Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

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

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
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
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
And slowly it dawns on them
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of GA, both sponsors of the previous Senate comprehensive immigration bill, seem to have finally figured it out. This apparently came after a few trips back to GA where they heard from constituents (not to mention being booed at the GA Republican convention).

In a letter to President Bush today, they lay out the problem and the solution:
As we travel around Georgia and continue to hear from our constituents, the message from a majority of Georgians is that they have no trust that the United States Government will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and secure the border first. This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986 and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about future immigration reform.

We believe the way to build greater support for immigration reform in the United States Senate and among the American public is to regain the trust in the ability of the federal government to responsibly administer immigration programs and enforce immigration laws. There is bipartisan agreement that we need to secure our borders first, and we believe this approach will serve as a platform towards addressing the other issues surrounding immigration reform.
Bingo.
To that end, we believe that you and your administration could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the border and interior security initiatives contained in legislation currently pending in the Senate, as well as any outstanding existing authorizations. Such a move would show your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It will also work towards restoring the credibility of the federal government on this critical issue.
Now lets see if Bush, et. al., can figure it out as well. Build the border fence and hire the agents already authorized and implement the rest of the interior security measures first. That will provide the good faith effort that people are looking for before buying into the rest of "comprehensive reform". No security, no comprehensive immigration bill. A before B or no B.

Fairly straight forward.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Yeah, but they only ask for the funding to happen. Nothing about actually doing anything with the money.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Okay McQ, but what if we spend the additional billions, build a wall, etc., and it doesn’t work, i.e. there are still Mexicans everywhere and one must still press one for English?

Are the fine citizens of Georgia going to say, "okay, we tried, we gave it a good faith effort but obviously pure enforcement apparently has it’s limits and now it’s time to try something else"?

Or are they going to continue to accuse our government of betrayal in favor of elites who want to destroy American culture with their greed?

Honestly? What do you think will happen?

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
How about we actually try enforcement for the first time in over 50 years. Then if it doesn’t work, we worry about it then.

Because the problem with the ’Comprehensive’ reform is that if we give out guest worker programs and eventual eligibility for citizenship, we don’t get those back if ’Comprehensive’ reform fails.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"Are the fine citizens of Georgia going to say, "okay, we tried, we gave it a good faith effort but obviously pure enforcement apparently has it’s limits and now it’s time to try something else"?"

Why don’t we try it and find out? Of course that does depend on the Good Faith efforts of our politicians, so I don’t think we need to make alternate plans just yet. We certainly have time to give alternatives a thorough hearing while they are trying to ENFORCE CURRENT LAWS.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Why don’t we try it and find out?
Great, let’s do that. But what if it doesn’t work? I understand that you want it to work, and that your argument needs it to work, and that perhaps you may believe it will work, but what if it doesn’t?

That’s my question.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
"IF" it does not work, then we are in the exact same position we are in now, with only two differences.

We won’t have another layer of unenforceable laws on the books.
We won’t have the extra-bonus illegals who were encouraged to break our laws to get here, knowing that in a few more years we’ll just have another round of free-citizenship.

Now answer me this:

What if we do implement this new improved comprehensive reform? What if that does not stem the tide of illegal immigration? What do we do then?
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
The problem, McQ, is that we want this for two years minimum. Two years of say, every US attorney indicting one business and its’ officers a week for hiring illegals. Two years of NO federal money for sanctuary cities and states, of churches aiding illegals losing tax exemptions and being prosecuted. Two years of no govt bennies, period. Two years of no money transfers back to Mexico. That means that Bush won’t have his legacy. He’ll never go for it.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
OK, let’s look at this a little closer.

They are now making the proper noises about immigration. It’s a half a step forward. But here’s the other half; Do we trust them? will they actually follow through on what they’re saying now? Seems to me that’s a central point that’s getting missed here.

Granted, we only had hit them over the head with a four by about five times before they finally got the message, about what the American people want it. But it seems to me that running in fear of their life politically speaking, is not the kind of motivation that will actually get the job done. What needs to happen is people need to be installed in those offices who really believe what they’re saying. ...as opposed to saying things just because it’ll call off the wolves.

We’ve seen that of politicians to often before. Witness for example Bill Clinton’s promise after promise after promise about a tax cut and within 30 seconds of attaining the office saying "I’m sorry, I really tried..."



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
But what if it doesn’t work?
Then we do something else in addition to the enforcement.

Do you have a point or merely a single question that you ask all the time?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
That means that Bush won’t have his legacy.
I disagree SDN - He would have his legacy, and what a wonderful, conservative legacy it would be!
Are the fine citizens of Georgia going to say, "okay, we tried, we gave it a good faith effort but obviously pure enforcement apparently has it’s limits and now it’s time to try something else"?
Well, speaking as a fine citizen of GA, I’ll tell you that no, I’m not going to say ’good effort’. I just sent follow up notes to all the GA reps this AM telling them I expect them to encourage enforcement of the existing laws before I will support any new efforts at legislation.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
"But what if it doesn’t work?"

That is your argument against it? Do you spend your life hiding in a cave, afraid to go anywhere or do anything because "What if it doesn’t work?". Gee, I guess we try something else, just like in real life. What if it does work?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
One thing more libertarian types should consider: the reason the immigration problem is so vexing is because there is a gap between market realities and government policy. The government is, quite literally, fighting market forces here as labor tries to find a place where demand and pay is high. Assuming that you do want to put governmental policy on a higher priority than market outcomes (which does seem to make sense in this case) the only way to make it work without spending too much or wrecking havoc on our economy is to create a guest worker program that solidifies the labor pool and tries to get everyone to play by the rules, and at the same time emphasize enforcement of the rules to stop the flow.

As I noted in another post, if you don’t link enforcement and a guest worker program, nothing is going to get done. There won’t be the political will to spend what is necessary to make enforcement work, and there will be continued incentives for people to stream over here if they know an guest worker "amnesty" program will be coming "later." Again: politics is the art of the possible, and this issue is only possible to deal with by creating a broad coalition willing to see both sides work because the compromise has something for them. Otherwise, there will be more gist for talk radio pundits and bloggers, but nothing more.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
the reason the immigration problem is so vexing is because there is a gap between market realities and government policy
End the welfare state and you solve most of the problem. Security will still be an issue, but redirecting those funds from welfare programs to security should solve that right quick.

The libertarians have always said ’you can have open borders, or you can have a welfare state. You can not have both’
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
End the welfare state and you solve most of the problem. Security will still be an issue, but redirecting those funds from welfare programs to security should solve that right quick.

The libertarians have always said ’you can have open borders, or you can have a welfare state. You can not have both’
Well, again, politics is the art of the possible. Libertarians have also opposed foreign interventionism, like the attempt to reshape Iraq. Could that money be better spent on enforcement?

But we’re leaving the realm of the real into the realm of what people might consider ideal. My argument is that given current political and economic conditions, the most effective policy will combine a guest worker program with enforcement to get maximum political buy in. The challenge, of course, would be to make sure there is follow through.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Is it possible for you to shut the f*ck up?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
What if we do implement this new improved comprehensive reform? What if that does not stem the tide of illegal immigration? What do we do then?
For the record, I never said the immigration bill would work. It doesn’t change any of the fundemental rules that cause the problem in the first place and it would have created an onerous Federal regulation of the workplace. I’m glad it failed. But that’s not to say that there aren’t changes to the law that could work.

tim!
That is your argument against it? Do you spend your life hiding in a cave, afraid to go anywhere or do anything because "What if it doesn’t work?". Gee, I guess we try something else, just like in real life. What if it does work?
I ask the question because as you already know but won’t admit, that would be the most likely outcome based on our experience—Our ONLY experience: ever increasing numbers of illegals in the face of ever-increasing expenditures on border enforcement. The border enforcement budget for 2007 is just under ten percent more than for 2006. Do you really think this will result in ten percent fewer illegals, or fewer illegals at all? Of course you don’t. No one does.

And my larger point is that the whole "enforcement first" demand is nothing but a bait and switch. As long as "traditional" conservatives use the circular reasoning that the existence of illegals is malfeasance on the part of the government instead of the simple policy failure it is, "enforcement first" is a broken promise that only serves to trap us eternally in a loop of "failure first, last, and always."

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
Erb, seen the recent study by a death penalty opponent showing that each execution prevents 3-18 additional murders? Markets also respond to disincentives, like having your entire company’s management hauled out in handcuffs.... or showing up in a US city and realizing that at least back in Mexico you could rent a room.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Erb, seen the recent study by a death penalty opponent showing that each execution prevents 3-18 additional murders? Markets also respond to disincentives, like having your entire company’s management hauled out in handcuffs.... or showing up in a US city and realizing that at least back in Mexico you could rent a room.
That’s not going to happen. Again, politics is the art of the possible. But if there is a guest worker program in place I think there will be a chance at real enforcement, not just at the border but dealing with employers who hire illegally.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
not just at the border but dealing with employers who hire illegally.
So we can’t do it with the existing laws... but if we pass new legislation, we’ll be able to handle it.

Hot diggity! Thanks man - now it’s all clear.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
So we can’t do it with the existing laws... but if we pass new legislation, we’ll be able to handle it.

Hot diggity! Thanks man - now it’s all clear.
Unless we pass laws to add to the enforcement budget and change tactics we can’t. It’s not like the current laws are being ignored, they just don’t have the capacity to really enforce them (think of the speeding example). And I’ll argue for doing what is necessary for enforcement if that’s connected to a guest worker program. Because I really do agree that illegal immigration is bad and the current system isn’t working.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
In 1986 we had amnesty before supposedly enacting border security bills. We got the former and not the latter. That method didn’t work as agreed to by just about everyone. So now let us try it the opposite way and see what happens.
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://
Any guest worker program is going to have to be, in actuality, another name for unlimited immigration. As long as there is a market for cheap labor, people will come. If they can’t get into a guest worker program they will come anyway, as illegals, just like they do now. Then we are right back to where we are now, but with a few million more resident aliens, and a need for increased enforcement. If we are going to regulate immigration at all, with or without some new reforms, we are going to need increased enforcement. Why not start now?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
How about we actually try enforcement for the first time in over 50 years. Then if it doesn’t work, we worry about it then.
Because it will be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and will be used as an excuse to meddle in the private economy, persecute small businessmen and trample on millions of people’s rights in order to do it. I don’t want to pay for this boondoggle.

It used to be that conservatives were against using businesses as pawns in enforcing their big government schemes to regulate the private economy, oh how times have changed.

And all for what purpose?

What is the goal of eliminating illegal immigration, even if something like that could be accomplished?
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
Because it will be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and will be used as an excuse to meddle in the private economy, persecute small businessmen and trample on millions of people’s rights in order to do it. I don’t want to pay for this boondoggle.
So what is the projected implementation and administrative costs of the "guest worker" program? What/Who’s rights will be trampled? Private economy? Wha?
It used to be that conservatives were against using businesses as pawns in enforcing their big government schemes to regulate the private economy, oh how times have changed.
As has said several times on this blog, you can have the free flow of immigration or the welfare state, but not both, else you’ll bankrupt the country. Besides that, I don’t consider border security to be a scheme for regulating the economy, even if I had my druthers and the welfare state withered and labor was allowed to move freely, we should still have friggin secure borders.

What is the goal of eliminating illegal immigration, even if something like that could be accomplished?
It’s not necessary to eliminate it, just throttle it down so we can gain some control over who comes in. Personally, I’m not concerned over migrant workers so much as keeping out trouble makers. Do you have a problem with trying to keep out gangs, murderers, seperatists, terrorists etc?



 
Written By: shasta
URL: http://
For some reason QandO has come under attack by the minority extreme wackos on immigration. You may ponder the reasons for this assault, but just in case the word-count of their “contributions” has you reeling, a new poll helps you remember where America stands on this issue:
”Poll: ...Wednesday, June 13, 2007...
Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week.

...Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.
So, let the weirdos rag on, whatever their motivation.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
So what is the projected implementation and administrative costs of the "guest worker" program?
I’m not arguing in favor of a guest worker program. I’m arguing against wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a boondogle that will not benefit the American taxpayer.
As has said several times on this blog, you can have the free flow of immigration or the welfare state, but not both, else you’ll bankrupt the country.


So you’re advocating eliminating the welfare state? Now we’re talking! To my knowledge Ron Paul is the only politician in Washington advocating that.
Personally, I’m not concerned over migrant workers so much as keeping out trouble makers. Do you have a problem with trying to keep out gangs, murderers, seperatists, terrorists etc?


Wait a minute, nobody is proposing keeping out gangs, murderers, separatists or terrorists, and only letting in migrant workers. What is being proposed is keeping out ALL immigrants that haven’t been given special permission by the federal government, most of whom are none of those things. How would you know, by looks? How would you know if somebody was a terrorist before they crossed the border?

Why do the "trouble makers" who were born on this side of the border get to stay? Can we deport them too? Can we deport them first? If the government has the ability to know whether somebody is a "trouble maker" before they commit a crime why can’t they use this ability on the "trouble makers" who are US citizens?

The answer is that 1) the government doesn’t have the ability to make that judgment and 2) the US Constitution forbids it from doing so even if it could.

If terrorism is your concern I assume you are talking about sealing the border with Canada where most of the 9/11 terrorists came in, right?
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
politics is the art of the possible
I’m glad you have stepped up to tell us what is possible. I’d hate to have to figure that out myself.

 
Written By: FRNM
URL: http://

 
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.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider