care whether or not you hire illegals. They care about whether or not you have done your paperwork right. It won't matter one little bit whether or not you ever gave a job to someone that wasn't eligible.
Quit assuming things that you don't know. I have people in my employment, and yes I do know how things work.
How many people have you hired?
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
eventually become legal permanent residents and citizens after paying at least $3,250 in fines, fees and back taxes and learning English.
and we're led to believe that legal immigrants don't have to do anything to become citizens.
What does the bill say they're going to do to those that don't follow the rules this time either.
robert108
· 3 years ago
The President can take a leadership position by increasing border enforcement and deportation of present-day illegals RIGHT NOW! That's why they call it the Executive Branch. They execute the laws. If he did that, we wouldn't have to worry about any elections for a very long time.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
How many people have you hired?
Quite likely more than you have. I'm not making anything up.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
The Whistler:
What does the bill say they're going to do to those that don't follow the rules this time either.
You're conflating now whether the bill is well written, with whether the quoted provision makes any sense.
Those really are two issues, not one and the same.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
You're conflating now whether the bill is well written, with whether the quoted provision makes any sense.
Those really are two issues, not one and the same.
If the bill passes it doesn't really matter does it?
robert108
· 3 years ago
Carrick: You are technically right, but the "do nothing" part of what I wrote is the reality. That is my point. While we dither about semantics, the illegals are pouring across the border, while the authorities do nothing. We already have immigration laws; we just have to enforce them. It's an enforcement problem, not a legislative or semantic one. The illegals, not being very proficient in English, can't appreciate your nuanced approach, and just come in anyway, even though they are not technically getting amnesty. They come here, they get welfare, jobs, medical care, education, so why should they care about shades of meaning?
Carrick
· 3 years ago
Robert108, the shades of meaning, the stifling of debate, etc. have to do with how we US citizens converse about what is a very important issue. It has a bit to do with what an illegal immigrant perceives it as, but only so far as it may encourage them to cross now.
But my comments have more to do with encouraging you guys to frame your comments in a way which increases their persuasiveness, rather than to start it off with what are de facto shock words.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Carrick: I agree with you that the present conditions of wholesale illegal immigration and looting of our tax money and public institutions is shocking. The language, if it be truthful, will reflect that reality. I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention "stifling of debate". What is debatable about the illegal immigrant situation?
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
BISMARCK --- The time to participate in North Dakota's Tax Amnesty Program is quickly running out. And Tax Amnesty participants who may have partially paid their tax and interest need to make their final payment by Saturday, January 31.
"Amnesty participants who have already sent in their forms and made a partial payment need to pay the remaining balance on or before the Amnesty deadline, Saturday January 31," said Clayburgh, "or they risk having the Amnesty revoked."
Throughout this special Amnesty period, which began in October and ends January 31, individuals and businesses have been paying overdue taxes at a reduced interest rate. To take advantage of Tax Amnesty, taxpayers must file an Amnesty application along with the tax form(s) for the year or years in question. Taxpayers must also send in payment for all taxes and interest due. Amnesty forms and payment in full must be postmarked no later than January 31, 2004.
Carrick, I don't recall if you were upset that the State of North Dakota called this tax scheme "amnesty."
robert108
· 3 years ago
TW: Yes, it was definitely conditional tax clemency.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
BUT THEY CALLED IT AMNESTY!!!! ;)
I think you'd be hard pressed to find an amnesty law that doesn't have conditions. I'm only using the word the way it's used. I think the other side doesn't want anything to remember the 1986 amnesty debacle as they try to fool us again.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
TW, I'm not from North Dakota, so this is the first time I've seen this bill. Why doesn't it fit under
an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.
You still owe the money you would owe, you just don't pay any penalties.
robert108
· 3 years ago
TW: Are the tax cheats no streaming across the border into ND? Inquiring minds want to know.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
You still owe the money you would owe, you just don't pay any penalties.
That would be akin to illegals being escorted to the border.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
TW: Are the tax cheats no streaming across the border into ND? Inquiring minds want to know.
We send them to Minnesota, they're a bit slower over there.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
ote that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service.
This is also amnesty, by the way. You would have to pay an application fee in any case.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
TW, I think you're losing it. You're talking to yourself.
Escorting a person to the border, also known as "deportation", is a form of penalty.
Try again.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Carrick: The authorities are taking action; the tax cheats still have to pay, but with a lower interest rate. Some amnesty!
"Throughout this special Amnesty period, which began in October and ends January 31, individuals and businesses have been paying overdue taxes at a reduced interest rate."
Carrick
· 3 years ago
TW:
If the bill passes it doesn't really matter does it?
So much for a principled stand.
robert108
· 3 years ago
It's a discount program.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
So application fee under the new plan is a "stiff penalty" application fee in 1986 was amnesty. I get it.
Carrick:
after paying at least $3,250 in fines, fees and back taxes and learning English.
The $2000 fine is so light in lieu of the fact that they can pay it with US earned money as a permanent resident. In fact their earning ability is going to skyrocket once they sign up that they will be much better off even while paying off the fine.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
Robert108, when you borrow money from people, you generally have to expect to pay interest fees.
If I owe the feds money, I can get approval to pay late, with interest. That's different than being slapped with a penalty for not getting prior approval to be late in paying.
Without reading through the fine print, that provision of the ND code looks like what is known as an "inducement". That is they get a limited discount if they come clean.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Escorting a person to the border, also known as "deportation", is a form of penalty.
allowing them to stay is amnesty.
TW: If the bill passes it doesn't really matter does it?
Carrick: So much for a principled stand.
Of course my quote was over you quibbling about whether or not we should debate the bill. You seem to want to confuse the issue.
Carrick:
You're conflating now whether the bill is well written, with whether the quoted provision makes any sense.
Those really are two issues, not one and the same.
I consider the one Senate Bill one issue. If it passes it doesn't matter about being two issues.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
TW:
So application fee under the new plan is a "stiff penalty" application fee in 1986 was amnesty. I get it.
You have to pay an application fee if you are a legal immigrant. They were just requiring that the illegal immigrant also pay this application fee.
The $2000 fine is so light in lieu of the fact that they can pay it with US earned money as a permanent resident. In fact their earning ability is going to skyrocket once they sign up that they will be much better off even while paying off the fine.
Well, I'm glad you're made out of that kind of money.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
when you borrow money from people, you generally have to expect to pay interest fees.
Not paying your taxes is not the same as borrowing from a bank.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
Well, I'm glad you're made out of that kind of money.
Come to America, promise to pay $2000 and we'll take you in, no waiting. You can earn your fee while you're here. While you're here you get free American health care, welfare and lots of other benefits.
I can't imagine we'd get much more than a billion people taking us up on that one.
Gotta go meet the family. Catch you all later.
Carrick
· 3 years ago
TW:
allowing them to stay is amnesty.
Only if there were no other penalties. You need to check your detective work there.
I consider the one Senate Bill one issue. If it passes it doesn't matter about being two issues.
You made a big deal about a principled stand against "amnesty" in your comment.
Even assuming there was no "amnesty" clause in this bill, you point out that the bill really sucks.
Sounds like two issues to me: 1) should we have an "amnesty" clause, 2) should we support this bill ?
Carrick
· 3 years ago
The Whistler:
Not paying your taxes is not the same as borrowing from a bank.
Interest is calculated based on how much tax you owe. Interest rates change every three months. Currently, the IRS interest rate for underpayment of tax is 6% per year. The interest is calculated for each day your balance due is not paid in full.
diane
· 3 years ago
Under Bush the borders are wide open. He wants them open. They will remain as open as ever.
The little hillbillies will build their fence by volunteer labor and carry their toy guns and puff out their chests; I wouldn't doubt if they actually shoot someone (God forbid) and there'd be a big public trial, etc., etc.
Bottomline little Repubs:
There are open borders, there will be open borders.
Bush is a Tier One Globalist of the first degree, his Daddy's Boy, New World Order, thousand points of light.
All Comments
HE can afford to be "wrong".
