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

Support for Senate Immigration bill continues to erode
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Not that John McCain or Ted Kennedy plan on paying attention to that. Mandates are only important when they are politically useful:
Public support for the Senate immigration reform bill has slipped a bit over the past week. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Monday and Tuesday night found that just 23% of voters now support the bill while 50% are opposed. Last week, 26% supported the Senate bill while 48% were opposed.
This attempt at a 'comprehensive' bill is turning into a debacle. And the unfortunate trait of debacles is they have a tendency to use liberally the law of unintended consequences. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Senate has lost control of the bill and what comes out of there is most likely not going to fix anything and is more likely than not to make matters more muddled and worse.

Bruce Bartlett summed up my thoughts rather nicely this morning:
One of the things that bothers me about the immigration bill is the view held in the White House and Congress that "something" must be done — the option of doing nothing is not an option. It is my experience that when this idea takes hold, it is almost inevitable that something bad will result.

In principle, I favor the free mobility of labor — just as I favor free trade and the free movement of capital. If we still had the kind of economy we had in the 19th century, in which the government was minuscule with no welfare programs, I would be inclined to let anyone in who wants to come here. The only way they would survive is by working their butts off, and if they were willing to do that, then we want them. This was, of course, the generally held view at that time. The United States welcomed immigrants from anywhere and everywhere.

But beginning in the 1930s, this country began to become more and more of a welfare state. Many government programs now confer significant benefits upon those who produce nothing.
That is the reality we face today and is a powerful argument the open-borders crowd, to include many Senators, like to ignore.

It is also why most who oppose this bill find no compelling reason (and the administration and the Senate certainly haven't provided a very convincing argument) why this 'solution' must be "comprehensive". Again, sounding like an old broken record ... secure the border, get all of the security measures in place first (and that includes a way to check the legality of workers), and then and only then, talk about reforming immigration, guest-workers and illegals.

Until we do away with the welfare state, open borders is not an option. And until we do away with radical fundamentalists who want to come here and harm us, open borders is not an option.

Unless the Senate figures those two points out, they're going to continue to see support for their 'comprehensive' approach erode.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

There was a lot in that article to like. Many people have said: "When my grandparents came here from (Ireland/Italy/Germany) they assimilated rather that congregating in their ethnic communities. Bruce provided a part of the answer. Lack of welfare benefits required that they assimilate if they wanted a job and a prospect of advancement.
This, however, made me a bit squeamish:
It is precisely their illegal status that makes these immigrants valuable and willing to work cheaply. If they become legal, as the pending legislation would establish, they will be demanding the minimum wage, health benefits and unions.
It seems rather exploitative. I do understand that Bruce says that they also reap some benefits too or they wouldn’t come.
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
"a way to check the legality of workers"

In other words, a government issued license to work.

It is shocking and disappointing that you could possibly support anything of this nature.
Written By: John Sabotta
"a way to check the legality of workers"

In other words, a government issued license to work.

It is shocking and disappointing that you could possibly support anything of this nature.
Written By: John Sabotta

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