Immigration and the heartland : Rocky Talk Live : Rocky Mountain News

June 15, 2007 6:42 AM

Immigration and the heartland

Marshalltown, Iowa, the small city that hosted visits by four presidential candidates in a span of 10 days, is changing. A rapidly-growing Hispanic population has exacerbated tensions in a city that now mirrors the ethnic face of America.

M.E. Sprengelmeyer reports:

During the 1990s, there was a more than ten-fold increase in Marshalltown's Hispanic population. Folks mostly from the states of Michoachán and Guanajuato, Mexico, were drawn by higher-paying jobs at the meat packing plant and the promise of a safe, small-town environment where they could raise their families.
Over the decade, the city's Hispanic population went from 248 to 3,265, helping to make up for a slow, generation-long decline in the city's white population. By the year 2000, Marshalltown had 26,009 residents and almost exactly the same proportion of Hispanic residents as the rest of the United States, 12.6 percent.

Some old-time Iowa residents say immigration is bringing new life to small towns that otherwise would have withered away. But it's also building a political backlash among those who fear crime or poverty, or resent having the face and language of their communities change.

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Tancredo's long battle to withhold federal emergency services funding from so-called "sanctuary cities" that shelter illegal immigrants, came to fruition in a House vote, reports Chris Barge.

The Littleton Republican's amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill appears to have no language specifically defining a sanctuary city. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has long disputed giving the city that label.
"The issue has come to fruition," Tancredo said by cell phone after the vote. "The people of the country really have spoken. It's a really good indicator of just how much closer to the people the House is than the Senate is."

Discussion

June 6, 2007

7:43 AM

just sayin' writes:

If he really wants to get their support, maybe he should line up a work crew and go around having all of their basements finished.
June 6, 2007

7:53 AM

Pam writes:

I am deeply grateful for any government official that believes that fighting for the Middle Class hardworking US Citizens is worth saving. We should be allowed to subject ourselves to 20 million illegal lawbreaking uneducated aliens that are demanding rights they should not be granted because they came here in the night through an open back door. Thank God and God bless those Senators that are willing to stand and not sell our country out, NO MATTER WHAT IT MAY COST THEM!
June 6, 2007

8:33 AM

Pedro Juan Valdez writes:

Viva la Raza! The border crosses us, we didn't cross the border. We will take back what was stolen from us by the oppressors and send them back over the oceans. Viva la Raza!
June 6, 2007

8:37 AM

Pam writes:

Pedro,

Are your people so stupid that they can't read history, your land that us Gringos stole from your people...the land was bought and paid for to your government. If your government didn't charge enough money back then, you need to get over it. It does not belong to you are any illegal aliens, it belongs to AMERICA and its Citizens. Come up with a better argument...if you can.
June 6, 2007

8:42 AM

santana writes:

hey pedro, go pick some coffee beans.
June 6, 2007

8:45 AM

Selena writes:

Tom Tancredo for President!
June 6, 2007

8:53 AM

Anonymous writes:

"Pedro" is another race-baiting white guy trying to elicit responses. I would ignore him.
June 6, 2007

9:15 AM

shaggy writes:

I think that most of the Illegals and Legal Mexicans really do believe what Pedro says.
Most are so uneducated they don`t even know history.
I`ll also be willing to bet that over 50% of the Mexicans that celebrate Cinco de Mayo don`t even know what it is, they just want a reason to fly their flag in front of our faces and skip school and raise hell.
It`s about Mexico declaring their indepence from Spain.
Why would they want to celebrate it in America?
I also love the Mexicans that hold signs denouncing Bush. If they had half a brain they were would be praising Bush as He is the one that wants them here.
Bush is the Illegals free ticket.
June 6, 2007

9:25 AM

Michael writes:

George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
June 6, 2007

9:35 AM

history buff writes:

Shaggy,

You just flunked your history exam. Cinquo de Mayo is different from Mexican Independence Day.

http://www.internationalliving.com/mexico/free/05-05-05.html
June 6, 2007

9:40 AM

Dem writes:

So Shaggy, why do you support Bush and his croanies again? Unless you are a Billionaire capitalizing on oil or any profiteering on this current conflilt, your voting against your best interest. Again.
Now back to the uneducated, you were doing so well. AM760 will be proud.
June 6, 2007

9:54 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Congratulations to Tom Tancredo for supporting the Constitutional mandate to protect the US from foreign invasion.
June 6, 2007

10:01 AM

Poll Watcher writes:

Too bad Tom isn't concerned with representing the will of the people.
June 6, 2007

10:07 AM

Jim writes:

What do you call a Mexican Baptism? A Bean Dip!
June 6, 2007

10:24 AM

It's True writes:

Tancredo received a deferrment from serving in Vietnam due to a mental illness. He is still mentall ill. He should stop embarrassing Colorado and check into a health care clinic.
June 6, 2007

10:39 AM

James M. Holmes writes:

I always notice the GOP cries nonstop about "closing the border", but never mentions the real reason Mexicans cross the border - available jobs for them! Until Tancredo and the rest of the GOP (and some Dems) stand up to thier corporate masters and does something forceful about the people / companies that illegally hire these "illegals", all this talk is just grandstanding.

I find it ironic that you hear -"what part of illegal don't you understand?" over and over, but it doesn't seem to apply to the people / companies that ILLEGALLY hire these people. You want to solve this problem? Convict anyone (private employers, CEO's, etc) that hires these immigrants! You put an end to the jobs available to non-Americans and you will end to this illegal immigration problem. It really is that simple...
June 6, 2007

10:45 AM

Tree writes:

HB-
Thanks for posting that about Cinco de Drink-O- and lots-O-.
While I'm on my soap box, thanks to all you posters I've been reading over the last year plus. I learn more about the USA, history,religioius motivation and of course politics on these blogs than I ever imagined. I can't even talk politics or current events with some of my friends as they just don't pay attention and don't know and it's so frustrating when they listen to the faux news and main stream talking points and don't question the authoriti and motivations.
Party on and keep it going.
June 6, 2007

10:53 AM

history buff writes:

Another way of looking at it, our economy has expanded, and our expansion was enabled by the use of immigrant labor. Our immigration policy has not kept pace with the need for labor in our economy. We are a capitalistic country that has benefited from the immigration surge from south of the border. What do we want, a healthy economy or a whiter America?

Party on, Tree.
June 6, 2007

10:57 AM

shaggy writes:

My bad Buff,
The battle is known as the Battle of Puebla, and it celebrates Mexico’s victory over France not Spain. I typed the wrong country without giving it thought.

Mexicos Independence Day is celebrated on 9/15. This Holiday is celebrated in Mexico.

Cinco de Mayo is largley a Chicano holiday to honar the Mexican soldiers that confronted France and exiled Mexican Convervatives.
It is actually a Holiday that was made up 30 yrs ago by some Chicono students wanting to find something for them to celebrate.
It is hardly even reconized in Mexico.

Dem,
I have abandoned shrub and his cronies for quite awhile now.
So has his staunchest hardcore supporters.
June 6, 2007

11:12 AM

Anonymous writes:

Let's face it, we also need immigrants because:

www.AmericanWomenSuck.com
June 6, 2007

11:12 AM

Tree writes:

Guys-
Anyone know anyting about the secret energy meeting Cheney held with the major oil companies? Was that meeting in fact held before 9/11?
If so, the strategy was definately war. That was the meeting. No way around it. Would explain everything including the blank look on Bushies face while sitting in the classroom in Florida for 7 minutes doing nothing. No one and I mean no one would of sat there with a bunch of kids doing nothing unless.............you were waiting for more bad news. And that came.
June 6, 2007

11:15 AM

Grizz writes:

God bless America! My country, right or wrong! Love it or leave it! As for the politicians, they are all swine. It is up to the people of America, regardless of color or ethic background to keep America strong and secure. And if that is not your goal, then what use are you?
June 6, 2007

11:22 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

JMH,

I agree with your desire to prevent illegal invaders from gaining employment, but there needs to be a secure method of verifying legal status if you are going to hold employers liable. We also need to eliminate anchor baby status, which is not an easy thing to do. We also need to eliminate all government services for illegals, which also needs a tamperproof and secure proof of legal residence. Illegal invaders break the law, drain publicly funded services and lower wages for American citizens and legal residents. As long as corporations can influence elections, the problem will get worse.
June 6, 2007

11:25 AM

Concerned writes:

Consider the gentleman who was able to sneak in the U.S. with a supposedly contagious disease, when he was the subject of border lookout. Then consider 12 million more people sneaking in, what could they be bringing with them.
June 6, 2007

11:26 AM

Anonymous writes:

Tree - See attached:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s_secrets.html
June 6, 2007

11:32 AM

history buff writes:

Tree

I posted a link last week about the oil deal being foisted on Iraq by the Bushistas. Sources in high places say that the deal was put together by the White House and the major oil companies before 9/11. Let me go back to google.

Hogar,

Is your attempt to repeal the 14th Amendment part of your campaign against that fascist, Abe Lincoln? I think you realize that when the Republicans traded Lincoln for George Wallace, they won the battle but lost the war. So, now Republicans have to tarnish the reputation of the first Republican president. While on the subject, how do you feel about U.S. Grant, the second elected Republican president?
June 6, 2007

11:43 AM

Tree writes:

Thanks guys,
Now I have to clean up my granola and fruit on this keyboard.
Can't wait for lunch.
June 6, 2007

11:44 AM

jay writes:

Buff, that was an interesting piece that is worth taking a closer look.
June 6, 2007

12:06 PM

Dirk Gently writes:

First, allow me to echo: if you really want to help the middle class, GOP-leaners, then you need to stop voting Republican, at least with the current crop of Republicans. They institute economic policies that overall HURT the middle class (tax cuts notwithstanding), and then they roll over for corporate interests who need to keep labor as cheap as possible--which means illegal and unorganized. You really need to stop flocking to candidates just because they invoke God and gays, and pay attention to the rest of their policies and voting records.

Hogar, clearly I don't agree about keeping illegals from gettting most social services (welfare, sure, but health care, etc? Come on, man, where's your Christian charity?), but I could sign on to a plan of documentation that puts illegals in a kind of quasi-legal status. Amnesty incentive is not as big a problem as continued non-documentation. What we need is for a way to keep track of people who come here, and kick out people who we can clearly deem unworthy (violent criminals, social welfare ticks, etc.).

Some kind of compromise might be this: people who acquire provisional documentation will be denied citizenship and other services (minus those related to justice or health), but be funneled into the queue for citizenship/green cards.

The only way to get rid of anchor babies is to amend the Constitution (I thought you were a Constructionist?), whereby persons born here are legal residents, but in order to be a citizen you must register to vote and pass a civics test or something. In theory I would vote for that, if it can be demonstrated that it's not discriminatory.
June 6, 2007

12:34 PM

am 760 writes:

11:26 thanks for that good link, very interesting.
Dirk your posts have been great. I especially liked the one yesterday where you started off by accusing Hogar to be on crack regarding healthcare. It was on the immigration will be hot topic blog for those who want to read it. You hit the nail on the head
June 6, 2007

12:34 PM

Anonymous writes:

Pedro..
So you got 'punked'..why don't you cry about it!
June 6, 2007

12:40 PM

Anonymous writes:

Its true..
T.T. crazy like a fox.
June 6, 2007

1:05 PM

Dirk Gently writes:

Thanks for the kudos, am760, you're not so bad yerself lately, particularly with the profusion of links. You and HB are real 'net sifters.
June 6, 2007

1:45 PM

Shaggy writes:

Oh how cute, I clicked on the Liberal fag room and found them slapping each other on the asses in kudos to their posts.
How sweet fellas, I`ll leave you alone now so you can continue without interuption.
**snicker snicker**
June 6, 2007

2:03 PM

benn writes:

shaggy,

You truly lead a pathetic life
June 6, 2007

2:15 PM

jay writes:

Don't go shaggy...where else will we get our daily dose of right wing talking points.
June 6, 2007

2:18 PM

Closet writes:

Shagfag-
I don't know if you realize what you've done to yourself besides open yourself up for personal attacks day after day after day. We knew you were just another Rush listening idiot but you really showed us who's boss now. Good luck homophobe. Chicken little is scared more than Bushie himself.
June 6, 2007

2:42 PM

Shaggy writes:

Closet eeerrr jay
Your feminine side is showing again.
Oh please don`t attact me with your little pink thongs used as sling shots, slinging your spewage.

I`ll have to duck and cover but I`m used to that evertime a Liberal opens his/her mouth.
Whats new.
June 6, 2007

2:44 PM

jay writes:

WOW...this one is going downhill fast. That wasn't me shaggy...but it's good to know I'm getting in your head.
June 6, 2007

3:09 PM

Shaggy writes:

homophobe,Chicken little, Rush, Bushie.
All signature jay postings.
If it truly wasn`t you than I opoligize for directing at you.
Besides, todays topics are a little boring so I decided to have a little fun. It did spice it up for a little while.
June 6, 2007

3:13 PM

James M. Holmes writes:

I agree with your desire to prevent illegal invaders from gaining employment, but there needs to be a secure method of verifying legal status if you are going to hold employers liable. - Hogar

How about this - if someone on the job site doesn't speak English, it is a good bet they are not a citizen. I could be wrong, but I think some knowledge of English is required for citizenship. Let me know if I am wrong about that.

Another point is, employers know what is going on. But as long as there are no penalties for them, they will not care. I do agree a better system should be built for identifying who is legal or not, but the point I was trying to make is... The Illegal Immigration problem is just like the "war on drugs", we fight the results not the causes. You want to win the war on drugs, you need to stop the demand for drugs. As long as there is a demand for drugs, people will risk alot to supply them due to the quick profits involved. Same thing for immigrants, you dry up the available jobs, they wont risk everything to come here. The war on drugs is a failure because we lock up addicts instead of rehablitating them. They get out of jail still addicts. The demand is still there. Same with this problem, as long as the demand for cheap labor is high, people will do what is nessicary to feed the cheap labor addiction. Most problems come down to one thing in America - MONEY.
June 6, 2007

3:23 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Posted by history buff on June 6, 2007 11:32 AM

Hogar,
Is your attempt to repeal the 14th Amendment part of your campaign against that fascist, Abe Lincoln?
I do want the 14th amendment repealed, as it is anti republican and makes the state government subservient to the state government which I believe is totally anathema to the principles of our foundation. One of the unintended consequence of the 14th is anchor babies, which I believe was never the intent of the amendment. Even repealing the 14th would not solve all of the legal problems associated with anchor babies. I believe it would take a change in international law, but regardless of how it happens, it needs to happen, or national sovereignty is a joke.
While on the subject, how do you feel about U.S. Grant, the second elected Republican president? I really don't know enough about him to comment.

Posted by Dirk Gently on June 6, 2007 12:06 PM
"They institute economic policies that overall HURT the middle class (tax cuts notwithstanding), and then they roll over for corporate interests who need to keep labor as cheap as possible--which means illegal and unorganized."
Throw the bums out, R or D.
"Hogar, clearly I don't agree about keeping illegals from gettting most social services (welfare, sure, but health care, etc? Come on, man, where's your Christian charity?)"
What happened to separation of church and state? My pastor is on Hickenlooper's Denver Commission on Homelessness.
http://www.denversroadhome.org/the_plan.php
Our church as adopted 16 homeless families and is in the process of inceasing that number. Families are given help, and mentoring to get them back on their feet. I am all for private charity, I am just not in favor of the sort of government programs which tend to create a co-dependency. I am also not in favor of government programs which tend to attract illegals who are more than happy to latch onto the never ending public teet.
"What we need is for a way to keep track of people who come here, and kick out people who we can clearly deem unworthy (violent criminals, social welfare ticks, etc.)."
In my world when you cut in line ahead of the rest of the world, cross our borders and use forged documents, you are unworthy, and should NEVER achieve citizen status and shoule NEVER qualify for chain migration.
"The only way to get rid of anchor babies is to amend the Constitution (I thought you were a Constructionist?)"
I think there are aspects of international law which complicate the whole situation regarding anchor babies. What I am looking for is a situation where the illegal actions of a parent does not result in their being rewarded for that.
"whereby persons born here are legal residents, but in order to be a citizen you must register to vote and pass a civics test or something. In theory I would vote for that, if it can be demonstrated that it's not discriminatory."
Verifiable, secure and tamperproof identification would be necessary to identify mothers who are not here legally and should be returned to their country of origin post haste with no residency or citizenship rights accruing to the illegal act of entering the country without a right to do so.
June 6, 2007

3:24 PM

jay writes:

sorry little buddy...not me.
June 6, 2007

3:31 PM

Shaggy writes:

Than I opoligize for directing it at you.
No need to reply, I`m heading home.
Slow at work today.
You can slam me tomorrow.
June 6, 2007

3:35 PM

jay writes:

If by "slam" you mean shooting holes in your right wing talking points...you betcha...I'm always game.
June 6, 2007

3:56 PM

history buff writes:

Verifiable, secure and tamperproof identification would be necessary to identify mothers who are not here legally and should be returned to their country of origin post haste with no residency or citizenship rights accruing to the illegal act of entering the country without a right to do so.

Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on June 6, 2007 03:23 PM

There is a big hole in your reasoning. If an orphan is left at the firehouse, as is allowed by Colorado law, then the child would be born without parents and without a country. Why is that the newborn's fault?

As far as repealing the 14th Amendment, there was a huge war fought to make the principles of the 14th amendment applicable to the states. Whatever the founding father's may have thought, the post-civil war amendments created a new contract.

If the Republicans now are against the 14th Amendment, then the true Republicans no longer belong to the party. Perhaps your party could reserect some old name like Federalist, Whig, Greenback or Free Soil Party, or create a new one like Conservative or Christian Conservitive, or States Rights. Then the party on the left will be the Democratic-Republican party as it was from the time of Thomas Jefferson until Freemont ran for President in 1856.
June 6, 2007

4:22 PM

Dirk Gently writes:

Hogar, I adamantly oppose busting up families. Kids who are born her should not have to watch their parents deported. You're making out crossing the border to be a sin akin to murder. Get a grip. That said, I could foresee some compromise regarding an age limit on anchor babies that dictates deportation procedures. But again, I'm not really that fussed about who comes here, why, or how many. I'm mainly concerned that everyone's accounted for, and that they contribute. Otherwise, who gives a fuck?

Regarding the social services issue, what your pastor does is great stuff, and it's a good example of how government, NGO's and the private sector can work together. My point was that obviously we don't want people coming here to collect welfare (although I wonder how often that really is the case). But even illegal immigrants deserve to be treated at the hospital and get equal protection under the law.

The other issue is this, which relates to the earlier comment about the war on drugs: if you make the punishments too harsh, people will opt out of and avoid the system. We want there to be incentives to get people documented, and to regularize the system so that we meet labor needs without having a burden on the social system.
June 6, 2007

4:38 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Posted by Dirk Gently on June 6, 2007 04:22 PM

"I adamantly oppose busting up families. Kids who are born her should not have to watch their parents deported. "

I agree, which is why I would deport the baby with their parents.

"But again, I'm not really that fussed about who comes here, why, or how many. I'm mainly concerned that everyone's accounted for, and that they contribute. Otherwise, who gives a..."

All the people who are trying to get in the country legally. I would say that something like a billion people want to come here. I want to restrict immigration to those who are going to be an asset to the country. All countries should have more or less equal access, but I would let no one in from countries that are antagonistic toward us.

"But even illegal immigrants deserve to be treated at the hospital and get equal protection under the law."

I agree. Give them medical treatment, then bring them to the courthouse and get them out of the country ASAP.

"The other issue is this, which relates to the earlier comment about the war on drugs: if you make the punishments too harsh, people will opt out of and avoid the system. "

I agree with that in regard to citizens. For illegal invaders, I propose no punishment. Returning you to your country of origin is not punishment. It is making things right.
June 6, 2007

5:19 PM

Tree writes:

Guys,
Don't forget about the millions that might want to come here from Iraq. And for an added bonus, those people might come on the tax payers dime with guaranteed tax payer income to pay the bills and put food on the table for a while. I see a 1% national war tax coming in disquise on all goods and services to pay for this mess. Maybe if I click my heels 3 times the bad dream will go away.
June 6, 2007

6:27 PM

Anonymous writes:

Before that I say we quit giving Saudi terrorists passports to come in our country.

Afterall, those 9/11 guys did get US passports. (now we call them work visas. )

You republicans like to spin it this way. "they will do the work most americans won't" . (its true, most americans never thought of flying planes into a building)
June 6, 2007

6:53 PM

shaggy writes:

BO`R made a good point tonight.
So here`s your slam chance jay.

Don`t forget that when the Illegals become Citizens regardless if they go thru the system according to this Bill, they get to bring in direct family decendents and then it goes on a education point system from my understanding.
So lets say it is only 12 million, (which is a very conservative number)
The numbers are going to mutiply 3,4,5 times ect... Thats just a family with 2 or 3 children.
That is not "chicken little" so don`t go there.
Before all is said and done, we could be looking at some very high numbers.
Regardless of your stance on this problem, this needs to be looked at very closley.
June 6, 2007

8:17 PM

shaggy writes:

"I would say that something like a billion people want to come here." --Hogar

I would say there are a hell of alot more than that if given the chance.

Parts of the world don`t even have access to know what America really is and how we live or that we even exist. They don`t even know what electricity, heating, air conditioning, clean water, ect....
(btw, I think it would enlighten all of us to visit such countries. There are alot of us [ including me] that don`t always appreciate what we really have and how good we have it. We piss and moan if our order gets screwed up at Wendys drive thru and don`t discover it untill we are back in front of our 2g`s puters in our comfy climate controlled offices bitching at each other online).

Some countrys just don`t have access to any education or outside information or are just given whatever info. they are allowed by their Gov.
The rest are brainwashed to hate us [ islamic extremists ] and given false information.

In North Korean Elementary Schools, they are told that GW eats babys for breakfast.
They are taught at this age that America is their enemy and to kill all Americans.
Btw 2, I`ll bet there aren`t many if any Illegals sneaking into that Country:)
June 6, 2007

8:23 PM

répite otra vez writes:

Countries...Shaggy...Countries
PLURAL
Some countrys just don`t have access to any education or outside information or are just given whatever info. they are allowed by their Gov.
The rest are brainwashed to hate us [ islamic extremists ] and given false information.

Wow you just identified the ole US of A
June 6, 2007

8:29 PM

Tree writes:

Now you know how faux news works and how the election was stolen shag. Control the media shag, and you can get away with communism. And shag, I'm so disappointed in your belief all the tv stations are liberal. Rupert Merdock control's what you, shag himself views on the news.
Google fox news-documentary-full of shit and I'm sure you'll find the documentary. Rent it, enjoy it. You'll be amazed at the power of controlling media. Changed the world, didn't it? Now you have something to think about.
June 6, 2007

8:52 PM

shaggy writes:

Tree man climb back down and share with me, you make no sense bro.
June 6, 2007

9:04 PM

Go Tom! writes:

We need more politicians with backbones and stones like Tom Tancredo. The hysterical responses to his efforts from the left is proof positive in my mind that he is on the correct path. Much like the simple observation "The Emporer Has No Clothes" received condemnation from the masses, so will Mr. Tancredo have to endure the desperate resistance from the power brokers in our Congress whose allegience is not to their constituents. Only when brave members of the representative government promised to us take a stand, do we have a chance to trust our politicians again.
June 6, 2007

9:07 PM

shaggy writes:

répite otra vez ,

Sorry to ruffle your Sombrero Senior.
June 7, 2007

7:49 AM

Tim writes:

"The hysterical responses to his efforts from the left is proof positive in my mind that he is on the correct path."

Yeah, that Karl Rove is one sneaky LEFTY - he told Tancredo not to darken the White House's doorstep.

Face it - people of all political stripes think Tom is a nutjob. This is NOT a partisan issue, no matter how hard you want it to be.

Sad thing is I agree with some of what Tom says, but his delivery is so freaking bizarre it's impossible to support him.
June 7, 2007

8:13 AM

593 days to go writes:

Reagan gave amnesty a try and it has failed. The failure to enforce the law is the fault of both parties. Bush is the big cheerleader for this bill and not many Democrats outside of government support it either. We need to fine the employers for displacing Americans and not paying living wages and we need to fine them enough it pays to enforce the law. Until our corrupt lobbying system is corrected business will run our state in a fascist manner no matter which party you support. Let us stand together as Americans not Democrats or Republicans and tell our corporate money taking politicians that we do not support this bill nor do we support pressure on our livelihood by foreign invaders. It is time they listen to all of us and we get together to make sure they hear us. As long as politicians divide us they can play us like a fiddle. Most Americans want illegal immigration stopped and our borders secured.
June 7, 2007

8:24 AM

Shaggy writes:

This should say do or die day for America and all it stands for.
Bye Bye miss American Pie.
This will be the day America dies, yes this will be the day America dies.
June 7, 2007

9:15 AM

James M. Holmes writes:

"Reagan gave amnesty a try and it has failed. The failure to enforce the law is the fault of both parties. Bush is the big cheerleader for this bill and not many Democrats outside of government support it either. We need to fine the employers for displacing Americans and not paying living wages and we need to fine them enough it pays to enforce the law. Until our corrupt lobbying system is corrected business will run our state in a fascist manner no matter which party you support." 593 days to go

Exactly what I have been saying 593. If you read above, you will read this: "A vote early this morning to cap a guest worker program after five years could unravel the immigration reform bill.

The 49-48 vote came two weeks after the Senate, also by a one-vote margin, rejected the same amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan. The North Dakota Democrat says immigrants take many jobs Americans could fill."

Thanks needs to go to Byron Dorgan (D). He is one of the few people in Congress that is still fighting for the middle class. We know none of the Republicans do, and hopefully this admendment derails this plan. I have said over and over that without strict penalites for companies that hire illegals, this whole bill is nothing more than a bill giving companies more cheap labor at the expense of the middle class. The fact that it is a Dem that may derail this bill also is sweet if just for the fact it shoots holes in the BS that comes from the right about "... Dems want open borders" nonsense. The truth is Repubs want this bill for the cheap labor, to hell with the middle class and the Dems that support it, like Salazar (who I can't stand) are supporting it for the future votes.

Lets all give a hand (Repubs & Dems) to Byron Dorgan today. Thanks God someone is worried about the real heart of America - The Middle Class! Thank you Mr. Dorgan.
June 7, 2007

9:42 AM

David (R) writes:

All -

Please take 10 minutes to pull up and read the summary of the immigration reform bill. I think those concerned about "amnesty" being granted, those worried about border patrolling and control, and those worried about losing more American's jobs, will be able to find a number of items that should offset those fears:

http://www.icirr.org/factsheets/senbill.pdf

Of course, funding and enforcing are the keys.
June 7, 2007

10:15 AM

James M. Holmes writes:

David - Thanks for the info. I am not saying that this is blanket amnesty, I just want empoyers that hire illegals to be held accountable. I have said numerous times, the way to fix people pouring over our border is to dry up the available jobs. Simple as that.

Looking through your posting, I found only one paragraph that deals with my concern - "Increases penalties and evidentiary burdens on employers who are alleged to have hired
unauthorized aliens, or who have failed to comply with the documentation, record-keeping, and
other requirements included in Title III."

Thant's it! Sounds good, but really nothing new here. What I want to know is: What kind of penalties? How will it be enforced? Will it be enforced or just ignored like it is now? With corporations basically controlling our government and thier known desire for cheap labor, should I really believe that anything would really happen to say the CEO of Swift when it is proven that 3/4 of the staff in their meat packing plants has been hired illegally?

Between outsourcing high paying jobs to India and China to allowing illegal immigrants to come here and undercut the wages of the lower end of the middle calss spectrum, my question is - Who is looking out for the hard working American worker, the taxpaying backbone of America? I read an article just the other day in the Rocky that said, when adjusted for inflation, men in thier 30's today make less than the generations before. That is disgusting, even though I didn't need an article to tell me that. I work 2 jobs, 6-7 days a weeks and have a college degree and I still can't make ends meet. My father had no education and was able to provide for us and my mother was able to stay home and raise us. Think that could happen today?

The problem isn't the illegals crossing the border, it is the sold out politicans on both sides of the isle (mostly the GOP who contolled congress for the last 12 years or so, but alot of Dems are to blame too) who don't care about 70% of America - The Middle Class. Once the Middle Class has been squeezed out of existance, we will no longer be the "Greatest Country on Earth", we will be just another country of a few haves and alot of have-nots. America has lost it's way, and we the voter are to blame, because we put up with this.
June 7, 2007

10:30 AM

Dirk Gently writes:

Good link, David.

Shaggy: you demonstrate your own vast ignorance about the rest of the world with your assumptions about what people do or do not have. The places without running water and electricity are very few and far between. Most "underdeveloped" nations have leapfrogged certain infrastructural aspects such that in some countries, for example, there are no land lines but everyone has a cell phone. And I'm talking about like rural Kenyans and the like. Secondly, people in "underdeveloped" nations watch Hollywood and Bollywood movies in droves, and watch lots of TV, a huge percentage of which is American. You'll be hard pressed to go anywhere on the planet that The Simpsons and Friends and the like are not being shown right now. My overall point: the rest of the world gets most of what it knows from us (good and ill) from our culture industry. Ponder the implications. Last point here: I'm sure most folks would prefer to stay where they are if they had decent jobs, security and infrastructure. Obviously this is a domestic issue, but if you really want to help stem immigration (legal or otherwise), you should be supporting a cooperative, sane and generous foreign policy--an area where this administration has failed us miserably.

Hogar: a billion people? Not bloody likely. But at any rate, your claim about deporting babies is disingenuous: obviously below a certain age it's not an issue. But those aren't really anchor babies, are they? I'm talking about kids who grew up here, who are teens and tweens, who have every legal right to reside here (and it's the only home they know), who face the prospect of seeing their parents deported. For similar reasons, I oppose deporting kids who were not born here, but dragged across the border at an early age, and deporting them would be the same as exile to a foreign land. This is what I oppose, and we need to find a pragmatic way of dealing wih this problem.

James makes a pretty good point about how this is all politicized. Is there any way around this kind of political triangulation? Is there any way to argue about REAL, SERIOUS approaches to this issue, or are we forever doomed to see the on-purpose failures of pandering?
June 7, 2007

10:52 AM

Shaggy writes:

Well according to your vast ignorance Dirk, you want anyone who wants to move here to come on in, you stated you don`t care who or how many.

I would recomenmd you watch this video clip before you go on calling people ignorant.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=%22numbers+usa%22&hl=en

BTW, everytime you post, it is like reading a fucking book, can`t you shorten them up a little.
INo wonder why no one reads them except your ass slapping radio friend.
June 7, 2007

11:01 AM

jay writes:

Looks like it's headed to the House. Keep in mind kids that this bill will go through extensive changes during the next month...so I think it's a little early to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/06/congress.immigration.ap/index.html
June 7, 2007

11:11 AM

Shaggy writes:

Any Candidate that votes for this idiotic bill can guarantee they won`t get my vote.
It is a stupid bill that grants amnesty.

jay,
I gave you my talking points to slam at 06:53 PM.
June 7, 2007

11:26 AM

David (R) writes:

James -

I am very upset that employers haven't been held responsible for hiring since the Reagan amnesty - and it's probably too late now to go back and do it. But I think if they circumvent the law after this one is passed, I think they need to know they're going to pay through the nose for it, including jail time for executives who allow it to be done.

Shaggy - let's go have a beer, and listen to some good music. But help me a bit here, because I don't see where you're reading that the illegals will get amnesty, other than they won't be jailed for being here. They still must return home to legally apply for the z-visa and come into the US legally and with the correct documentation. Those who don't follow the process can be deported with no hope of legal return. Now, I agree that enforcing it is going to be tough, but I'm not sure what else we could realistically do.
June 7, 2007

11:51 AM

jay writes:

shaggy shaggy shaggy....I think there has been plenty of evidence from several folks that has debunked the "amnesty" myth....at this point you're doing your intellect a disservice by continuing to parrot this false assertion.
June 7, 2007

12:23 PM

Anonymous writes:

Need a good reason to dislike this bill?

Here you go...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/07/MNG15QAM241.DTL
June 7, 2007

12:27 PM

Shaggy writes:

Hey Dave,
Because TT says so:)
Seriuosly though.
I`ll tell you what, as soon as I see all the Illegals going to the Border, paying the fine, doing the background check, all the paper work, waiting at the back of the line behind the rest of the people wanting to come here the Legal way, I`ll take you up on that cold one.( and I`ll buy)
I`m afraid we`ll probably need a Keg for the long wait for this to happen though.

It all sounds peachy but it won`t happen and it will soon disolve into just giving them all Legal status without the Border being secured thus being granted Amnesty.
It is a premonition on my part and I hope you are right that they will all obey this new Law but they don`t have a very good batting record so far.

I`m glad you posted that link of the short version of this Bill and I saved it to read later in depth.
June 7, 2007

1:07 PM

Anonymous writes:

12:23 -

Interesting article, and I'm sure there will be a number of industries/companies that will have problems with certain portions of the bill - that's one reason I think most people were against it being pressed through the Senate so quickly, and without scrutiny by corporate and/or private groups.

Shaggy -

Between you and me, I'd be surprised if even 1/2 follow the "go home, apply, return" path. But according to the bill as it stands, whoever doesn't always lives under the threat of immediate deportation without return, and the employer(s) face huge fines. I guess we'll see, but something tells me this bill could take quite awhile to get hammered out.
June 7, 2007

2:00 PM

Shaggy writes:

This bill just got shot down according to the Post.
June 7, 2007

2:12 PM

Shaggy writes:

"By a vote of 33-63, the Senate fell far short of the 60 votes that would have been needed to limit debate on the immigration measure and put it on a path to passage"--Post

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6084043
June 7, 2007

2:33 PM

Anonymous writes:

Interesting. The Post article lumps business interests, and the Bush admin into a "Conservatives" group.

However, if you read the article I posted at 12:23, you will see Silicon Valley tech companies threw their lobbying power in as hard as they could to stop this legislation, and they certainly arent "Conservatives" there, at least in the social sense.

I wish the reporting would be a bit better in this country. That sort of thing serves to divide people along partisan political lines, rather than giving an objective statement about the powers at work.
June 7, 2007

2:33 PM

Larry writes:

If you are concerned about illegal immigration nobody is doing more than Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo. While he is a long shot, he can FORCE the other candidates to deal with and talk about the problem.

Contribute to his campaign today and help get his message out! http://www.teamtancredo.org/
June 7, 2007

2:54 PM

Robert Briggs writes:

I think MR.Tancredo's advice should be used to seal the borders.

I recommend the use of cruise missles for Iran and North Korea.to soften them up for some B52 Love Letters,and if thats not enough use Tactical Battlefield Nukes on them.

They will see things our way then and stop all the BS.

Thank You

Robert Briggs

USN RETIRED
June 7, 2007

3:00 PM

jay writes:

shaggy I would have thought you'd be happy that debate won't be stopped. I for one am glad that for once in 6 years Congress will have the time to adequately discuss legislation that affects the country to such a degree. Sure beats the midnight votes to cease debate on the matter. Wouldn't you agree?
June 7, 2007

3:14 PM

Shaggy writes:

jay,
I am happy they are going to debate it further before voting it thru. The Dems are the ones trying to force it thru.
I think it shouldn`t even be voted on until the Border is secured tightly.
btw, you haven`t commented on my talking points today---6:53 PM.
June 7, 2007

3:16 PM

David (R) writes:

Jay said, " .... beats the midnight votes ...."

Amen.

We were blessed with the (un)Patriot Act, changes to medicare/medicaid, the elder prescription drug plan, countless mods to IRS law that are unfair, a number of breaks for big biz (despite their existing cheap labor glut), ridiculous dole outs from the pork barrel, and a host of other things done in the dim light of back room deals and away from scrutiny.

This problem with immigration reform has been brewing for many years - another few weeks or months to give due consideration to the possible solutions and their impacts is a much welcome change.
June 7, 2007

3:25 PM

Shaggy writes:

David (R),
I agree with you about more time, I also think the people in general will be much more relaxed as it gets passed if more thought went into it as well.
It is a very big and important issue for many.
It is also big moment in American history.
Issues like my 6:53 post need to be dealt with.
June 7, 2007

3:30 PM

just sayin' writes:

Thanks for your idea of dropping bombs on the border Robert. Just curious, would there be any radiation fallout from those blasts?
June 7, 2007

3:33 PM

JMH writes:

"The Dems are the ones trying to force it thru." - Shaggy

Shaggy, I know you don't like to let the facts get in the way of your opinions, but this bill is definitly bi-partisan. In fact, there are alot of Dems that oppose it due to their concerns about how it will affect American labor, and alot of Republicans that support it because they are nothing more than corporate stooges, who of course want cheap labor and the borders wide open.

Quit being a dick and try to at least act like you read something that pertains to the facts... like, I dunno, the top of this post that shows Byron Dorgan (D) passed an admendment that will limit how many Temporary Workers can come in...
June 7, 2007

4:21 PM

KW writes:

Until you get a handle on enforcement, this bill will only present us with a whole new set of problems.

Enforcement first and foremost before we let these politicians play with any new toys.
June 7, 2007

4:41 PM

Meter writes:

There are many things that I don't like about this bill, but there is one thing that irks me beyond all others. These politicians really don't know how many illegals they are giving amnesty to. I don't care what they say, it is impossible to really know how many there are. This to me is complete irresponsibility. How could they be so irresponsible? I wonder if anyone else feels this way. No one on TV has mentioned this at all.
June 7, 2007

4:57 PM

Meter writes:

I am also deeply disturbed by Salazar saying that Tancredo is "doing this country a disservice" by actively fighting this legislation. Any politician who is willing to put his presidential campaign on hold to fight for a cause that he is passionate about is unheard of, and quite admirable if you ask me. I say he is doing this country a great service by standing for what he believes in and not rolling over for special interest groups and political parties. I'm not certain who I will vote for, but Tancredo's passion and go get 'em attitude is impressive.
June 7, 2007

7:25 PM

Conrad writes:

In the Democratically controlled Senate, the Amnesty bill had died an overdue death.

I guess the voices of the American people are starting to be heard, not just the minority of illegal immigrant protagonists.

So jay, would you like mustard or mayo on that crow.......
June 7, 2007

7:32 PM

Conrad writes:

This is the earlier post to which I refer regarding jay's feathered lunch item:

Thanks jay - you condescendingly point out the fact that citizenship, although desired is not a requisite for staying in the US and working legally, which is what the illegal aliens desperately want and need to continue to enjoy the benefits of their illegal entry. Those currently under deportation orders would enjoy an immediate reversal of those orders since the law specifically delays background checks on all illegal immigrants until the time that they begin the citizenship application (years later).

The illegal immigrant lobby has for years told us that these people only want to come here to work to support their families. They specifically said that the motivation was jobs, not citizenship, welfare benefits, social security, etc.

Now you are saying that this bill won't grant amnesty because it requires the illegal workers to have to work to get citizenship - something they supposedly never came here for in the first place. Bait-and-switch.

Your reasoning is exactly why this legislation is being exposed as a fraud on America. Illegal aliens chose to steal into our country and become an underclass by virtue of the laws they break daily. Relieving them of the illegal status is a grand amnesty since our laws dictate that they be removed to their home countries. Using the citizenship process as a bargaining chip is dishonest. These workers should become guest workers, not citizens. They have not earned it, nor does the meager fine even get close to paying the taxpayer back for what illegal aliens take from our social servies, health care, and public schools each year, not to mention the falling wages in the industries they populate - thus they could not earn it as a result of the proposed amnesty law.

In its basic form, this legislation completely reverses the consequences of illegal entry in the United States, which is amnesty no matter how you try to spin and inject irrelevant distractors, such as the quest for citizenship.

It is painfully obvious that it is you who are not familiar with the tenents of this legislation. Best not to shoot your mouth off until you get up to speed.

Posted by Conrad on June 7, 2007 07:47 AM
June 7, 2007

8:05 PM

Rojo writes:

Have been watching CSPAN2 on and off the past three weeks thanks to what I was hearing about this Immigration Bill. I am ashamed to admit I did vote for Salazar, but have learned my lesson now that I see his priorities are for illegal aliens and big business over the needs of our country and our citizens. I did call his offcie, Allards office and many other Senators as I watched them state their cases on TV. Kudu's to Sen Jeff Sessions from Alabama. He and Sen Cornyn from TX really stood out as the few Senators who kept the needs of our country and our citizens at the top of the list. And shame on those Senators who tried to appeal for votes by giving us their sentimental sappy stories about their own immigrant past as if that shoudl matter at all when dealing with the 20 million who are here illegally now. This was hot topic number one at my daughters soccer games the past few weeks and various barbeques I've attended. The reponse has been overwhelmingly negative and this was with quite a diverse group of Coloradans. A few advised me to listen to Peter Boyles on KHOW talk radio which I started doing about 2 weeks ago. I recommend anyone else interested in this issue to do the same as there are some real eye opening discussioms on his show about the impact these illegal aliens truly have on our society right here in CO. Thank you all who helped defeat this measure, at least temporarily. Keep an eye out though because you know Salazar and Kennedy are going to try and ramrod this one through again soon.
June 7, 2007

9:17 PM

40acresandmymule writes:

Tancredo/K. Salazar: I just love it when 2 draft-dodging pantywaists wanna "pug".
June 8, 2007

7:30 AM

USA USA USA USA USA writes:

Would someone please start the Recall Salazar process. Salazar is not working for the people of Colorado or the people of the United States.

KEN SALAZAR NEEDS TO BE RECALLED.
June 8, 2007

7:48 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Dirk,

The government is already deporting people who are not citizens, but have grown up here and know nothing else. That is what finally got me off my duff and got me to become a citizen. I woman from my home country grew up here and did not speak anything other than English. She got involved in a cat fight in a bar and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Later that charge was reclassified as a felony and she was deported while trying to return from a visit to relatives in the home country. My brother likewise grew up here and due to an overextended stay in the home country lost his green card and can't get back in. Neither of them entered this country illegally, so I have ZERO sympathy for those who enter illegally. We imprison our own citizens for much smaller crimes and no one has sympathy for them. When you make wrong choices there are consequences.

Where's the Fence?

http://www.chbn.com/Clip.aspx?key=CBF3D57581F3CD09
June 8, 2007

8:28 AM

Goodby KS writes:

Harry Reid and Ken Salazar have claimed the immigration bill is not dead.

Yea, and monkeys will come flying out of my butt.....
June 8, 2007

8:31 AM

Anonymous writes:

This was stupid and racist legislation that will only hurt immigrants, Americans and families. Just grant them one last amnesty and get on with fixing the system.
June 8, 2007

8:36 AM

Dustin Sharp writes:

I am pleased to see the current "immigration reform" bill having so many problems passing. Anything short of enforcing existing laws and strengthening our borders is unacceptable. It is not fair for the thousands who wait and enter our country legally. People who do not follow our entry laws should be barred from citizenship/visa/green cards for life; not given amnesty/immunity/"pathway."
June 8, 2007

8:47 AM

D'oh writes:

Whew, well I guess this issue has been resolved. So glad that nothing is being done.
June 8, 2007

9:11 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

We don't need a new series of laws which do nothing but grant rights to criminals. What we need is more Americans like 11 year old Patricia who is helping to defend the country from invasion.

http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?id=1178207663
June 8, 2007

9:20 AM

Jim in Erie writes:

Traitor Salazar is correct, this bill is not dead.

Not as long as there are people who want to ignore illegal activity, and instead try to turn the focus to some misguided "family values" point of view.

And I consider Salazar a 'traitor' because he never met a promise he intends to keep. Then again he IS a Democrat, more critically, a politician.
June 8, 2007

9:32 AM

Shaggy writes:

Good 1 Hogar:)
June 8, 2007

9:55 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

8 Loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill
Loophole 1 - Legal Status Before Enforcement:
Amnesty benefits do not wait for the "enforcement trigger." After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full "probationary benefits," complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Astonishingly, if the trigger is never met and amnesty applications are therefore never "approved," the probationary benefits granted to the illegal alien population never expire, and the new social security cards issued to the illegal alien population are not revoked. [See pp. 1, 290-291, & 315].
Loophole 2 - U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger:
The "enforcement trigger," required to be met before the new temporary worker program begins, does not require that the exit portion of U.S. VISIT system - the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date - to be in place before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the U.S. VISIT exit portion, the U.S. has no method to ensure that workers (or their visiting families) do not overstay their visas. Our current illegal population contains 4 to 5.5 million visa overstays, therefore, we know that the U.S. VISIT exit component is key to a successful new temporary worker program. [See pp. 1-2].
Loophole 3 - Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law:
The "enforcement trigger" does not require the Department of Homeland Security to have detention space sufficient to end "catch and release" at the border and in the interior. Even after the adoption of amendment 1172, the trigger merely requires the addition of 4,000 detention beds, bringing DHS to a 31,500 bed capacity. This is far short of the 43,000 beds required under current law to be in place by the end of 2007, or the additional 20,000 beds required later in the bill. Additionally, the bill establishes a "catch, pay, and release" program. This policy will benefit illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico that are caught at the border, then can post a $5,000 bond, be released and never show up for deportation hearings. Annual failure to appear rates for 2005 and 2006, caused in part by lack of detention space, doubled the 2004 rate (106,000 - 110,000 compared with 54,000). Claims that the bill "expands fencing" are inaccurate. The bill only requires 370 miles of fencing to be completed, while current law already mandates that more than 700 miles be constructed [See pp. 1-2, & 10-11, and EOIR's FY2006 Statistical Yearbook, p. H2, and The Secure Fence Act of 2004].
Loophole 4 -- Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers:
Aliens who broke into the country illegally a mere 5 months ago, are treated better than foreign nationals who legally applied to come to the U.S. more than two years ago. Aliens who can prove they were illegally in the U.S. on January 1, 2007, are immediately eligible to apply from inside the U.S. for amnesty benefits, while foreign nationals that filed applications to come to the U.S. after May 1, 2005 must start the application process over again from their home countries. Last year's bill required illegal aliens to have been here before January 7, 2004 to qualify for permanent legal status. [See pp. 263, 282, & 306].
Loophole 5 - Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status:
Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet "passed all appropriate background checks." (Last year's bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien's background before any status was granted). No legal status should be given to any illegal alien until all appropriate background checks are complete. [See pp. 290].
Loophole 6 - Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible:
Some aggravated felons - those who have sexually abused a minor - are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]
Loophole 7 - Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required:
Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must show "good moral character." Last year's bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having "good moral character" and being eligible for amnesty. This year's bill does neither. Additionally, bill drafters ignored the Administration's request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. [Compare §204 in S. 2611 from the 109th Congress with missing §204 on p. 48 of S.A. 1150, & see missing subsection (5) on p. 287 of S.A. 1150].
Loophole 8 - Gang Members Are Eligible:
Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they "renounce" their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].
June 8, 2007

10:08 AM

Anonymous writes:

I wonder if we could trade Hogar for his brother?
June 8, 2007

10:26 AM

Shaggy writes:

Why have they only built two miles of fencing in 6 months after they have a Billion Dollars set a side for this purpose?
Build the Damn fence and secure the Border first and this thing(with modifications) would probably pass.
They wanted to ramrod this Bill thru before securing the Border.
Just like they did in 86, pass Amnesty first, worry about the Border later.
They did pass Amnesty, but left the Border alone.
They wanted the same thing to happen again but the people are wising up and followed this stupid Bill and spoke out against it.
June 8, 2007

11:33 AM

truthy writes:

Hey Congress,

Get the hint? Enforce the laws we have on the books now! There will be hell to pay in the next election if you don't!
June 8, 2007

12:07 PM

luckyone writes:

Why is the law so important until it comes to a rich white spoiled no talent bimbo like Paris Hilton . I think she should be deported , but nobody will take her not even the L.A. jail . Hate will not solve the Immigration problem . The world watches the U.S. They see how we treat our neighbors . What right do we have telling any country how to treat it's neighbors when we treat ours with such contempt. Building walls around our country isn't that what China and Germany did .
June 8, 2007

12:38 PM

KW writes:

Lucky - Those walls were built to keep people IN, not out. Big difference.
June 8, 2007

12:41 PM

Shaggy writes:

luckyone,
China built that wall way back in 770-476 B.c.
2000 yrs ago.
Germany built the wall to keep their own people from fleeing.

Populations were minimal compared to todays numbers. If we let everyone who wants to come here and live, we would be the poorest Nation on Earth as there are over a Billion people that would love to live our lifestyles.
June 8, 2007

2:43 PM

KW writes:

Maybe those kids at Montebello High in CA didn't realize how flying the MX flag atop the American flag would piss us off back in March.

Now they do.
June 8, 2007

2:55 PM

Anonymous writes:

I think KW is getting a boner
June 8, 2007

3:19 PM

Bumpskier writes:

Pedro Juan Valdez,
That kind of talk will get you absolutely nowhere with this crowd. You might want to check your history books, where you will find that Mexico lost a war with Texas, which later voted to join the United States. Nothing was stolen from you. Get over it.
June 8, 2007

3:23 PM

Shaggy writes:

I hope Washington realizes that we the people are not going to put up with their stupid stunts they keep pulling.
I get the feeling the majority of people are getting tired of them using us for Votes and then getting tossed to the curb once they get elected.
I also have a feeling it opened a few of the senators eyes that we aren`t sheep and can think for ourselves about how we want our Country to run.
Ever since the Mexicans started with the protest marches, I knew it was going to be their own demise.
We are tired of their demands and showed them that we control their destination regardless of Bush,Kennedy and Salazar.
I know it had to open their eyes, well, I might have to retract the latter.
June 8, 2007

4:28 PM

Yeehah writes:

This was stupid and racist legislation that will only hurt immigrants, Americans and families. Just grant them one last amnesty and get on with fixing the system.

Posted by on June 8, 2007 08:31 AM

That was a stupid and racist post, jay. Got your tail between your legs now - afraid to sign your name to your deepfelt sentiments.
June 8, 2007

4:34 PM

jay writes:

sorry little fella...wasn't me...but it's good to know I'm in your head.

I have been enjoying you guys run yourselves in circles over this though. As a program with a path to citizenship has the support of the VAST majority of America...it is only a matter of time people. Better come to terms with it or it will drive you crazy...
June 8, 2007

4:41 PM

KW writes:

Hate to break it to you jay but the VAST majority af Americans were against this bill from the get go.

Maybe you could enlighten us with one of your polls?

Didn't think so.
June 8, 2007

4:46 PM

jay writes:

KW if you're going to try to keep up...at least make an effort to correctly reference my statement. I said the VAST majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants who qualify. If you'll look, the RTL printed this under a topic last week. In addition, you can find credible, scientific national polling on the matter at:

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

So...as I said...with that much popular support...such a program is an inevitability. Maybe you'd prefer a more whitebread nation...say like...Sweden.
June 8, 2007

4:51 PM

KW writes:

I'll bet you it was another Rovian plot.

The Reps just pretended to go along with it until enough citizens becasme enraged. Then they pull out and leave the Dems standing all alone as the sellouts of this country that they are. Now the Reps look like the heroes who saved the day.

