Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

The Senate Republican Compromise Immigration Bill
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, April 06, 2006

Below is the gist of the Senate Republican compromise version of their immigration bill:

Immediately apparent: No provision for border security/control. I'll say it again - until the border is secure, we have no business talking about "immigration reform". Until we have the flow of immigrants, both legal and illegal, under control, this is so much wishful thinking.

On to the provisions for illegals:
-Those who have lived in the country at least five years would be put on a path toward guaranteed citizenship, provided that they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English, a senior Republican aide said. The aide said this group accounted for about 7 million of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living here.
Translation: Amnesty. Since they've been here illegally for longer than others, they're rewarded with a path to citizenship. So the requirement is break the law longer than your cohorts and reap your reward. Just as the amnesty passed during the Reagan administration spurred a new wave of illegal immigration, so to shall this.
-Those who have lived here for two to five years, said to number about three million, would have to leave the country briefly before reporting to an American port of entry, where they would be classified as temporary workers. They would be allowed to apply for citizenship but would have no guarantee of obtaining it. Those who did not would have to leave after participating in the temporary worker program for six years.
Remember this suggestion? I like the self-deportation aspect. Control the border and have the application process resident in foreign lands. You cannot apply in the US.
-The remaining one million or so, those who have lived in the country less than two years, would be required to leave. They could apply for temporary worker status but would not be guaranteed it.
So, what are the penalties then for ignoring all of this, especially if you've been here for less than two years, and continuing to work illegally?

None that I can see. You're not guaranteed temp worker status, so why apply? Just do what you're doing now. What's the worst that can happen? You get caught and deported. You end up in your country of origin. But with no guarantee of temp workers status, there's no real incentive to apply, is there? If you're deported as an illegal, you just cross the border again. If you apply for temp worker status, chances are you may be denied entry. Why wait for that?

This fixes nothing. It simply rewards the longest staying illegals and gives lip service to a guest worker program while providing no real incentive for illegals to apply for temporary worker status. I mean, what penalty do they suffer if they just choose the old route and cross illegally?

For the umpteenth time: get control of the flow of immigrants. Then put together an temporary worker program which requires self-deportation and application in the worker's country of origin. If you want to give priority in that program to illegals who can prove they've worked in the US at least 5 years, fine. But until the borders are secure, this is a legislative exercise if futility.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Part of the problem—indeed, the problem is that it is unclear waht "securing the border" means and whether it is even possible.
Written By: Steven Taylor
Part of the problem—indeed, the problem is that it is unclear waht "securing the border" means and whether it is even possible.
I agree Steven. But ignoring it isn’t a solution.
Written By: McQ
Securing the border?

If you had uninvited & unknown people constantly sneaking into your house what would ’securing’ mean to you?

Don’t make it more complicated than it is, it’s VERY simple.

If that doesn’t work - ask yourself what you would expect to happen to you if
you knowingly crossed the border into, say, France, with no visa, now work permit, not passport and no reason for you to be there other than you were interested in working at a job some French Student thinks is his birthright.
You know what would happen, and it wouldn’t be a discussion about welcoming
you, giving you amnesty and making you a citizen.

Written By: looker
URL: http://
Part of the problem—indeed, the problem is that it is unclear waht "securing the border" means and whether it is even possible.
I agree Steven. But ignoring it isn’t a solution.
But if we don’t know what it means or if it is possible, then how do we even go about doing it?
Written By: Jon Henke
I’m with Steve.

The border is 3,000 miles long. Its not a straight line. The only way to police the border is to make them want to stay in mexico.

Why doesn’t anybody dare to talk about the relationship beween NAFTA and immigration? Can one of you free trading economists explain why NAFTA hasn’t created good jobs in Mexico such that anyone will notice?
Written By: cindy bravo
URL: http://
Sounds pretty simple to me. Securing the border means controlling the movement of people and goods across the border. Is it possible? It seems to be, wherever it has been seriously tried. Is it a big job? Sure, so what? some people are starting to sound like whiny kids; "I can’t doo it, it’s too harrrd".
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
NAFTA has not fixed the Mexican economy because it cannot do so. The Mexican economy is a disaster because that country is rife with corruption, and its leaders are only barely accountable to the citizens.