Why should illegals from Mexico get all the breaks. Increasing legal immigration is the best way to keep the US the great melting pot that it is. Enforcement of our border and our laws should go without saying.
Surrendering to Mexico and giving Mexicans preferential status just because they walked here would be a big mistake. We need engineers from India and China more than we need greenskeepers from Mexico. Who do you think pays more taxes? Who do you think is a bigger burden on government services?
(large Republican dollar supporters) who want cheap , stable labor.
He also does not want to piss of the Hispanic voter.
The House wants to molify Americans who see an invasion of foreigners threatening the "American way of life", as diversely as that is interperted.
Any real reform is likely to piss off many people,
so expect little.
President Bush's Press Secretary did much the same thing when he was on the Rush Limbaugh show. (Of course even Rush makes that claim)
Rush talks about the time when some midwest meatpackers were targeted by immigration enforcement. They apparently got their Congresscritters to intervene.
I don't think this is as nefarious as it sounds. As the law is interpreted these meat packers have to hire those with reasonable looking documents. When the government shows up and starts accusing them they're stuck in a bad place.
1. They followed the rules. And now the government's enforcing different rules.
2. They are losing a large chunk of their workforce that they hired in good faith by the rules.
3. They must wonder why out of millions of employers they are being singled out.
If the government gave employers the tools to enforce their responsibility it'd be a different thing. However blaming them for something they can't do differently is wrong.
Bush is not pushing a path to citenship cause he likes foreigners.
From the Link:
They have no inclination to try very hard unless they want to defend themselves against an EEOC lawsuit.
Blaming the employers is merely window dressing when you look at the facts.
It's easier, cheaper and faster to get fake ID than real ID from what I've heard.
I think 99% of employers are more than willing to do the right thing. However they cannot enforce our immigration laws the way the governments interpreted it.
Frankly I doubt that if we cracked down on illegals getting legitimate jobs we'd see much improvement. I think illegals would stay here for the welfare benefits and pick up jobs totally off of the books. That's why we need internal enforcement of our immigration laws.
The one thing that I think she's a bit off on is that I don't think most employers are aware of the law so they shouldn't be blamed for not using it.
Plus do we know you aren't going to get in trouble if you use it?
I'm sure a lot of states don't worry that much about it. In fact suppose an illegal couple had a baby born in the US. I'm sure they'd qualify in a lot of states.
I've never detected one so why ask me. It'd be very easy to fake the social security card. I think there's big money to be made in the fake ID business so they probably do a pretty good job.
I live in a border town. All of the migrants live across the river in Minnesota. Around here most of the jobs are on the North Dakota side.....
It is the President who wants to declare that the borders, that were closed were actually open , if you snuck through early enough.
Nor any interest in any real back-and-forth on this issue.
Why then, bother with the posts on this subject?
A small fine that they can pay with money that they earn here is amnesty.
Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.
Letting them pay 3 out of 5 years of back taxes is amnesty.
Only requiring them to work three out of five years is amnesty.
Having no plan to do anything about the people in this country that don't take the amnesty plan is also amnesty.
I do have a compromise amnesty plan I would support. If they turn themselves in we won't hold it against them when they try to come here legally.
I wouldn't call it a compromise if the President is forced to sign a bill the way I would like it. Why does the AP call it a compromise to give the President and the Senate Cabal what they want?
Why don't you quit quibbling on the term used and explain why we should reward those that break our laws with exactly what they broke the laws to achieve. While you're at it you should explain how that won't encourage more illegal immigration.
Woof, where were you when I posted a blog showing that the Democrat senators voted to as a unit to block any amendments that would put immigration enforcement before amnesty? The amnesty bill passed by the senate is a product of the liberal Republicans and the Democrats. So the answer to your question is ALL OF THEM.
BTW, I ask you why you support open borders, or at least, don't want strict border enforcement? What is your answer to that one, since you can't answer why the Dems want illegal immigrants to be made legal? I know the answer(s), but wanted to see if a leftie has the courage to stand up and be counted for his beliefs, instead of merely sniping from the sidelines, while the big boys take the risk of standing up for their beliefs.
Absolutely correct. This issue can make or break the political parties. Neither side wants to pick it up.
I think in the past the new parties arose out of the old parties. Ala the Republicans arose out of the Whig party.
Peggy Noonan (too old for me; but a babe) has an article on this I just read.
Is reducing the penalty then amnesty? Of course not.
You are right on this:This is completely fucked up, and yes is amnesty.
Check the word definition again. How does this fit in?
No, that's just incompetence.
Because word choice really does matter. Amnesty has become a loaded word, and is used inappropriately in order to get a desired "gut punch" reaction.
The words you use affect how the debate gets framed. Or in some cases, word choice can be used to stop any debate, "chickenhawk" is a good choice of that, "amnesty" is quickly becoming another.
I've been harping over the misuse of the word "amnesty" because it has become such a loaded word, that it prevents any further dialog. Stopping dialog is not in your interest, unless your views represent those of the overwhelming majority.
As to the rest...I happen to have grave reservations with reducing penalties (technically "clemency," but that sounds so damned boring doesn't it?) because of exactly the same problem that you mentioned with encouraging more aliens.
I've laid out "my plan" before which is:
1) deny the borders using a defense in depth strategy
2) deny employment to illegals by improving the verification process, eliminate loop holes in existing law that makes it easy for them to work without valid social security numbers,
3) enforce existing laws regarding employers who are blatantly violating the law, while making it easier to catch illegals.
My prediction for the plan that will be settled on:
1) do nothing.
2) see #1.
Every tax "amnesty" plan is mislabeled because you have to pay the tax.
Even Jimmy Carter's Draft Dodger amnesty had conditions on it if my memory serves correctly.
You can get nitpicky about the word, but I'm using it as it's be used in the past.
Employer enforcement is part of the solution, but it's hardly a fix. We're going to still have a problem with the underground economy, illegals living on welfare. Illegals making a living on crime. Illegals picking up day labor. Off-the-books contractors (lawn maintainence is likely to become illegal-haven).
By the way I don't know this, but if an employer finds an illegal applying for work under the new law is the government going to remove the illegal? Why is it the employer is subject to a huge fine, and not the illegal alien?
We have to require government employees to do their part. I know that's tough on them, but it's got to be done. Didn't President Bush call it vigilantism when private citizens attempted to enforce our immigration law.
By the way, what are we going to do with illegal aliens that are here but don't sign up for the bill. How about those that have been here four years and don't go home. (I'll bet the Senate Bill Accomplishes nothing.)
One more thing on Amnesty:
So even-technically I can call the Senate bill Amnesty.
We have strict border enforcement, I get much more grief at US Customs than most anywhere else.
I am for strict employment enforcement.
We will see if the "big boys" back their words with action.
Check out Malkins latest Hot Air vent on how Dunking Donuts is doing exactly that.
That is about the most accurate description of the Senate bill anyone can give. Why do you have a problem with calling it amnesty? Passing a bill without an enforcement provision is what "...take no action..." means, isn't it? Since they do not now enforce the existing law, why should we believe they will enforce anything? If you want to be nuanced, call it "virtual amnesty" then, but the outcome is the same. We have been living with this in the border states for as least a generation, now, and it's getting really old.
Lock down the border.
Dry up the welfare.
Dry up the jobs.
Deport the illegals as they are found out.
Encourage as much legal immigration as is beneficial to the US.
See, it's not hard to stand up for your principles, if you have principles, that is.
She didn't post a link to the US Government page.
Here it is. Apparently this trial version has only recently been rolled out with next to know employer notification.
Well, that portion of the legislation, anyway. What a friggin' crock.
I wouldn't argue against the word use, even wrong, if it hadn't become so loaded. It's not like I argue over FICA versus FICO or any other inconsequential thing like that... 8-/
I would like to see an honest debate, because that is to everybody's benefit.
Are you saying the politicians are being honest?
Tony Snow said on Rush last week that there was no penalty for illegals in the 1986 amnesty. Umm what punishment works except for deportation! It's not like we want to pay for their room and board.
The President said that the illegals weren't jumping in front of the line during his address to the nation. Let's see, there's people living in Third World Countries waiting to come here and the illegals get to stay here....
A Border Security Act.
A Legal Employment Act.
and finally,
An Illegal Immigrant Remediation Act.
And promise to sign them only in that order. Trying to do all three at once probably will produce my Plan B from above.
It's not egregious to take a job from a legal resident?
Frankly you don't know how things work. The bureaucrats that come around don't care whether or not you hire illegals. They care about whether or not you have done your paperwork right. It won't matter one little bit whether or not you ever gave a job to someone that wasn't eligible.
Are you mad when they talk about tax amnesty?
That is about the most accurate description of the Senate bill anyone can give.
Here is a description of what you are trying to call amnesty:
That's not amnesty. Plain and simple.
Quit assuming things that you don't know. I have people in my employment, and yes I do know how things work.
How many people have you hired?
and we're led to believe that legal immigrants don't have to do anything to become citizens.
What does the bill say they're going to do to those that don't follow the rules this time either.
Quite likely more than you have. I'm not making anything up.
You're conflating now whether the bill is well written, with whether the quoted provision makes any sense.
Those really are two issues, not one and the same.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
If the bill passes it doesn't really matter does it?
But my comments have more to do with encouraging you guys to frame your comments in a way which increases their persuasiveness, rather than to start it off with what are de facto shock words.
I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention "stifling of debate". What is debatable about the illegal immigrant situation?
Carrick, I don't recall if you were upset that the State of North Dakota called this tax scheme "amnesty."
I think you'd be hard pressed to find an amnesty law that doesn't have conditions. I'm only using the word the way it's used. I think the other side doesn't want anything to remember the 1986 amnesty debacle as they try to fool us again.
You still owe the money you would owe, you just don't pay any penalties.
That would be akin to illegals being escorted to the border.
We send them to Minnesota, they're a bit slower over there.
This is also amnesty, by the way. You would have to pay an application fee in any case.
Escorting a person to the border, also known as "deportation", is a form of penalty.
Try again.
"Throughout this special Amnesty period, which began in October and ends January 31, individuals and businesses have been paying overdue taxes at a reduced interest rate."
Carrick:
The $2000 fine is so light in lieu of the fact that they can pay it with US earned money as a permanent resident. In fact their earning ability is going to skyrocket once they sign up that they will be much better off even while paying off the fine.
If I owe the feds money, I can get approval to pay late, with interest. That's different than being slapped with a penalty for not getting prior approval to be late in paying.
Without reading through the fine print, that provision of the ND code looks like what is known as an "inducement". That is they get a limited discount if they come clean.
allowing them to stay is amnesty.
Of course my quote was over you quibbling about whether or not we should debate the bill. You seem to want to confuse the issue.
Carrick:
I consider the one Senate Bill one issue. If it passes it doesn't matter about being two issues.
You have to pay an application fee if you are a legal immigrant. They were just requiring that the illegal immigrant also pay this application fee.
Well, I'm glad you're made out of that kind of money.
Not paying your taxes is not the same as borrowing from a bank.
Come to America, promise to pay $2000 and we'll take you in, no waiting. You can earn your fee while you're here. While you're here you get free American health care, welfare and lots of other benefits.
I can't imagine we'd get much more than a billion people taking us up on that one.
Gotta go meet the family. Catch you all later.
You made a big deal about a principled stand against "amnesty" in your comment.
Even assuming there was no "amnesty" clause in this bill, you point out that the bill really sucks.
Sounds like two issues to me: 1) should we have an "amnesty" clause, 2) should we support this bill ?
It's still borrowing and you still pay interest. And you literally are borrowing from [the] People.
The little hillbillies will build their fence by volunteer labor and carry their toy guns and puff out their chests; I wouldn't doubt if they actually shoot someone (God forbid) and there'd be a big public trial, etc., etc.
Bottomline little Repubs:
There are open borders, there will be open borders.
Bush is a Tier One Globalist of the first degree, his Daddy's Boy, New World Order, thousand points of light.
Get used to it.