Utterly BRILLIANT!!!
June 8, 2007

6:30 PM

shaggy writes:

jay,
I`m having a problem with your poll posting,

It did say most Americans were against the way BUSH is handling the Immigration problem.

I couldn`t find the poll saying most were if favor of this bill as that is what KW said. ( help me out)

I do think the majority of Americans want some kind of way for the good Illegals to live here via, guest worker program or earn their Citizenship.

I think any Bill would have a better chance of passing if the Border was secured first.
If that doesn`t happen, the people will shoot down all future bills as well.
June 9, 2007

8:04 AM

Yeehah writes:

Same old talking points jay. Your poll results are old, little girl. The false choices between mass deportation and amnesty with citizenship is passe.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to give illegal immigrants amnesty for their illegal presence in our country , or a path to citizenship since they did not earn that privilege. This is why the bill failed in the Democratically controlled senate.

I know this stinging defeat has hit you deep in your libbie loins, but at some point you need to shed the fantasies and settle down to reality. Let go of the false poll data and start debating with some integrity for a change.
June 9, 2007

9:31 AM

Ben writes:

The Congressman from the border state of which I still vote absentee stated that his constituents
" Just want the laws already on the books" enforced". No other nonsense or programs for encouraging illegal immigration. This response from my congressman blew me away. Common sense in Congress. Salazar, among others, has got to go.
June 9, 2007

9:35 AM

jay writes:

Hey look, it's our old pal...Mr. Right Wing Denial...and for the love of jebus...why do you crackers always change names every week?

Fact: The vast majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants that qualify.

Myth: Such a program is blanket amnesty.

Fact: Our schools, healthcare and social services systems have much bigger problems than supporting illegal immigrants.

Myth: Deporting all the illegal immigrants will fix the problems with our schools, healthcare and social services systems

Fact: Regulating the illegal immigrant workforce will increase tax revenues and will not hurt the economy

Myth: Allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in this country will doom us to a third world fate.

Hope this helps you guys come to some more common sense conclusions on illegal immigration. If not...get an education.

Shaggy...great point...I never said that the majority of people supported this bill...I am glad that Congress is going take their time and have as much discussion on a complex important issue....it is a welcome change to the way things have been run for 6 years. If you'll look at my post...you'll see that I simply stated the obvious...that with the vast majority of Americans supporting a program that allows for a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants that qualify...such a program is an inevitability. I know that some of the wingnuts are having trouble coming to terms with that eventual reality...but hey...if you want to live in whitebread land...America may not be your best choice.
June 9, 2007

11:36 AM

jay writes:

you know, I am really not that bright.

I have a HUGE inferiority complex ever since my father rejected me. I can't help it. OTOH, I think that knowing that I am not capable of being taken seriously, that may be an advantage.
June 9, 2007

11:44 AM

jay writes:

Shaggy - What was it like to graduate from High School? I have always fantasized about what that would be like. Maybe someday I will get my GED.
June 9, 2007

1:48 PM

Shoggy writes:

Poor jay. When facts and majority sentiment are not on your side, its time to resort to calling someone a racist. Same old pattern.

Myth: People want to grant amnesty to the majority of illegal aliens living illegally in the United States.

Fact: Americans want our existing laws enforced. Mass deportation is not the desired endpoint, although liberal propagandists want to continue to bring it up any chance they can to create a straw arguement.

Myth: Illegal workers are good for our economy.

Fact: They depress wages and cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars to educate their foreign and American born children, they are bankrupting our safety net healthcare system, they take close to three dollars in social service dollars for every dollar they pay in sales and other taxes.

Myth: Just one more amnesty will somehow change the repeating pattern of escalating illegal immigration each year.

Fact: Each time amnesty has been granted to illegal aliens, the numbers in the coming years have only increased.

Myth: People who are against illegal immigration are motivated by racism.

Fact: Illegal immigrants come in all colors and races. Jay is a moron.

Now, I hope you will take the time to update your false polling data, to grow a set of balls, and move past the whining as you become increasingly irrelevant in this debate.

Blogging day and night has stunted your intellectual growth darling. It's obvious you have no life and its pathetic that you have to demonstrate that again and again.
June 9, 2007

11:51 PM

Anonymous writes:

It seems that Jays detractors are not able to refute his facts.
June 10, 2007

6:45 AM

Ben writes:

Detractors? More like educators.

Well Anonymous @ 11: 51,(jay) these "facts" are what I like to refer to as "jayfacts", and "jaynomics" and "jayspeak".

Time for real immigration "reform" Sensenbrenner 4437.
June 10, 2007

6:22 PM

Anonymous writes:

Amnesty bill going- going - GONE!
Don't try ressurecting that bill , it's a dead issue ,theres good Senators
who will put up a good fight against it. It's like beating a dead horse!
June 11, 2007

7:49 AM

Joseph V. Seifert Jr writes:

Cut the Rope. If you want the Illegals to leave start puting the people that hire them in jail for 20 years. With no jobs or hand outs they will leave. City governments that help them put them in jail , people that put water stations for them put them in jail, Basically people that help them you put in jail for braking the Law no matter who they are, preacher, polotician, Movie star or activist 20 years no exception.
June 11, 2007

9:23 AM

RememberThis? writes:

Why did everyone cheer when I removed the self checkout mexican line cutter's ass yesterday at Home Depot?
Fact: The vast majority of Americans want them all to go home.-

This never fails to blow me away, the things we have worked so hard for, The country our forefathers DIED for is being given away like an old sandwich.
The most prized possesion in the world, Amercian Citizenship, just being given away........
I dont get it.
June 11, 2007

9:36 AM

Anonymous writes:

America's citizens of all colors and backgrounds say ENOUGH!!!
Citizenship in this nation is a valuable thing NOT to be given out lightly!!!
You wan to live here? EARN IT!!!
June 11, 2007

9:37 AM

Shaggy writes:

This thing isn`t on the "ropes", Bush is going to lunch with the Republicans tomorrow to try to pursuade them to vote this thing thru so he can sign it into Law.
Our President is so egotistical he is blind to wants of the majority of the people of the U.S.
He doesn`t even care that the Majority of his own Government party is against him.
I guess we all are going to have to speak out even louder for this loser to pay attention.

He has had access to a Billion dollars set aside for the fence for 6 months and managed to build two lousy miles of fencing in a area of no concern. WOW.

Even if this thing gets approved, Bush still won`t do anything about the Border.
He knows he has screwed the Republicans run at Presidency and he also knows that once the Dems. have the WH, they won`t do anything about it either.

Build the DAMN FENCE FIRST BEFORE any bill to grant Amnesty is approved, otherwise nothing will be done.
Clinton had 8 years and Bush had 7 years to secure our Borders and nothing was done, in the mean time, Millions of Illegals have crossed.
What a joke our Government is.
June 11, 2007

10:41 AM

589 days to go writes:

I don’t think our government understands that we want them to do their jobs not change the rules. All of our senators on both sides of the isle need to support the American People above illegal immigrants and the companies that have created this problem by breaking the law. Fine the crap out of the companies and deport illegal aliens. People in America need good paying jobs and the pressure from illegal immigrant labor is putting undue pressure on the middle class. Send them packing and tell them to obey the law if they don’t want to suffer the consequences.
June 11, 2007

10:48 AM

jay writes:

I don't understand the inability of 28%'ers to accept politically or theologically inconvenient facts. I've stated several times that because the vast majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants who qualify this type of legislation is an absolute inevitability. After each posting I've been emotionally attacked...but without the benefit (as usual) of credible data showing that my statement is false. So...one more time for the cheap seats:

From the Rocky Mountain News not two weeks ago....as posted on RTL:

Americans support the major provisions of the immigration reform bill working its way through the Senate, but are skeptical of the bill itself, a pair of national polls report.

The New York Times/CBS poll showed broad support for granting legal status to illegal immigrants with no criminal history and a good employment record

Many Republican lawmakers have rejected this plan, calling it amnesty that rewards immigrants who broke the law when they entered the United States. But the poll showed that differences are not great between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, with 66 percent of Republicans in the poll favoring the legalization proposal, as well as 72 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents.

More than half of those who favor the guest worker program say the workers should be allowed to apply to become permanent immigrants and eventually American citizens if they maintain a strong work history and commit no crimes. About a third of those who favored the program disagree, saying guest workers should be required to return home after their temporary period.

And here again...are yet more national, credible, well-respected (outside of the ranks of the 28%'ers of course), scientific polling supporting my statement:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Would you favor or oppose creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes"

Favor 80%

Oppose 19%

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 13-15, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

Which comes closest to your view about what the government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. and not allow them to return. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return temporarily to work. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time. OR, Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time."

Leave, Not Return 14%

Leave, Temporarily Return 6%

Leave, Return to Path of Citizenship 36%

Remain, Path to Citizenship 42%

Please allow me the opportunity to add a piece of advice that I've given more than once but appears to have yet to sink in.

Online polling isn't scientific or credible and thus is irrelevant. Non-scientific, non-random, non-national polling done by anti-immigration lobbyists isn't credible and thus irrelevant. Emotional opinions made by reading the material posted on sites run by anti-immigration lobbyists aren't credible. Emotional opinions based on nothing more than the round table discussions populated by 28%'ers aren't credible. I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe tripe or hold such opinions...but let's take them at face value and not elevate them to the level of credence of the information I've posted today. If you have something other than the examples of data outlined above, I'd love to see it.

Okay...to once again make it clear that I am in no way commenting on the bill before Congress...but rather the inevitability of legislation containing a path to citizenship for some of the illegal immigrants now in the country based upon the support of such a program by the vast majority of Americans.

Okay....on to the next topic..

Ben, thanks for posting under your own name...well done.

You say you support Bill 4437.

Interesting....I'd like to post a few bullet points containing information on the bill:

“Unlawful presence” would now be considered a crime and a felony, meaning that undocumented immigrants may have to serve jail time and would be barred from future legal status and from re-entry into the country.

Immigrants, including asylum-seekers, victims of human trafficking, victims of domestic abuse, and children who are apprehended along an international border or at a port-of-entry would be detained until such time as they are removed from the nation or otherwise provided immigration relief.

Anyone or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison. This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual. Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

The use of expedited removal, which would permit DHS enforcement personnel to remove a potential asylum-seeker without providing an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge or qualified adjudicator, would be mandated within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of a person’s entry into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to erect up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border at points with the highest number of immigrant deaths.

State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments which refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding.

Asylum seekers and refugees who are convicted of a minor offense, such as petty theft, would be barred from permanent legal residence and eventual citizenship.

Document fraud would be considered an aggravated felony and would subject an asylum-seeker to deportation and bars to re-entry.

Nationals from countries who do not accept the return of aliens who commit crimes in this country would not be admitted to the United States. This would include countries such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

DHS would be given the authority to continue to detain individuals who have served their sentences based upon a determination that they are a “dangerous alien,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings barring indefinite detention.

The diversity visa lottery program, which allows 50,000 immigrants each year from countries around the world to permanently reside in the United States, is eliminated.

Any inaccuracies in that info?

Any comments on its provisions?

Does the bill seem mainstream to you?

Are there any provisions that you would toughen or make more lenient?

Just curious to see what your thoughts are on the the bill you've said you support.

I'll ask another question just for the general readers...

Which phenomenon do you think has hurt the American job market more....

1) Illegal immigration

or

2) Outsourcing of jobs
June 11, 2007

11:45 AM

Shaggy writes:

am·nes·ty /ˈæmnəsti/ Pronunciation Pronunciation[am-nuh-stee]
–noun
1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
–verb (used with object)
4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.
---------------------------------------------------------
This bill will grant them all amnesty because they are not going to pay any fine or go back to the Border.
It just ain`t gonna happen... Period... End of debate.

Bush, Kennedy, Salazar and the rest of the open Border nutjobs know this won`t work and will just complicate matters to the point all Illegals will be granted Citizenship without the Border being secured. That is what they want.

Jay, you just flat out are not going to get it that MOST AMERICANS are opposed to this BILL.( aka: amnesty bill)

Most Americans want a reasonable way for the Illegals to work their way to Citizenship and guess what, we already have one that has worked for a very long time.
We also have Laws to secure the border and deport anyone in the U.S. Illegally.
Enforce the Laws we already have.
Don`t change the rules because Millions have broken them,
Enforce the rules.

I wonder if Bush can pardon them all on his way out of the WH.
If he can I`m sure he will.
June 11, 2007

11:48 AM

Anonymous writes:

'vast majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants who qualify'

what I don't understand Jay, and this is not an attack of any kind, on you or otherwise, but when I do my own random poll, I get about 1 or 2 in every 10 who say 'yes, let there be a path to citizenship', the vast majority of the 80 to 100 people I've asked say 'hell no!' ..... so I'm not sure where the numbers are coming from or why they're not in generally the same zone .... and I know, all you can do is say that's what pollingdata.com says, but I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the disagreement .... are they taking this poll in the congress by chance?
June 11, 2007

11:59 AM

jay writes:

Reading comprehension fellas:

Anon wrote (please sign a name)
"when I do my own random poll, I get about 1 or 2 in every 10 who say 'yes, let there be a path to citizenship', the vast majority of the 80 to 100 people I've asked say 'hell no!'"

Once again...from my post:
"Online polling isn't scientific or credible and thus is irrelevant. Non-scientific, non-random, non-national polling done by anti-immigration lobbyists isn't credible and thus irrelevant. Emotional opinions made by reading the material posted on sites run by anti-immigration lobbyists aren't credible. Emotional opinions based on nothing more than the round table discussions populated by 28%'ers aren't credible. I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe tripe or hold such opinions...but let's take them at face value and not elevate them to the level of credence of the information I've posted today"

Again...if you have credible data NOT from the sources outlined above....I'd love to see it.

Shaggy writes (amazingly enough):
"Jay, you just flat out are not going to get it that MOST AMERICANS are opposed to this BILL"

Once again from my post:
"to once again make it clear that I am in no way commenting on the bill before Congress...but rather the inevitability of legislation containing a path to citizenship for some of the illegal immigrants now in the country based upon the support of such a program by the vast majority of Americans."

Any questions?
June 11, 2007

12:06 PM

jay writes:

Shaggy...do you mind posting the link to the "dictionary" site you used to come up with that definition of amnesty?

I see it's been posted on The Drudge Report...but can't seem to find that one on Merriam or other such accredited sites.

Thanks buddy.
June 11, 2007

12:22 PM

Anonymous writes:

Jay ..... I wasn't trying to make the argument (or even have an argument) that my results were scientific .... in fact, I did say it was my own 'random' poll .... so it means that I just basically kept a tablet with for/against counts, and when I'd meet people for a meeting, talk to family members on the phone or in person, see neighbors or acquaintances, I'd just ask 'are you for or against citizenship for illegal aliens no matter what country they're from?' ..... having been through several statistics classes in the past, I'm well aware of how scientific polling is done ... not being able (or willing) to conduct one that is scientific shouldn't preclude me from asking people their opinion about something .... but it also doesn't explain the HUGE gap between pollingdata.com numbers and mine .... I was simply marveling out how they could be diametrically opposed
June 11, 2007

12:56 PM

jay writes:

As I said in my previous post...and as you should know from your stats classes...you are welcome to your opinions and anectodal "evidence"...but let's not elevate that information above the credible data I've provided in support of the position outlined below. I think your "findings" are simply evidence of the crowd you choose to run with....rather than evidence of a credible disconnect in the findings of credible, scientific polling on the matter.
June 11, 2007

1:12 PM

Ben writes:

Here's an answer for your question jay.Do you have "credible data" (lol) on my questions?

"Which phenomenon do you think has hurt the American job market more....
1) Illegal immigration
or
2) Outsourcing of jobs"

Answer 1 and 2. but dramatically moreso 1.
Illegal immigration is considered "insourcing" thus harmful to jobs(and everything else) for middle class Americans.
Now consider the plethora of political, cultural, ecological considerations and social turmoil past, present and future, into the economic mix. Kaching!
Now what about the intangible ramifications to the very soul of the United States of America? What shall we tell our children and grandchildren? That we continously gave away the U.S.A. so the rich global elitists could rape our republic and move on? We traded an entire empire in a short period of time because some thought or convinced, the masses that using and having the middle class subsidize third world slave labor in country would allow the good times to continually roll? (See Roman empire history and unchecked immigration)
What is the cost there? Priceless. Can anyone tell me which homogenous nation will be the new superpower of the world when the USA is a plolyglot and balkanized?
ANswers to these questions anyone?
June 11, 2007

1:13 PM

a casual disinterested observer writes:

Jay,

One thing I remember from stats class is that there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics. Anyone who puts blind faith in stats (no matter what the source) is clearly a few standard deviations short of the mean.
June 11, 2007

1:17 PM

Shoggy writes:

For the jaydolts still churning the poll data that now is irrelevant:

A bank robber enters a bank with a gun and commits several crimes including stealing money from that bank. The judge decides to offer him parole so that he can perform community service and pay a fine instead of losing his freedom and going to jail. AND he gets to keep the money, which is why he entered the bank in the first place.

Such is the moronic idea that "regularizing" illegal immigrants and making them pay fines on a path to citizenship in not defacto blanket amnesty.

Stick a fork in it jay. You are done.
June 11, 2007

1:24 PM

jay writes:

I think we can officially say that no one has credible data that refutes my position regarding the inevitability of a program with a path to citizenship in terms of its popular support by the majority of Americans...again this position has nothing to do with the current bill.

Ben, thanks for the opinions on insourcing vs. outsourcing of jobs. I would ask if you've considered doing the research that would put some figures in place of the rhetoric in regards to the jobs "insourced" to illegal immigrants vs. the jobs "outsourced" to other countries.

I would still like to hear your views on the provisions of the Bill 4437 listed below....the one you said you support.

Any inaccuracies in that info?

Any comments on its provisions?

Does the bill seem mainstream to you?

Are there any provisions that you would toughen or make more lenient?
June 11, 2007

1:34 PM

Ben writes:

You first jay. Ball is in your court.
June 11, 2007

1:46 PM

Shaggy writes:

Sure no prob. jay,
It is called" Dictionary.com"

http://dictionary.reference.com/
June 11, 2007

1:47 PM

jay writes:

I'm sorry Ben...what were the questions you asked before you brought up 4437?
June 11, 2007

2:00 PM

Ben writes:

jay, I know your sorry, but don't run away as usual,answer the questions posed earlier, and....

"I think we can officially say that no one has credible data that refutes my position regarding the inevitability of a program with a path to citizenship in terms of its popular support by the majority of Americans". jay

No, people want the border secured first and foremost. This is an unrefutable fact. As for officially saying that no one has credible data refuting your straw that you are grasping at. A Zogby poll showed 59% of people did not want a GWP or any path anywhere for illegals, just a path back to Mexico.

You are always suspect.
June 11, 2007

2:02 PM

jay writes:

Thanks for the link Shaggy...I just wanted to clarify that you wanted to stick with that definition before getting to my point.....which brings us to the crux of the far right wing position and it's mislabeling of any program that would allow immigrants to qualify to apply for citizenship.

Do you believe that immigrants who pay a fine, learn english, maybe pay some back taxes aren't making reparations for illegally entering the US?

By your definition, amnesty would be pardoning any past offense. If illegal immigrants are in fact made to make such reparations in order to "make amends" for breaking our immigration laws...how are they being "pardoned"?

If we were "pardoning them"...why would they have to do anything at all? If those who don't make such reparations are deported...how is it that they as a group will be "pardoned for past offenses"?

Are you implying that ALL immigrants, no matter their actions will automatically receive citizenship...because that WOULD qualify as amnesty. Anything else simply doesn't qualify.
June 11, 2007

2:08 PM

jay writes:

I wasn't running anywhere Ben...again...what were the questions you asked BEFORE you brought up 4437?

If you had none, then please address the questions I asked regarding the bill you support. I'll repost the major provisions of the bill and the questions:

Oh...and feel free to post the link to the Zogby poll...as I've done with the various polls in support of my position.

Here are those provision and questions again:

“Unlawful presence” would now be considered a crime and a felony, meaning that undocumented immigrants may have to serve jail time and would be barred from future legal status and from re-entry into the country.

Immigrants, including asylum-seekers, victims of human trafficking, victims of domestic abuse, and children who are apprehended along an international border or at a port-of-entry would be detained until such time as they are removed from the nation or otherwise provided immigration relief.

Anyone or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison. This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual. Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

The use of expedited removal, which would permit DHS enforcement personnel to remove a potential asylum-seeker without providing an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge or qualified adjudicator, would be mandated within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of a person’s entry into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to erect up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border at points with the highest number of immigrant deaths.

State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments which refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding.

Asylum seekers and refugees who are convicted of a minor offense, such as petty theft, would be barred from permanent legal residence and eventual citizenship.

Document fraud would be considered an aggravated felony and would subject an asylum-seeker to deportation and bars to re-entry.

Nationals from countries who do not accept the return of aliens who commit crimes in this country would not be admitted to the United States. This would include countries such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

DHS would be given the authority to continue to detain individuals who have served their sentences based upon a determination that they are a “dangerous alien,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings barring indefinite detention.

The diversity visa lottery program, which allows 50,000 immigrants each year from countries around the world to permanently reside in the United States, is eliminated.

Any inaccuracies in that info?

Any comments on its provisions?

Does the bill seem mainstream to you?

Are there any provisions that you would toughen or make more lenient?

Just curious to see what your thoughts are on the the bill you've said you support.
June 11, 2007

2:21 PM

history buff writes:

The immigration issue shows that the system is broken. So much water has flowed under the bridge that it leaves no realistic alternative. A vote for amnesty would allow us to track people who are here illegally. A vote against amnesty leaves us trying to remove a huge illegal population. The first choice is unprincipled. The second would require a police state, something any American should sense is un-American. No action means the system will remain broken. The future doesn't look bright no matter what happens. Maybe 50 years from now we will be left with those that were born here, so they will be legal.
June 11, 2007

2:49 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

HB,

Build the fence, secure the border.
Introduce secure ID for government handouts, and employment.
Outsource prisons for crimes committed by illegals to China.

By the time we get that done, as you pointed out, there shouldn't be any illegals left.

Harry Reid is down to 19% Positive poll ratings.
June 11, 2007

2:54 PM

momma y writes:

Well the amnesty nonsense is dead but never expect politicians to give up on a bad idea. We can keep it from passing now because there is an election in 2008. We can keep it from passing later by making certain that in 2008 we elect representatives who will defend this country from the illegal hordes instead of drooling over the political advantages the illegals represent. All of the House of Representatives is up for re-election. Let them hear you. Politicans are like small children (or hookers) they will do what works best to gain an advantage and will avoid what brings penalties. Bush will try to resurrect the bill but the republicans know their tails are on the line so they will delay until they can pass it quietly or until they can kill it with a fanfare. We must be certain we are a noisy, constant presence at all political meetings so they can't ignore us. Then we must be certain to make them all take a stand on this issure. The more they wiggle the better for us. And the better for America.
June 11, 2007

3:25 PM

Shaggy writes:

jay,
Put it this way, if all 12-30 million Illegals go back to the Border, get in back of the line, do all the proper paper work ( background check, health check[ btw isn`t even mentioned in the bill] ect...) pay the fine, secure the Border first, then I`ll back this Bill.

This isn`t going to happen, probably 90% of them couldn`t afford to even make it back to the Border on their own dime nor would they, let alone pay a fine.
Hell I would say 90% will ignore this Bill altogether.

Should we then pay for a service to haul them back to the Border?
What about the Majority that won`t go?
So then what do we do, still pay the costs to deport them anyways?
Should we still pay the medical costs for the ones that refuse to go back?
Should the Hospitals just turn away the pregnant Illegal having difficulties?
Should we pay for it?
Should they turn away the Illegal that gets a contagious disease of some sort?
Should you and I pay for that as well?
How long should they be here paying into the system before they should start recieving any benefits?
What about the older ones that will soon retire before you and me?
Is it fair that they recieve S.S. after paying just a minimal amount of money into the system? While you, me and everyone else have paid into it all our lives?
Should we still pay the costs to school their children if they don`t go back?
Or should we just kick them all out?
Does this change our Police procedures such as can they apprehend the ones that don`t have a CO. DL and ask them if they are Illegal?

This bill is BS and I know you know it as well but feel the need to stand your ground.
June 11, 2007

3:34 PM

Shaggy writes:

Good point H B,
The Law stating if you are Born here you are an automatic Citizen needs to be abolished period.
That was created to grant the children of slaves who were forced to endure hardships by our forefathers.
That Law was never intended for the criminals sneaking into our country and breeding like rabbits in order to become a Citizen.
June 11, 2007

3:56 PM

KW writes:

I don't understand how jay can think the enforcement portions of the bill will actually be enforced. Nobody has been properly enforcing immigration laws for the last 21 yrs.
June 11, 2007

4:23 PM

588 days to go writes:

Maybe legal residents of the US should strike and show our political and economic might. Maybe we should demand healthcare at the same time too. The middle class of America is being held down by policies that promote fear of leaving a job because of health insurance and replacement workers that due to their illegal status can be manipulated to taking far less money. While they have us under their thumb expect the rich to become ridiculously rich and farther detached because they can until we stand up and speak out for our rights as CITEZENS of the United States of America. Corporate fascism is still fascism even dressed in capitalist clothing.
June 11, 2007

4:35 PM

Shaggy writes:

588,
I really think you are on target,
I think they want to eliminate the middle class all together.
That is the only thing I can reason for Twigs insistance on getting this thing passed.
Oh by the way, does anyone actually believe they will shut the Border down?
I think Bush has already sold us out to Mexico in secret.
June 11, 2007

4:51 PM

588 days to go writes:

You can't close a river with a screen door. We need armed border guards with sufficient funding and oversight so they don't become corrupt. We also need to get busy locating and deporting these threats to the middle class. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing this is the middle classes last chance to fight for survival. Hell I'm agreeing with Shaggy on this one so it is definitely not a partisan issue.
June 11, 2007

6:16 PM

Conrad writes:

Boy, you are hell-bent in misdirecting the principles jay. This is a clear sign of the inherent weakness in your position, plus the need to constantly refer to meaningless polls.

First, drop the citizenship thing. The amnesty starts when people here illegally are allowed provisional legal status to stay. This means that they can stay indefinitely as a legal resident or start a path to citizenship as is allowed by law. Harping about how difficult the new bill would make attaining citizenship is another straw arguement - the horse has already left the proverbial barn at that point. You seem to have to rely on these types of tactics to avoid confronting the real issues.

Second - drop the deportation thing. Another straw arguement. Once existing laws are enforced, there will be no jobs for illegals and they would be left two choices: self deport (which is alot easier that the way they came in) or join the ranks of the new temporary guest workers who will get the privilege of working here if they follow basic rules.

No police state, no wasteful efforts to track down illegals, and a clear message is sent that will stop future illegal immigration. NO AMNESTY.

Americans recognize the past errors and will stand firm on a new paradigm - one that does not repeat policies that have a proven record of failure.

BTW, it would also behoove you to drop the allusions to racism each time your back is against the wall. It makes you seem desperate.
June 11, 2007

6:24 PM

jay writes:

Conrad, thanks for dropping in...any credible data or facts that refute my position? I'd love to see them if you can come up with them...otherwise...thanks for your opinions. Any comments on the questions I asked Ben about the provisions in 4437 that I outlined below?

KW...reading comprehension will help you realize that I haven't come out in favor of this bill. My posts have simply stated a conclusion. That conclusion is that because the vast majority of Americans support allowing a path for citizenship for those illegal immigrants who qualify...such a program is inevitable. You might want to go ahead and read what I've written before trying to make a point of your own in regards to my position.

Shaggy...like KW...you need to realize that I haven't been pushing this bill, but simply stating the conclusion I've outlined above and below several times over.
June 11, 2007

6:45 PM

jay writes:

Interesting article on the effects of illegal immigration on the economy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19101228/
June 11, 2007

7:41 PM

shaggy writes:

jay,
I don`t think you are trying to push this Bill.
I don`t think you agree with this Bill either.
There is something fishy with this to make Twig go against his party and the People so adamantly and wanting it to get pushed thru before he is out of office.
He had 7 years to get something done if he wanted to.
Why does he want it done on the eleventh hour of his Presidency?

So what is he up to is the Million/Billion Dollar Question?

Why would he have the most out spoken senator against anything he does have help write this thing?

I think it could have something to do with him having some secret discussions with the New Mexican consolate.

Why does Twig want to give the Mexican truckers the jobs already taken by our trukers?
Is this part of his "doing the jobs Americans won`t do" policy as well?
He`s still trying to force that thru, did you know that?

Did some big company/companies offer him a decisive insentive?

You (jay) of all people should know he`s up to something.

His polls are already at an all time low and going lower the more he presses this Bill.
Why does he keep doing it?

You know I`m a Conservative Republican and I can`t stand this SOB and I`m not alone.

Those are some Q`s I have if you can find any DIRECT polls on them.

BTW, Where is JW these days?
June 11, 2007

8:25 PM

shaggy writes:

Please jay, and everyone else,

Watch this 14 minute video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265

Give it a try at least and let me know what you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 11, 2007

8:39 PM

Conrad writes:

"any credible data or facts that refute my position?"

I think you just made my point. You have shrouded yourself in layers of obfuscation and yes, it is your position but not the position of the majority of Americans.

How could the issue be more straightforward? Why is it necessary to grant another amnesty when all prior amnesties have failed? Why do you invoke an impossible scenario of mass deportation when attrition after law enforcement (perhaps for the first time those laws are seriously enforced) will reverse the processes that brought us to this point?

Try not to clutter the debate with all the gobbletygook that was part of the failed amnesty bill. I can only entertain your ideas if you divorce yourself from the talking points and move on.org to more real life issues and shed the platitudes.

Irrefutable facts:
1. Amnesty for illegal immigration has never worked other than to promote increasing illegal immigration every time.
2. The major draws for illegals to break out laws and wait it out are a. jobs and b. another amnesty.
3. Border security is a must and we have to begin that process ahead of determining what to do with all of the illegals living in the US.
4. Offering citizenship to those who did not earn it by immigrating illegally and committing a multitude of crimes resultant is not a necessary component of immigratioln reform. It is a bargaining chip that should be discarded.
5. Illegal immigrant labor depresses wages. Guest workforces need to be created to answer the needs of our economy and reward willing guests with a job, workers comp and a return invitation to work if they don't break our laws. The proposed bill makes no provisions for the flooding of our social services infrastructure if each wave of guest workers are converted into citizens creating an intolerably bottom heavy labor force that cannot be adjusted as economic forces dictate.

We don't need to poll likely voters to recognize the obvious. Now, are you ready to rumble?
June 11, 2007

8:57 PM

shaggy writes:

Now, are you ready to rumble?

Posted by Conrad on June 11, 2007 08:39 PM

You talking to me???????

Did you watch the video???????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265
June 12, 2007

8:16 AM

Ben writes:

No answer yet jay? I would retype it to a jay friendly format, but you wouldn't dare touch those hypotheticals obviously. Try this, again. You do have a short memory. Time to give up your one trick pony that is your perceived end-all on this subject. Please cut and paste a hard copy to put in your bubble as a reminder not to play dumb and get called on it. Sensenbrenner 4437 baby!

http://www.alipac.us/article1206.html

Zogby Poll: Americans favor enforcement over Guest Worker 2:1
Posted on Tuesday, May 09 @ 13:12:31 CDT
Topic: guest worker program illegal immigrants
New Zogby Poll Shows 2:1 Support for House's "Enforcement First" Approach vs. the Senate's Amnesty Proposal

Topics: Zogby Poll, Guest Worker, Amnesty, illegal immigration, Congress, Laws, Senate, legislation, aliens, Americans, earned citizenship

Center for Immigration Studies and Zogby
5/3/2006

A recent Zogby poll of likely voters shows Americans believe current immigration levels are too high and support legislation that would strengthen border security, require businesses to verify the employment eligibility status of workers, and increase Department of Homeland Security cooperation with local law enforcement. The poll shows Americans support the reforms in the House-passed immigration reform legislation, H.R. 4437, over the Senate immigration bill:

When asked what the best way is to deal with illegal immigration, 64% supported the House bill's approach of enforcing immigration laws and encouraging illegal immigrants go home over time while only 30% supported the Senate bill, which would grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and coupled with a doubling of legal immigration.

Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

Seventy-three percent of Americans have little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen out terrorists and criminals if there is a mass amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S.
The American people recognize illegal immigration is a serious issue, and enforcement of our immigration laws must be our first priority. The complete poll can be found at http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.pdf
June 12, 2007

8:40 AM

Shaggy writes:

Tuesday, June 12, Pres. Bush will plead with Senate Republicans who voted against the amnesty bill to change their votes. For the FIRST TIME in FIVE YEARS he will join their weekly meeting because amnesty is his No. 1 domestic priority.
He hasn`t done a damn thing about it in his 7 years in office but now wants to shove this Amnesty Bill thru at the 11th hour even after He has heard that the People are against this Bill.
Lets impeach this asshole.
June 12, 2007

8:48 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Charles Krauthammer has some interesting observations on the "Sell American Citizenship to the Lowest Bidder Bill."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053101849.html
June 12, 2007

8:59 AM

Ben writes:

Amen Shaggy.
June 12, 2007

9:17 AM

Shaggy writes:

I just thought everyone should know who is voting for this Amnesty Bill in case any of them needs your Vote to try to get re-elected.

Republican Senators who supported amnesty this year:
Graham (R-SC), Hagel (R-Neb.), Lugar (R-Ind.), Martinez (R-Fla.), McCain (R-Ariz.),
Specter (R-Pa.), and Voinovich (R-Ohio)

Democrats who voted for the amnesty:
Akaka (D-HI), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Brown (D-OH), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Clinton (D-NY), Conrad (D-ND), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Whitehouse (D-RI), and Wyden (D-OR)
June 12, 2007

9:35 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Graham (R-SC), Hagel (R-Neb.), Lugar (R-Ind.), Martinez (R-Fla.), McCain (R-Ariz.),
Specter (R-Pa.), and Voinovich (R-Ohio)

2008 would be a good year to get rid of a few more RINOs.
June 12, 2007

9:50 AM

jay writes:

Thanks for posting data Ben.
I'll repost my paragraph dealing with what is and isn't credible data so we're all on the same page:

"Online polling isn't scientific or credible and thus is irrelevant. Non-scientific, non-random, non-national polling done by anti-immigration lobbyists isn't credible and thus irrelevant. Emotional opinions made by reading the material posted on sites run by anti-immigration lobbyists aren't credible. Emotional opinions based on nothing more than the round table discussions populated by 28%'ers aren't credible. I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe tripe or hold such opinions...but let's take them at face value and not elevate them to the level of credence of the information I've posted today. "

Now....reading your post we see two types of that irrelevant data.

One is the online polling from Zogby that you've referenced. Even they admit that their online polling division is no where near as scientifically valid as their online polling division....thus making your polling source not credible. The second source that is invalid in your post is the information from anti-immigration lobbyists. That is not to say that their polling is necessarily inaccurate...but let's go over their conclusions. They maintain that folks would like our border secured and our labor laws enforced. Me too. Absolutely. The issue is that it doesn't refute my position that the majority of Americans favor a GWP on the issue of what to do with the illegal immigrants already in the country. I agree that when the inevitable program with those parameters goes into effect, border security and labor law enforcement should be vital tenants of such a program. On that I think we all agree.

In regards to Zogby. They did do some scientific, non-online polling on the issue of immigration. Their findings mirrored the findings of all the other credible polling sources...and also support my position.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=15153

Now...in regards to your "questions"...PLEASE repost the questions that you posted earlier. I can't find any. I'm not trying to be obtuse.

I'd like to ask...is there some reason why you refuse to answer my questions regarding your support of 4437? I've reposted the provisions and questions several times (and requested the same of you) and am confused as to why you continue to ignore them. I'll repost them here in the hope that you'll address them. Thanks in advance.

“Unlawful presence” would now be considered a crime and a felony, meaning that undocumented immigrants may have to serve jail time and would be barred from future legal status and from re-entry into the country.

Immigrants, including asylum-seekers, victims of human trafficking, victims of domestic abuse, and children who are apprehended along an international border or at a port-of-entry would be detained until such time as they are removed from the nation or otherwise provided immigration relief.

Anyone or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison. This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual. Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

The use of expedited removal, which would permit DHS enforcement personnel to remove a potential asylum-seeker without providing an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge or qualified adjudicator, would be mandated within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of a person’s entry into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to erect up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border at points with the highest number of immigrant deaths.

State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments which refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding.

Asylum seekers and refugees who are convicted of a minor offense, such as petty theft, would be barred from permanent legal residence and eventual citizenship.

Document fraud would be considered an aggravated felony and would subject an asylum-seeker to deportation and bars to re-entry.

Nationals from countries who do not accept the return of aliens who commit crimes in this country would not be admitted to the United States. This would include countries such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

DHS would be given the authority to continue to detain individuals who have served their sentences based upon a determination that they are a “dangerous alien,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings barring indefinite detention.

The diversity visa lottery program, which allows 50,000 immigrants each year from countries around the world to permanently reside in the United States, is eliminated.

Any inaccuracies in that info?

Any comments on its provisions?

Does the bill seem mainstream to you?

Are there any provisions that you would toughen or make more lenient?

Conrad....thank you again for your opinions. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I wrap myself with credible data and facts...to "obsfucate" the point as you say. I'm sure it's frustrating for you considering you have nothing but opinions based on emotion and/or bad data. When you do have credible data or facts that refute my position that a program with a path to citizenship is an inevitability considering the support for it by a vast majority of Americans, I'd love to read them. I'm certainly not saying that you aren't entitled to your opinions...but let's not elevate them to the position of credible data.
June 12, 2007

9:57 AM

588 days to go writes:

They just arrested an illegal immigrant in Greeley for assaulting two underage girls. He was working for a drilling company in Weld. This again illustrates part of the problem of who is hiring the illegal immigrants. I will not vote for Salazar because he supports this bill. I am a strong Democrat and I support union labor, fair wages, and the middle class. I may not have the same side of the argument as Shaggy be we agree this is garbage and any type of amnesty is a all out assault on the middle class of America. By the way I enjoyed the film Shaggy and I think the speaker is on target. I think we all need to express that giving our jobs to lawbreakers and forcing us to take lower wages and benefits is wrong and is a direct assault on working Americans. I think it is time to strike and tell business and government to send the invaders home. Also, by watching Shaggy’s film I have glazed that deporting 12 million illegal aliens would only displace those who immigrated illegally less than a decade ago. I think it is time to take action and we need to speak out before they further destroy the middle class. And to put it bluntly: Rewarding crime in a society of laws is wrong. The one common denominator between me and most that oppose this is the blatant disregard for the law it creates.
June 12, 2007

10:01 AM

jay writes:

588 you'd get some use out of this article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19101228/
June 12, 2007

10:34 AM

Ben writes:

jay, your long winded post is exemplary of the immigration scam being perpetuated as we speak. Did you read Hogar's link by Krauthammer? (Thanks Hogar) Obviously not. Well what ever then.
BTW- answer the questions from the 1:12 post of yesterday, categorically. I imagine it to be quite a task with your myopic condition and all.
June 12, 2007

10:43 AM

jay writes:

Ben...I asked you first...I'll answer yours (please list them so I know which ones you'd like answered as many seemed rhetorical) after you answer mine.

That's usually how it works...unless you consider answering my questions with answers a valid method of debate.
June 12, 2007

10:47 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Here is a new study out of the University of Colorado which could help us deal with a percentage of the illegal population.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence_8
June 12, 2007

11:11 AM

Peter Bothell writes:

I just get a strong impression that bloggers are talking at one another instead of to each other. I'll try to distill some of the back and forth.

Polls tend to arrive at conclusions based on the question asked (and not asked). Best not to rely too much on any poll, since there is somewhere another poll that contradicts it. Better yet, skip them for now....

Amnesty is a non-starter no matter how creative you get in calling it something else. History is our best teacher on this subject. Amnesty should not be part of any new law if we are to be successful.

Criminalization of illegal immigration. Simple question: why not? Short of beefing up the penalty, there is little else that can be done UNLESS the laws aimed at employers and visa overstays are actually enforced. It is nonsense to have to reinvent the wheel for these issues. This is one reason the proposed legislation collapsed under its own dead weight.

Why would we be concerned that elevating the penalty for illegal immigration would start to snare church do-gooders when the status quo for 20 years has been to ignore even the most flagrant violators who amass multiple immigration violations and flip our government the bird on TV during illegal immigration demonstrations? Get real. And as for asylum seekers and other innocent bystanders that protagonists like to lump together with illegal immigrants, there are ways to distinguish these small subsets of immigrants from the mob who are invading. No worry there.

These kinds of nitpicking are distractions from a common sense plan to deal with the millions upon millions who are not the immigrants who should rightfully gain entry to America. It's confusing to see that some both trust our government to catch the miniscule numbers of asylum seekers and also point out how incompetent this same government is on the everyday issue of thousands who cross our southern border with impunity. You can't argue both positions simultaneously.

So, a workable solution: American want a guest worker program because we recognize that there are some jobs Americans don't want to do. We have up to 20 million illegal immigrants who cared not to apply to come here and stand in line with the rest of the world. The guest worker program should be crafted around the existing uninvited "guests" and offer them legal status as a temporary guest worker. Anything more would diminish the value of American citizenship and reinforce the idea that future illegal immigrants will to be rewarded for their crimes and disrespect of our laws. If illegal immigrants decide not to become legal guests, then they can find their way back home eventually because no one will be able to hire them. Those employers laws already exist - just need to enforce them.

Why don't we develop these ideas instead of thrashing about trying to breathe life into a dead senate bill?

Just one guy asking.....
June 12, 2007

12:54 PM

Anonymous writes:

Peter,

Why do we need laborers to do "the jobs Americans won't do" when we are consistently paying 4-6% of the workforce NOT to work?

And the unemployment rates are even higher once you factor in the cases that are un-reported since their benefits have run out.

I'm not ready to sacrifice my country just so we can get some hard work done.

We should instead look at the numbers, get every capable American working, and protect American wages. We should also protect our society and standard of living by saying "NO" to the importation of poverty.

Not to menion "guest worker" is a slipery slope. Will these workers pay taxes? Yes? Okay, and how will you deny them the right to vote then? How will you deny them access to our social programs when they are paying for them?

Better start thinking Pete!
June 12, 2007

1:52 PM

KW writes:

Shaggy - How dare you list Hagel as a Republican. The judges are still out on deciding just who and what he represents. I don't think even Hagel knows for sure where he stands.
June 12, 2007

2:23 PM

Anonymous writes:

12:54 .... you should keep in mind that according to most economists worth their salt, a 4 to 5% unemployment rate is considered very good and healthy .... anything less and there simply aren't enough people in the available work force pool to fill jobs and keep the job market competitive...
June 12, 2007

3:07 PM

Ben writes:

jay,
Still sqirming and sidestepping as usual. As I said yesterday,
"You are always suspect."

We all know you are a profitteer via the your involvement in slave labor trade and the subsequent selling out of fellow Americans and legal immigrants. I could go old school and call you a traitor at many levels, but I will refrain.
June 12, 2007

3:23 PM

Peter Bothell writes:

To 12:54 Anonymous:

To directly answer your questions and also suggest that you do some thinking on them again:
1. 4-6% national unemployment is a low number. Guest workers fill niches where there is a need and with oversight do not become a downward force on wages.
2. Last time I checked, the right to vote comes only with citizenship. Guest worker do not and will not have that right, nor should they.
3. Guest workers will pay taxes to help offset the insurance coverage for injury, disability, and health that would go along with this program. Sales taxes paid on goods and services they purchase pay for the infrastructure that supports the locales in which they live. None of us get rebates on those taxes.
4. Access to social programs will be denied guest workers by virtue of their status and identification/work papers.

Your post is interesting in that your tone is nativist, yet your questions are particularly socialistic in nature.

Is that you again jay?
June 12, 2007

3:48 PM

jay writes:

Ben...still waiting on those questions...and in the meantime, please answer the ones I asked you first.

Peter...sorry not me buddy...but this type of mistaken identity happens every few days...don't beat yourself up because I'm in your head. happens to the best of the footsoldiers....
June 12, 2007

3:57 PM

Ben writes:

If it only worked like that Peter.

And then they will return to their country of origin right.? This issue is not that cut and dried. What about a depression or recession? If these illegals are legalized then the next step is full blown everything. Bleeding heart liberals would cry about having "second class peoples" and "racism" and all the other polically correct speak. No need to go there, these people are illegal aliens period.

I was in Wheatridge and absolutely had to eat something. I went to Wendy's. The entire crew was monolingual Spanish with the exception of the manager. A young white couple, obviously poor, where putting in applications to work at this Wendy's. Did they get the jobs? I could have told them it was an exercise in futility. More jobs that Americans won't fill is what some would have you believe. I promptly left.

When the likes of Jimmy Carter tells you that our current administration is the worst of modern times, you know
we are on the decline.

jay,
There are no questions for you if you pretend they were never presented to you.
June 12, 2007

4:24 PM

Peter Bothell writes:

Ben
There is a big difference between the blanket amnesty the failed bill offered and a plan to move current illegals into guest workers with an expiration date.

If no amnesty is on the horizen, then only two choices remain. Stay for a short time as a guest worker and plan your return to home, or try to exist on the largess of your extended American friends and families because there will be no work to be had.

My point is that there will not be wholesale deportation, something protagonists like to inject into the equation to force the issue. Knowing that, a plan has to be devised that follows a common sense path that avoids amnesty and puts current illegals on a path to repatriation after being given a chance to work in the GWP.

It seems that this is a middle road compromise for stalwarts on either side.
June 12, 2007

4:27 PM

jay writes:

Ben I've reposted my questions several times...I only ask you do me the same courtesy.

Here are mine again...looking forward to getting yours.

“Unlawful presence” would now be considered a crime and a felony, meaning that undocumented immigrants may have to serve jail time and would be barred from future legal status and from re-entry into the country.

Immigrants, including asylum-seekers, victims of human trafficking, victims of domestic abuse, and children who are apprehended along an international border or at a port-of-entry would be detained until such time as they are removed from the nation or otherwise provided immigration relief.

Anyone or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison. This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual. Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

The use of expedited removal, which would permit DHS enforcement personnel to remove a potential asylum-seeker without providing an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge or qualified adjudicator, would be mandated within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of a person’s entry into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to erect up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border at points with the highest number of immigrant deaths.

State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments which refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding.

Asylum seekers and refugees who are convicted of a minor offense, such as petty theft, would be barred from permanent legal residence and eventual citizenship.

Document fraud would be considered an aggravated felony and would subject an asylum-seeker to deportation and bars to re-entry.

Nationals from countries who do not accept the return of aliens who commit crimes in this country would not be admitted to the United States. This would include countries such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

DHS would be given the authority to continue to detain individuals who have served their sentences based upon a determination that they are a “dangerous alien,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings barring indefinite detention.

The diversity visa lottery program, which allows 50,000 immigrants each year from countries around the world to permanently reside in the United States, is eliminated.

Any inaccuracies in that info?

Any comments on its provisions?

Does the bill seem mainstream to you?

Are there any provisions that you would toughen or make more lenient?
June 12, 2007

4:29 PM

Jay's Parent writes:

Ahem...Please refrain from trying to invite jay to participate. He is in a timeout right now after having his tushie spanked once again. When he loses debates he resorts to sniping anonymously, something we do not tolerate in our trailer home.

Thank you.
June 12, 2007

4:35 PM

Peter Bothell writes:

Jay, you are not "in my head". That is rather narcissistic of you. The anonymous poster was baiting the conversation in a manner very similar to your posts.

I can't apologize for your past behavior.

Join us in consideration of a middle road compromise that I have outlined. Or not.
June 12, 2007

4:43 PM

jay writes:

Sure Peter...as the vast majority of Americans support a program with a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants who qualify...I believe that such a program would have to incorporate stingent border security and an increase in the enforcement of our labor laws.

What do you think?
June 12, 2007

4:48 PM

Peter Bothell writes:

What I and the vast majority of Americans believe is that citizenship is a high honor and privilege, and has simply not been earned by illegal immigrants.

Let's continue the conversation without confusing the current issues with citizenship. Illegal aliens broke our laws to come here to work, not become citizens. Just ask them....

(see what I mean about baiting?)

Try again jay.
June 12, 2007

4:54 PM

jay writes:

I think this will be a short discussion if you continue to refuse to accept politically inconvenient facts Petey.

here it is again...as the vast majority of Americans support a program with a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants who qualify...I believe that such a program would have to incorporate stingent border security and an increase in the enforcement of our labor laws.

What do you think?

I know you find it hard to admit the initial premise....but surely you can't disagree with the other two.
June 12, 2007

4:59 PM

Ben writes:

Peter, I concur@ 4:48

jay, Lol "the vast majority of Americans" LOL again. That is truly hilarious. Oh btw 1:12 of the 11th. Get to it. If you dare.

Which part of "Sensenbrenner 4437 baby!" didn't you get?

The only part that one may have problems with is the section where the churches manipulated the vulnerbility of the wording to harm the bill and subsequently the sovereignty of the US of A.

P.S. What is the name of the staffing agency of which you "work".
June 12, 2007

5:11 PM

Peter Bothell writes:

Jay, your initial premise is false. You are referring to polls that are the product of the way the questions were asked. Let's ignore them for the purpose of brainstorming.
What is evolving now is a national discussion about new realizations brought to light by this bad piece of legislation (may it rest in peace). Citizenship should never have been injected into the equation since it was never desired by the immigrants and their support groups, and more importantly because it is a wrench, metaphorically, in the wheel that needs to turn us towards a workable goal.

Your intransience is a hallmark of why this bill failed. It asks for way too much and is horribly complicated and loaded with loopholes big enough to drive through a tinted-windowed panel van riding low on overburdened suspension.

So, lets try to find a reasonable way to secure the border and give the illegal aliens what they want most - jobs. Any illegal alien who wants to pursue citizenship need only return to their homeland and get in line with the rest of the world of people who respect our sovereignty and laws. To give illegal aliens a special pathway is a slap in the face to millions of others who patiently wait.

Doesn't that smack of pragmatism and fairness?
June 12, 2007

5:22 PM

jay writes:

It smacks of an inability to come to terms with a basic truth surrounding this issue Pete. I know you feel that citizenship shouldn't be part of a solution...and you're entitled to that opinion...but that doesn't represent the wishes of the majority of Americans. Until you wrap your mind around that, we both know that any solution you come up with will have that fatal flaw...unless of course you agree with the practice of running the country contrary to the wishes of its populace. Ask how that practice worked out for the former Congress.
June 12, 2007

5:26 PM

587 days to go writes:

Jay,
I think the article was put together by a nice intending person who has never had to survive with less than a bachelor’s degree. Our school system fails people regularly who cannot compete or live with competition from illegal immigration. The whole article is based on an assumption that the American worker would be higher skilled and that is wrong and somewhat racist. Sorry for the slow reply my job is busy as heck today. The devil is definitely in the details for this subject and broad generalizations are a failure when looking at this situation.
June 12, 2007

5:31 PM

587 days to go writes:

People ask how we are going to send them home and I would say one by one as we catch them. It is the same way you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.
June 12, 2007

5:32 PM

Peter Bothell writes:

Darn that security feature.....

OK, we can agree to disagree. But I predict that the smoke and mirrors once removed from the Amnesty Bill will expose these issues and the national discussion that ensues will disappoint you.

We do agree that a secure border and strict workplace law enforcement are necessary components. That's something to build upon.

Time to go.

PB
June 12, 2007

5:35 PM

Ben writes:

587- Yes sir!

"doesn't represent the wishes of the majority of Americans." LoL
jay ,are blogging while stoned again?
June 12, 2007

6:01 PM

jay writes:

Ben still waiting on those questions and your thoughts on your support for bill 4437....and any credible data that refutes my position in regards to the popular support for a path to citizenship.

Choosing not to believe facts makes them no less true.
June 12, 2007

6:12 PM

jay writes:

Pete, I know that the fact that the vast majority of Americans support a path to citizenship is a tough one for someone on your side of the debate to take. I've had to walk many of my republican friends through the process of turning on the lightbulb...it's never easy or quick. I assume you didn't see my post on this matter yesterday and will repost an abreviated version in the hope that it will give you some credible info on the matter.

From the Rocky Mountain News not two weeks ago....as posted on RTL:

Americans support the major provisions of the immigration reform bill working its way through the Senate, but are skeptical of the bill itself, a pair of national polls report.

The New York Times/CBS poll showed broad support for granting legal status to illegal immigrants with no criminal history and a good employment record

Many Republican lawmakers have rejected this plan, calling it amnesty that rewards immigrants who broke the law when they entered the United States. But the poll showed that differences are not great between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, with 66 percent of Republicans in the poll favoring the legalization proposal, as well as 72 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents.

More than half of those who favor the guest worker program say the workers should be allowed to apply to become permanent immigrants and eventually American citizens if they maintain a strong work history and commit no crimes. About a third of those who favored the program disagree, saying guest workers should be required to return home after their temporary period.

Here is the national, credible, well-respected scientific polling supporting my statement:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Would you favor or oppose creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes"

Favor 80%

Oppose 19%

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 13-15, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

Which comes closest to your view about what the government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. and not allow them to return. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return temporarily to work. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time. OR, Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time."

Leave, Not Return 14%

Leave, Temporarily Return 6%

Leave, Return to Path of Citizenship 36%

Remain, Path to Citizenship 42%

Please allow me the opportunity to add a piece of advice.

Online polling isn't scientific or credible and thus is irrelevant. Non-scientific, non-random, non-national polling done by anti-immigration lobbyists isn't credible and thus irrelevant. Emotional opinions made by reading the material posted on sites run by anti-immigration lobbyists aren't credible. Emotional opinions based on nothing more than the round table discussions populated by 28%'ers aren't credible. I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe tripe or hold such opinions...but let's take them at face value and not elevate them to the level of credence of the information I've posted today. If you have something other than the examples of data outlined above, I'd love to see it.

Okay...to once again make it clear that I am in no way commenting on the bill before Congress...but rather the inevitability of legislation containing a path to citizenship for some of the illegal immigrants now in the country based upon the support of such a program by the vast majority of Americans.

Pete at this point I addressed Ben's support for Bill 4437...or as he calls it Sensenbrenner 4437

You say you support Bill 4437.

Interesting....I'd like to post a few bullet points containing information on the bill:

“Unlawful presence” would now be considered a crime and a felony, meaning that undocumented immigrants may have to serve jail time and would be barred from future legal status and from re-entry into the country.

Immigrants, including asylum-seekers, victims of human trafficking, victims of domestic abuse, and children who are apprehended along an international border or at a port-of-entry would be detained until such time as they are removed from the nation or otherwise provided immigration relief.

Anyone or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison. This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual. Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

The use of expedited removal, which would permit DHS enforcement personnel to remove a potential asylum-seeker without providing an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge or qualified adjudicator, would be mandated within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of a person’s entry into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to erect up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border at points with the highest number of immigrant deaths.

State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments which refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding.

Asylum seekers and refugees who are convicted of a minor offense, such as petty theft, would be barred from permanent legal residence and eventual citizenship.

Document fraud would be considered an aggravated felony and would subject an asylum-seeker to deportation and bars to re-entry.

Nationals from countries who do not accept the return of aliens who commit crimes in this country would not be admitted to the United States. This would include countries such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

DHS would be given the authority to continue to detain individuals who have served their sentences based upon a determination that they are a “dangerous alien,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings barring indefinite detention.

The diversity visa lottery program, which allows 50,000 immigrants each year from countries around the world to permanently reside in the United States, is eliminated.

Any inaccuracies in that info?

Any comments on its provisions?

Does the bill seem mainstream to you?

Are there any provisions that you would toughen or make more lenient?

Ben has unfortunately chosen not to address the provisions or the questions.
June 13, 2007

8:39 AM

Shaggy writes:

jay,
We didn`t read this the first time you posted a 2000 word book statement, why the fuck do you think we`ll read it if you post it again.
KEEP YOUR COMMENTS DOWN TO SIZE IDIOT.
June 13, 2007

9:15 AM

Anonymous writes:

"We didn`t read this the first time"

I believe that is quite clear based on your arguments.
June 13, 2007

9:22 AM

Shaggy writes:

09:15 AM,
Thats right, no one read it the first time he pasted and posted a book for a statement.
I never made an argument against whatever he/you are trying to say.
June 13, 2007

10:21 AM

KW writes:

I think we should take a poll and see how many of us would like to see jay exiled to Mexico.

All in favor...
June 13, 2007

11:34 AM

Shaggy writes:

"I"
June 13, 2007

11:53 AM

jay writes:

Don't pout fellas.
June 13, 2007

1:13 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Where's the fence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90SDkhwnEIo
June 13, 2007

1:21 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Trisopterus luscus
June 13, 2007

2:51 PM

Shaggy writes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g&mode=related&search=
June 13, 2007

7:53 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

The No Drug Smuggler Left Behind Act.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21129
June 13, 2007

10:23 PM

Anonymous writes:

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200706110001
June 14, 2007

5:57 AM

Anonymous writes:

Just wondering if you right wing nuts are mad enough now to impeach king George.

This imbecile is going to let Sunnis and Shiites immigrate to USA next year. ( See Iraqis want to come to USA)

And Yes the CIVIL WAR will now follow us home. Thinks about it please!
June 14, 2007

7:35 AM

Ben writes:

5:57,
Yes, we are ready for impeachment. Right wing nut? Nah.

jay,
you are like the kid who covers his ears and makes noises so as not to hear other people when you don't like what they say to you. Then you pretty much resort to an altered perception on how the blog unfolds, irregardless that the evidence is right below.

kw
@ 10:21 More like deported back to Mexico. That kid's a trip.
June 14, 2007

8:26 AM

Shaggy writes:

There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
No special ballots for elections.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BUT options will be restricted.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If you do you will be sent home.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Harsh, you say?........

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of- 'MEXICO'
June 14, 2007

8:33 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

I have been calling for the impeachment of Bush on the invasion issue for some time. I wonder if my collegues on the left side of the spectrum (see no slams) are willing to admit that Bush and many Dems and RINOs are selling out America and turning us into a true Fascist state where the multi-national corporations get to turn us into the Americas Union.

I heard this morning that NAFTA is a violation of the Constitution, as the Constitution requires that all agreements with foreign nations be treaties which require 2/3 vote in the Senate. Anyone have a take on that?
June 14, 2007

9:07 AM

Ben writes:

Hogar,
Lou Dobbs has been on top of the constitutionality of NAFTA. I have found that no other source (mainstream) investigates or reports on this subject as much as Dobbs.
June 14, 2007

10:02 AM

jay writes:

Ben I'd still love to hear your thoughts on the provisions of the bill you support and the questions below them.

Provisions of "Sensenbrenner 4437":

“Unlawful presence” would now be considered a crime and a felony, meaning that undocumented immigrants may have to serve jail time and would be barred from future legal status and from re-entry into the country.

Immigrants, including asylum-seekers, victims of human trafficking, victims of domestic abuse, and children who are apprehended along an international border or at a port-of-entry would be detained until such time as they are removed from the nation or otherwise provided immigration relief.

Anyone or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison. This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual. Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

The use of expedited removal, which would permit DHS enforcement personnel to remove a potential asylum-seeker without providing an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge or qualified adjudicator, would be mandated within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of a person’s entry into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to erect up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border at points with the highest number of immigrant deaths.

State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments which refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding.

Asylum seekers and refugees who are convicted of a minor offense, such as petty theft, would be barred from permanent legal residence and eventual citizenship.

Document fraud would be considered an aggravated felony and would subject an asylum-seeker to deportation and bars to re-entry.

Nationals from countries who do not accept the return of aliens who commit crimes in this country would not be admitted to the United States. This would include countries such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

DHS would be given the authority to continue to detain individuals who have served their sentences based upon a determination that they are a “dangerous alien,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings barring indefinite detention.

The diversity visa lottery program, which allows 50,000 immigrants each year from countries around the world to permanently reside in the United States, is eliminated.

Any inaccuracies in that info?

Any comments on its provisions?

Does the bill seem mainstream to you?

Are there any provisions that you would toughen or make more lenient?
June 14, 2007

10:33 AM

Anonymous writes:

It seems to me that this is now the time to act regarding the possible impeachment of the President.

While those who disagree with the war, or who believe we have lost some of our civil liberties though Bush's uncostitutional policies have been calling for this for some time, those who supported those pollicies have now found something else which they feel calls for impeachment; Illegals.

So, regardless that there is disagreement on why he should be impeached, it appears that the entire political spectrum has come to the same conclusion, Impeach Bush.

Should we not all write to our senators and congressmen? Should we not all tell them "We dont care what the charges are, just Impeach him!" It seems that these law makers could do some investigating, and come up with the charges most likely to lead to actual impeachment and conviction. With every one wanting him gone for one reason or another, who would care what those charges are? If you reside firmly on the left, would you care if Bush was impeached using illegals for the charges? The end result is the same. If you reside firmly on the right, would you care if the charges stemmed from illegal wiretapping? The end result is the same.

With this kind of bi-partisan support for Bush's removal, it seems that we as Americans should come together regardless of our political stance, and call for his ouster together.
June 14, 2007

11:06 AM

Shaggy writes:

10:33 AM,
If there is a way to Impeach Bush, I would race you to the voting booth, we would have to dodge damn near every Repulican that has stood by his side all these years.

The problem with Impeaching a President though is that a Felony crime has to occur.

At least that is my understanding after watching the Clinton/Monica and the Oral office incident.
June 14, 2007

11:24 AM

Anonymous writes:

Impeachment is great, but do you really want Cheney in there?
June 14, 2007

11:47 AM

KW writes:

jay - It all looks good on paper. How are they going to enforce it?

As soon as they figure out how to enforce the current laws I'll be in favor of giving them new laws to enforce.

You don't give a kid a passing grade just because he says he'll try harder next time.
June 14, 2007

11:58 AM

Shaggy writes:

11:24 AM,
Good point, if we get rid of Cheney then Pelosi would be at the reins.

I say we vote KW or Hogar to lead us down the right path.
June 14, 2007

11:58 AM

jay writes:

That's a great question KW...how high do you want your taxes to go?
June 14, 2007

12:14 PM

KW writes:

Zero increase. They already have the funds needed.

But the answer you're avoiding is, they won't enforce it. No matter how much money the gov has.

Until they understand enforcement first, nothing wil happen on a federal level.

That's why states like Texas, New Mex & Ariz have begun passing laws to halt any benifits to illegals, make it a state crime to be here illegally and fund the NG to protect their states since the feds have been so incompetent.

And it's not just this admin. Every Admin since Reagan has left this issue on the back burner for someone else to deal with.
June 14, 2007

12:23 PM

Anonymous writes:

It is true that we would need a felony to impeach the president. Considering Illegal Wiretapping was the felony that drove Nixon from the presidency, I would think that would be the logical course to pursue. This is why I was asking if anyone cared what the charges were, so long as the president was impeached. I know many in this country feel that the unwarranted wiretapping was fine with them (even though it was an infraction of the law). These people tend to be the ones who do want the president impeached for not defending our borders. The legitimacy of that charge, and whether you could sight felonious violation of the law or not, is unclear to me. However, even if these same people thought the wiretapping was ok, they still believe the president should be impeached. Would they care whether it was done in the name of not defending our borders or wiretapping? The results are the same.

Im my opinion, the wiretapping would be the place to start. There are clear laws in this regard. There are clear statements from this administration flouting those laws. And there is precedent in the form of Nixon.
June 14, 2007

12:31 PM

jay writes:

"They already have the funds needed."

Really? And here I thought that we were running a 400 Billion dollar a year deficit.

Who knew...
June 14, 2007

12:48 PM

am 760 writes:

Fuck Bush and his war profiteering family and cronies. And Hogar don't blame this mess on some Dems or Rino's.
Things were pretty good in the world before Bush came in to office illegally in 00
Since than his little neo con plan has completely fucked the US and the world, and you want to blame it on some dems. Your a fucking fool, just sitting on your computer all day blogging thinking your so smart. Try getting a job and putting in a 40 hr. work week, instead of just sitting back and collecting interest on your mommies an daddies trust fund and investments
Sorry Im pissed today, Just read an article in http://www.usnews.com titled "The Life and Death of a Soldier" in the May 21st edition 07.
Can't belive the hell we put innocent Iraq's and our troops through so Bush and his cronies can get rich and we have idiots back here still defending repubs.
June 14, 2007

12:52 PM

Shaggy writes:

One Billion Dollars have been set aside for 6 months just to build the fence.
Only 2 lousy miles have been built so far..
Yep they are real serious about closing the border.
I really believe Bush this time.
He should know we are all behind him, all he needs to do is look at his polls.
He`s had 7years to do something about it.
51/2 years after 9/11.

Why does he want to make sure to get this amnesty passed before he leaves office?
Why does he still insist on giving the American truckers jobs to the Mexicans?
More importantly,
Why is jay siding with Bush?

There is something swrewy going on around here when you get Bush , Kennedy, Salazar and jay trying to push this thru at the 11th hour:)
June 14, 2007

1:23 PM

KW writes:

Wow Shaggy... jay agreeing with Bush?

Never thought I'd see the day. Is it a full moon?
June 14, 2007

1:49 PM

jay writes:

Shaggy you know full well that I haven't come out in support of this bill. I like the weak attempt to associate me with it though....shows your desperate.
June 14, 2007

2:04 PM

Anonymous writes:

"Things were pretty good in the world before Bush came in to office illegally in 00" - jay

It is this blind and naive view of the world that all problems - from Islamic terrorism to energy to climate change - all started in January 2001. How do you on the left expect any reasonable debate or discussion on any topic when you cling to this bullshit view of the world through your hatred of Pres Bush? I am getting pissed at him lately too, but he is not the cause of all that is wromg with the world my friend.
June 14, 2007

2:15 PM

jay writes:

Hey cruton at 2:04...can you tell me the time stamp of that quote? I'm pretty sure I never wrote those words. Getting a little desperate aren't we?
June 14, 2007

2:19 PM

am 760 writes:

Ah yes he pretty much is the cause of all the chaos going on.
If a democratic president, say Gore who should have been president or Kerry who had another election stolen from him, I would be just as pissed at them and be calling for their impeachment.
I'm an American first a democrat 2nd. I want whats best for America period and don't just blindly follow either party.
From US News World Report here is the new repub strategy from that same May 07 issue.
"President B. and his advisors are eager to draw what one West Wing insider calls"sharp Divisions" with congressional Dems in an effort to recapture the House/Senate and keep the presidency.
Amoung the likely options: Ratchet up attacks on Dems for being "defeatist" in the war in Iraq; brand them as untrustworthy in the overall war on terrorism as they try to limit domestic surveillance and other antiterrorist methods; blast the Demo-crats as eager to raise taxes. Bush would be portrayed as resolute in war and eager to veto tax hike."
Of course none of what they intend to label dems as is true but when they put it out there and have every corporate media outlet repeat the same BS over and over, the sheep start to believe the lies, just as they did when trying to connect Iraq and 9/11.
What a great party those repubs are, the party of hate, fear and smear.
June 14, 2007

2:28 PM

am 760 writes:

Jay, that was my quote, sorry you got stuck w/ it.
June 14, 2007

3:00 PM

David (R) writes:

News release regarding enforcing the border:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration;_ylt=AkL26ghWAppmLKDAj6FWNVnMWM0F
June 14, 2007

4:39 PM

am 760 writes:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22406
and
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22395

Lots of other good cartoons in his archieves.

Also on Yahoo it was just reported that the repubs are holding up legislation that would make our country less dependent on oil and help develop alternative energy resources.
Titled "Senate hits Impasse on Renewable Energy". Good going GOP and its followers, keep fighting for the rich and screwing the rest of the world.
June 14, 2007

5:24 PM

Ben writes:

From Lou Dobbs @ CNN
Lou's Top 5 List
Top 5 Dumbest Things in the Immigration Bill

5) Taxpayers will pay for the immigration lawyers for illegal aliens if working in agriculture.

4) Illegal aliens would be given legal status just one day after their application is filed even if a background check is not completed.

3) Gang members are eligible for amnesty if they renounce their gang status.

2) Borders do not have to be secure before the amnesty program begins.

1) $2,600,000,000,000 -- That is the cost the Heritage Foundation estimates to cover the retirement benefits of 12,000,000 illegal aliens if this amnesty bill becomes law.
June 14, 2007

6:32 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

am760

"... Bush and his war profiteering family and cronies. And Hogar don't blame this mess on some Dems or Rino's."

I call it as I see it. If it weren't for some vestige of conservatism among most of the Rs, we would be giving away the store to a bunch of criminals. The judge that allegedly stole the laptop has committed 1% of the crime every illlegal in the country has, but he has been arrested and indicted.

"Things were pretty good in the world before Bush came in to office illegally in 00"

Yeah, things were fine with the '93 WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings, the Cole bombing and the years of planning for 9-11.

"Since than his little neo con plan has completely ...... the US and the world, and you want to blame it on some dems."

I included Bush and the RINOs.

"Your a ........ fool, just sitting on your computer all day blogging thinking your so smart. Try getting a job and putting in a 40 hr. work week, instead of just sitting back and collecting interest on your mommies an daddies trust fund and investments"

I am working 80 hours this week, and getting paid for all 80 hours. I am awake for 119 hours each week, so that leaves plenty of time for blogging, which you only seem to do while you are actually on the clock. I only bill my clients for the time I am working. My parents haven't given me a dime since I was 13, and although we lived comfortably, my parents never had any real assets. You would be better served if you did not get so personal in your postings. My parents don't post on this or any other blog. And my father is dead.

In case you haven't had time to read real news today, different factions in Palestine are killing themselves today. Is that Bush's fault as well? If they can't even keep from killing each other, how does anyone believe they are not going to kill us, no matter who is in charge and what we are doing. Read about the humane treatment of their prisoners.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=f6ce3f26-37bb-47d7-87d4-5090caedf1e2&k=87686

shaggy,

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but there is no way I would go to D.C. without the power to fire or remove from office and replace at least 10,000 people of my choosing.
June 14, 2007

8:15 PM

shaggy writes:

Now introducing the President of the United States Hogar De Vuelta.
Leading us to a more righteous
future
Kinda catchy,
What do you think jay:)?
We could nuke Iran and snagg Hugo on the way back.
June 15, 2007

8:01 AM

It's true writes:

Sorry Shaggy, he is not eligible. Frickin' immigrant himself.
June 15, 2007

9:23 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

It is indeed true, I have been here so long and I identify always as an American first, but the sad fact is that I was born in Scandinavia, so like Arnold, I cannot be President unless there is a constitutional amendment. But I can tell you this much, that I bleed red white and blue.
June 15, 2007

9:35 AM

Bumpskier writes:

Pedro Juan Valdez,
Apparently, you didn't get it the first time I reviewed this with you. I'll go more slowly this time so maybe you'll understand. In the meantime, you might want to verify this in your history books.
Mexico lost a war with the Republic of Texas. A war that Mexico started!
After Texas won, they later voted to become a part of the United States. Nothing was stolen from you or your people. You and your La Raza mates can just take a hike back over the border and stay there. That kind of hate is not welcome here.
June 15, 2007

9:38 AM

Celt writes:

To: The Senate amnesty folks

From: The American people

Subject: Senate Amnesty Bill

Bring it on. We're going to beat you again.

PS - your political careers are over.
June 15, 2007

10:52 AM

Jim writes:

So how much does Bush get paid for each illegal he makes a citizen? What part of NO AMNESTY does he not understand?
June 15, 2007

11:13 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

7 years later, this article sheds some light on Benedict Bush.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/22/latimes.bush/index.html
June 15, 2007

11:17 AM

Shaggy writes:

"Most Americans agree on these principles," the president said. "And now it's time for our elected leaders in Congress to act."

Would someone please tell me where Stump is getting his information.

It still won`t pass though. Senators know what flip flopping on issues does to ones career.
June 15, 2007

12:20 PM

David (R) writes:

Hogar, here's the most telling (perhaps frightening) phrase in the entire story:

"Bush may be the most Mexico-savvy politician ever to run for president."

Between his general ignorance of many, many subjects, and his blatant willingness to ignore the will of his constituency, it's very difficult to think of him being the most "savvy" president on any topic.

But this article does a good job of telling what King Georges view was long before taking office.
June 15, 2007

12:33 PM

jay writes:

I don't know where the Stump is getting his information on the other "principles" he referenced Shaggy, but his info on the principle of a path to citizenship can be found many places...and recently here:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Would you favor or oppose creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes"

Favor 80%

Oppose 19%

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 13-15, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

Which comes closest to your view about what the government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. and not allow them to return. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return temporarily to work. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time. OR, Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time."

Leave, Not Return 14%

Leave, Temporarily Return 6%

Leave, Return to Path of Citizenship 36%

Remain, Path to Citizenship 42%

Didn't want you and the wingers to forget :)
June 15, 2007

1:55 PM

Elwood writes:

Jay,
So you are saying that the opinions of a little over 1,000 people represent the opinions of the whole country?

I guess we should put the immigration reform bill to a vote of the people that is a poll that I would believe.
June 15, 2007

2:11 PM

jay writes:

Elwood Elwood Elwood....

I'll make you a deal...I'll pay for you to take an Introduction to Statistics class at Metro this fall if you'll write me an issue-specific paper before the next election on why you're going to vote Republican.
June 15, 2007

2:37 PM

shaggy writes:

jay, I was joking with you earlier saying you were wanting to push this bill thru.( you knew that)

But let me ask you, if you were to vote on this Bill, would it be a ney or yea vote?

You can`t change it or make a hypothetical answer just a simple yes or no vote.
I`m not setting you up, I just want to know.
My vote would obviously be "no".

Btw, I can counter those stats, it just depends on how you frame the question.
Of course the numbers are going to be high for giving them a path to Citizenship.
But if you look at whether people are in favor of this peticular Bill they are trying to pass, the numbers are overwhelmingly against it.

I like Elwoods suggestion, let the people vote and see how fast this thing gets Squashed.
June 15, 2007

2:50 PM

shaggy writes:

Besides, they already have a path and Laws on how to acheive citizenship.
They`ve already broken that Law.
Should we just pardon them?
If we do, I expect the same treatment if I ever get caught braking the law.
June 15, 2007

3:01 PM

jay writes:

I would have voted no on this bill had I the chance because of the lack of border and law enforcement funding. if we're going to do this right, we're going to need to raise taxes...and I think every American needs to understand that.

On a side note I have to say congrats...you're getting closer to coming to terms with the nation's wishes regarding a path, Shaggy. I'd like to think me and my penchant for providing excellent data have something to do with that. You can thank me later.
June 15, 2007

3:16 PM

shaggy writes:

Lol,
Yep, it is all your doing:)

No new taxes will have to happen if the limp dicks in Washington do it right and use the money already spent on sevices to cover the expenses to enforce our excisting Laws.
Hell we might even be able to open a few of the Hospitals and schools that were forced to close due to the Illegals.
Have a good weekend.

Congrads TT on the passage of your Sanctuary bill.
June 15, 2007

3:20 PM

jay writes:

Shaggy...you're living in a pipe dream if you think we won't have to raise taxes to pay for securing our borders and enforcing our labor laws...a bong dream even.

Yeah...TT...way to pass that piece of political showmanship without any language that defines what qualifies a city as a "sanctuary city"....but hey...the wingnuts still can't feel the strings so your job is done.
June 15, 2007

3:25 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Jay,

So you don't think that D. C. is wasting enough of your money? I say you can balance the budget and not raise taxes by simply getting the government out of things they have no business being in.
June 15, 2007

3:35 PM

jay writes:

What...you mean like Iraq?

$2 Billion a week and counting.

You forget that we're going to have to raise taxes anyway to pay for the recent spending spree.

How would your grandchildren like to pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of the last 6 years....cash or charge?
June 15, 2007

3:44 PM

am 760 writes:

Hog, is your job blogging for the GOP for 80 hours a week. I doubt you have much time for anything else since your here day in and day out. What is it that you do? I am allowed to blog in between patients if I want so don't get critical about how I use my time.
PS were you a member of the Nazi party before moving here?
Your views sure are similar.
June 15, 2007

4:01 PM

am 760 writes:

Hog, have no idea what your talking about about the judge and his laptop. Are you referring to the local judge here? If so what the hell does that have to do w/ bush and his crime family and his cronies?
The bombings you list occured because the repubs wanted to build bases in Saudia Arabia and that is when bin laden got pissed that we built a base on what he considers holy ground. Maybe if we didn't always try to impose our will on other cultures/societies people would not hate us so.

And regarding me reading the "real news", why is it that all of your links and resources are "real" yet mine aren't.
June 15, 2007

4:18 PM

shaggy writes:

Oh looky, our little progressive friend has chimned in,
I guess in your humble oppinion when extreme lunitics don`t agree with the U.S. we should just bend over and take it.
Cower to them like pathetic little Liberals.
Thank god you are a little tiny percentage who believes Marvins and Hartmans spew.
Sorry buddy, not gonna happen.
You can bend over but the vast majority of us that love this Country won`t.
June 15, 2007

6:57 PM

Ben writes:

President Bush spent the last week bribing, cajoling and threatening Senate members to abandon their oath of office and what few principles they still had, to vote for his amnesty bill.

Rumor has it that Bush has promised Senators anything and everything to buy their votes, up to and including naming new federal buildings after them. Others were bought off with promises of huge pork barrel projects and promises of becoming ambassadors or other life appointments, should they be booted out of office for their betrayal.

Bush has given Senators cover for switching their votes. He promised to spend billions on border enforcement. Obviously, he is lying. He's had more than six years to hire more BP agents and build a fence. Did he? NO. Will he this time? NO
June 15, 2007

7:05 PM

truthy writes:

Tancredo's amendment passes. What have we here? Sanity?

Good job Mr. Tancredo!

Anderson,
Alcohol and sleeping pills are painless so I am told. But please reconsider. We need our clowns in times like these.
June 15, 2007

8:23 PM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Posted by am 760 on June 15, 2007 03:44 PM

"Hog, is your job blogging for the GOP for 80 hours a week. I doubt you have much time for anything else since your here day in and day out. "

Look at the time stamps on my posts. I can type at 75 WPM, so it does not take me long to put up a post. I doubt that I spend more than 1 hour each day on average. I get to work as early as 6AM and leave as late as 10 PM if I am busy. That leaves a lot of room to carve an hour out to post.

I don't support any organization, I support certain ideals and principles regardless of which party supports it. Democrats support public transportation and most Republicans do not. On that issue, I think the Democrats are more correct than Republicans. There are many issues the Republicans support which I do not, but there are more problems for me on the Democrat side.

"What is it that you do? "

I am a consultant and I work mostly in the US, but I have work all over the world.

"I am allowed to blog in between patients if I want so don't get critical about how I use my time."

If you read your posts, you are the one who is consistently critical. I have told you many times that I appreciate the work you do, and I give you a lot of slack as a result, but you seem determined to push the envelope, almost on a daily basis.

"PS were you a member of the Nazi party before moving here?
Your views sure are similar."

See there you go again. I was a McGovern hippy in my younger days. The Nazis were totalitatian socialists. Hitler wanted to control everything. I want a government with less involvement in the lives of its citizens. I think that private charity is far more effective than government at helping people. I lend to struggling entrepenuers all over the third world through an organization called Kiva http://kiva.org/ . I also give to organizations that do relief work all over the world. I believe in personal charity, not government programs.

"Hog, have no idea what your talking about about the judge and his laptop. Are you referring to the local judge here? If so what the hell does that have to do w/ bush and his crime family and his cronies?"

This thread is about immigration. I was comparing the severity of the charges for stealing a laptop, while the illegal invaders are stealing our country.

"The bombings you list occured because the repubs wanted to build bases in Saudia Arabia and that is when bin laden got pissed that we built a base on what he considers holy ground. Maybe if we didn't always try to impose our will on other cultures/societies people would not hate us so."

We came into Saudia Arabia and Kuwait after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden had no legal standing to make a judgement about our actions in helping those countries. Saudia Arabia and the whole Middle East is no friend of ours, but the plain fact of the matter is that as long as we are an oil economy, we are going to have a strategic interest to protect with regard to Middle East oil. You may think the oil companies are evil, but you wouldn't want to see what would happen if the oil spigot got shut off tomorrow. The Japanese attacked us over oil in WWII

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Japanese_attack_Pearl_Harbor

"And regarding me reading the "real news", why is it that all of your links and resources are "real" yet mine aren't. "

Your sites are pretty far off into the fringes. I could post links to far right sites to counter yours, but I don't find them credible. I try to post links to more widely read sites that have more credibility.

You curse me out almost everyday, but I can't even kid you about your sources. Do you think that is an equitable arrangement? If you curse me out, I won't do the same, but I am not going to be a doormat either.
June 15, 2007

10:49 PM

shaggy writes:

Haye hogar, i can typry about fifty 8 woryds i an hour oif i dont screwi and donT fu c k itup :)
June 16, 2007

10:56 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

No shamnesty till the borders are secure. No high tech border control. Just build the fence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061401742.html
June 16, 2007

1:11 PM

David (R) writes:

I'm sitting here in utter disbelief over the story I just read about Bush:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070616/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=An7_2_UEnpgF4JZQm0p3QZjMWM0F

Does anyone else see any irony whatsoever in his stance, given the expenditures in Iraq?

I'm going to stop short of making an actual apology for voting for this jackass the first time - we all do what we think is best at the time - but I sure as Hell wish now that I, and about 50,000 Floridians had voted for Gore - I mean, could he have possibly been as bad or worse?

Is that close enough to an apology for you Jay? :)
June 17, 2007

5:10 AM

g writes:

"Does anyone else see any irony whatsoever in his stance, given the expenditures in Iraq?"

I've been worried about this ever since Larry Linsay stated that Iraq would cost 200 billion per year. (and he got shut up)
Btw after 9.11 we trained more airport screeners and then started cutting them.

But I got wise and voted Dems . I am sorry to say they can't turn this boat around until more Pubs lose their jobs. I will keep voting for change until we do
June 17, 2007

11:22 AM

jay writes:

Bush promises to veto homeland security bill. Yesterday, the House passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, despite President Bush’s veto threat. The White House objects to a provision that would require DHS contractors to “pay their employees at least the local prevailing wage.” It also “funds the hiring of 3,000 new border patrol agents, rejects the cuts President Bush sought in the training and equipping of first responders, and improves aviation and port security.”

It staggers the imagination that we still have the 28%'ers out there who still defend this Administration and their blindered supporters in Congress.
June 18, 2007

6:16 AM

Anonymous writes:

Jay

There was a book written by that former Ceo of Alcoa who worked in the early days of Bush admnistration who described the GOP's first priority right after 9-11 was to push through its Tax cuts, not home land defense.

Next they were more interested in making the case for Iraq
June 18, 2007

9:03 AM

jay writes:

I read a stat a few years ago that said that W mentioned missile defense something like 125 times before 9/11....and Osama once.

I'd be interested to see how many times W has mentioned Osama in the last couple of years come to think of it.
June 18, 2007

10:18 AM

Shaggy writes:

Hey Dickenlooper and TaxRitter,
Here is your Sactuary Policy that no one seems to be able to find.
I`m not surprised you can`t find it.
You haven`t looked.
You don`t want to look as then you would have to admit we are a Sanctuary City.

The Start of Sancturary

A look back at the announcement of former Mayor Wellington Webb's Executive Order 116
Webb's Executive Order No. 116 does the following:

* Salutes and welcomes immigrants. * Asserts that federal policy "unfairly impacts many of Denver's children, senior citizens and disabled residents."

* Declares Denver's strong opposition to federal distinctions between legal immigrants and commits city officials "to the delivery of services to all of its residents."

* Vows that the city will back legal rights of all residents in Denver, adding that Webb will urge businesses, schools, hospitals and universities to do the same.
June 18, 2007

10:51 AM

Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

Posted by David (R) on June 16, 2007 01:11 PM

I mean, could he (Gore) have possibly been as bad or worse?

David,

I have three bones to pick with Bush. The whole mess with illegal invaders, the selling of America to corporations and over spending. I think that Gore would have been worse on both counts, and I am 100% convinced that Gore would have been worse on spending and immigration, and I would not be surprised if he was just for sale to the corporations.

The problem is that I don't see anyone of the leading candidates for '08 being any different.

Mike Huckabee for '08
June 19, 2007

6:19 AM

Anonymous writes:

" Sactuary Policy "

LOLOL

you must be a Bushie

LOLOL

June 15, 2007 6:42 AM

Immigration and the heartland

Discussion

Join the discussion

Talk to me

Featured today

Today's poll

Search this blog

Recent posts

Chat transcripts

Caption this!