But, if you secure the border with a big, high tech fence, backed with satellites, drones and more guards, you just might force the issue with Mexico. With nowhere to go, those otherwise illegals will create a huge problem for Mexico and they may well decide to reform their corrupt culture at long last.

One thing I cannot stand is this intellectually dishonest dialogue our leaders seem to want. We have this idea foisted on us that there are jobs Americans simply refuse to do. Not so. Hard work is non un-American at all; and meat packing, gardening, roofing and drywall work have long been performed by American citizens when wages were actually determined by undistorted, transparent markets.

Effectively, our government’s blind eye to the illegal immigration problem has created an underground economy. Wages are untaxed and thus discounted, virtually subsidized by an IRS incapable of stopping it. Americans workers cannot compete with a black market when they are required to pay taxes and some are not.
Written By: Roger Snowden
How are we going to prove who has been here less than two years, more than five years, ect???

It’s not like we have W2s or tax forms to look at and I doubt too many illegal employers will be forthright with the info.
Written By: Duane
Did I not predict that the GOP would fail miserably on this issue? *SIGH*
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The problem with most GOP senators (and all moderates) is that they are always seeking a way to manage the problem. They have no interest in solving the problem.

To paraphrase the Great Stainmaker, it depends on what your definition of “problem” is. For most Americans, illegal immigration is a problem and stopping it solves the problem. For the poltroons in Washington, angry Americans are the problem and getting the issue off the front page solves the problem.

The cold facts are that most Americans are moderates, and thus deserve no action on this issue. They believe that we are OBLIGATED to welcome as many illegals as it takes to avoid what would otherwise be an extremely violent revolution in Mexico. If we secure our border, we may well be watching Paris times 10 on CNN, with firebombings, assassinations and mayhem night after night after night. Heck, I would welcome that, but too many Americans would not.

Also, too many Americans have a romantic view of immigration, and thus lack the stomach to support militarizing the border and shooting illegals on sight - as many as it takes to stem the tide. So, some of us suffer so some of the rest of us can feel noble and not be called names.

As for how to secure the border, may I suggest bringing our troops home from Europe - the ones guarding France, Germany, etc. from the Soviet threat that vanished ten years ago. Of course, our globalist elites don’t want that either, since it would force “our allies” to hike tax rates to about 80% or take a meat cleaver to social services, provoking popular outrage.

This debate was not lost today. It was lost last week when the US decided NOT to machine gun to death the illegals marching in our streets demanding rights. If they could ask such a question, and even live long enough to hear an answer, then it had to be downhill from there. Our leaders feared that mob more than they feared the true Americans - probably because the true Americans were not ready to loot and riot over this issue.
Written By: Francisco
URL: http://
The GOP has finally out liberaled the Democrats. ANIMAL FARM comes true. My liberal President turns out to be more liberal than JFK?!#@# If there were anyone with an IQ above 70 still with the Donkey 06 wold be a disaster for the GOP. This will cause the GOP to lose some seats in Congress but still probably have majorities in both houses.
Also bring to mind a Quote I heard while in college in 1964 from an ex boxer turned Govenor - G. Wallace (refering to LBJ vs Goldwater) "There aint a nickle’s worth of difference between the two parties!" Judging by how they voted here you need a program to tell the GOP from the Dem. Both parties pushed this big government bill.
Written By: JommacDougal
URL: http://
The thing that makes me so mad at the liberals who have been "leading" the Republican Party the last few years is that they treat me like I have an IQ well below room temp. The way they lie about this amnesty bill is a very good example of their total disrespect for conservatives. Only a moron truely believes it is anything other than forgiveness (which is just another word for amnesty) for being criminals.
Bush turned hard to the left 15 months ago. His lies about this "forgiveness" program show he is still a left wing extremist. Right there with Teddy. But I should not be as surprised as I am. After all it was Bush and Teddy that pushed through the left wing, big government "No Child left behind" boondoggle years ago. So the two liberals team up again for another big government program; what’s new?
Written By: Rodney A Stanton
URL: http://
For the umpteenth time: get control of the flow of immigrants. Then put together an temporary worker program which requires self-deportation and application in the worker’s country of origin.
And I’ve read your position all umpteen times, but I just can’t seem to find anyplace where you actually state a practical reason for it.


Written By: Peter Jackson

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks