Two Shades of Absolutism

Destroyed themselves as a party partly because of their virulence on this immigration issue that sounded racist during the Prop 187 battles, partly because of incredible incompetence. Part of that is the fact that the Republicans are incapable of forming and defending a message. So recently, the party leadership tried to go centrist...offering us Riordan then Schwartzenegger. So what we get are Republican leadership who are equal to the liberals on social issues, equally vague on border issues, and not even committed on economic issues. Like Britain, we in California vote between the liberal party and the really liberal party. And the sad thing is, the VAST majority of people here want some sort of common sense applied. They recognize that there is a real problem when the border is not secure. They realize that rolling blackouts in the midst of summer heat are due to stringent liberal environmental laws that make producing enough electricity impossible. They recognize that liberals have allowed this state to fall apart with a massive safety net, extreme regulation, and overspending that at one point had California verging on bankruptcy, yet they still choose Democrats over Republicans. I would suspect that even outside of the border states, there is support for decent reform. But the problem is how the issue is framed. It sounds racist to be so focused on our Southern Border. But come here, and you see they have a point.
When Steve and Hugh say that 22% of the nation is nativist and racist, the mainstream eat that up. Steve is in Pennsylvania, I excuse him, but Hugh lives in Orange County. Read the stats of Pasadena Phil or Darvin Dowdy. They sound hysterical, but they are true, I have seen them. I taught in a school in Sacramento where teachers were not allowed to wear red or blue for fear of inflaming gang activity, where we had fences surrounding the campus and 30 armed guards during school to make sure gang problems stayed off the campus. I teach at a Christian school now, and we have kids who have come here from small Northern California towns, because their schools are so bad, their parents fear for their lives. And it is worst of all for Hispanic kids who want no part of that gang scene. It is not all Hispanic and it isn't all due to illegal immigration, but enough of it is to feel that way. I try to be open minded and understanding, but there are times when it is impossible to equivocate.

I absolutely agree, by the way, that we have a potentially larger problem on our Northern border. There is a huge Arab population in Toronto. If Al Qaida goes mining for support there, they may well find it. Hop a little motor boat across Lake Superior, or cross in the woods of North Dakota, and your in, free to go wherever you choose. Our Coast is vulnerable as well. My parents live on the Oregon Coast. Do you know Oregon has 300 miles of coastline and not a single Naval Base? In fact, our Pacific Coast has no Naval Base between Puget Sound and The San Francisco Bay. We have coast guard, but up there, they are mostly search and rescue, and looking for fishing violations. We are very vulnerable, and we have not thought through how to stop it. I still think the best answer is to keep on the offensive, because walling off the 5,000 miles of land border and 15,000 miles of coastline is not going to work. But walling off the Southern Border sure sounds appealing when you are at a loss about how else to stop what feels like a flood.

You've listed a seemingly insurmountable number of issues. Looks bleak. But, why can't we use that common sense you say Californians are looking for, and start that trek of a thousand miles, one step at a time. Southern border fence. Once that's done, let's talk. We can do it all, just let's not get overwhelmed into inaction. Fight the fight, build the walls, develop the programs, and win the elections. This is no place for a nervous person, we need cool heads that can act decisively at a time like this.

Question, how would YOU proceed Wil, I'm asking out of respect for your considerable ability to reason. Can you generate your own plan, Reader's Digest style?

My question to you is also, how would YOU fix things, you've got a great way with reason, how 'bout it. I'm really interested in just a sketch if you've got time.

This country is in a pickle...the Left has pretty much replaced our heritage with political correctness, and we now have global problems mounting, with the proliferation of nukes, rogue nations and groups who want our annihilation, and we have a divided populace coming apart at the seams.

Our future is very uncertain, and this immigration bill is just one example of how the battle for the survival of our country and heritage continues...

With the left in power, and looking at total control in 08, any issue that is divisive is a plus for them, and they will jump on it, knowing we on the right will implode.

I can't understand what part of "having more conservatives in office rather than more socialists in office" our side didn't get in 06...so now we scream louder about a problem we basically created...having the demsocialists in the majority. As Barbara Boxer said "elections have consequences"...no kidding. LOL

Where's my advil?...

1) Southern Fence: This is the area where the most glaring problem exists at this moment. I would not simply go coast to coast either, I would start in the urban areas, and work outwards. There may be some areas where there are naturally insurmountable barriers

2) Coast: I would create a unit under the supervision of the coast guard that would patrol for water border crossings. Gulf coast, South of LA, Atlantic coast South of Charleston, Great Lakes, Atlantic North of Boston, Pacific Washington border, would be priorities (in that order) eventually we would need to patrol or at least technologically cover the whole coast

3) Northern Border: In the urban border areas, I would build a fence, similar to the southern border. In rural northern areas, I would have technological surveillance, when we discover a problem area, add security to that area.

4) Those already here: This is where I made people mad before, but I am not convinced that rounding up Hispanics, and/or Asians and/or Middle Easterners and making them prove their citizenship is a direction we want to go. I do believe that we cannot let those who came in illegally have ahead start on the process over those who are at home in line doing it the right way. I believe we need to give people and businesses a certain length of time to turn themselves in, to make it right by paying a fine, and by returning home and joining the line waiting to get in.

5) After the waiting period mentioned above, we need to conduct checks on businesses and on people and enforce our existing laws. I am not sure we need new ones, just enforcement of existing ones. This includes keeping better tabs on people here for work, school, or other temporary visas, and finding them the instant their visa expires. This will take much more man power than we currently have.

6) We need to address legal immigration. The hoops needed to jump through are ridiculous. I would say that we need to simplify the process, making it clear what a person needs to do to get in. The background checks are essential before entry, but should be completed in a reasonable time (say 5 years). The new immigrants ought to go through a probationary period where they must take language classes, find a job, not commit a crime, and pay taxes in order to recieve full citizenship.

7) If there is really a need for a guest worker program, as businesses claim, that should be a whole different system than immigration. The process should be easier, and the term of entry reasonable yet thorough. It ought to be clear to people who enter this way that they must stay trouble free to be able to return, and that the path of citizenship is a completely different path, which they can choose to follow. They must pay a tax to partly cover their health care and education (if they bring kids), and since they will not be retiring here, there is no need to make them pay into social security or medicare. Any found to be accepting money unreported or any who commit a crime, will be placed on a no entry list and immediately deported.

This in my opinions what we should do, and most of all, the ORDER we should do it in...bottom line, secure the borders first. I do not understand why the Republicans do not frame it in this way, step by step reform, do the things we can agree on first, openness with their base, then work out the other parts. I think it is the secrecy and speed which worked people up more than anything.

And above all for security, on the war, stay on the offensive. The terrorists know if there exists in Iraq an example of a successful Republic, their recruiting will dry up. Terrorism does not exist without a grudge. Sorry this is so long.

Great answer, and considering the topic, reasonably brief. Now... there seems to be the issue of a national ID card that gets people riled. There would have to be something to enable the guest worker program. But so many Conservatives are strongly against it.

You know, it just seems that is one way or another, many of your issues (not necessarliy the order) get touched upon in the bill. But it's the potential for it all to get pooched, subverted, perverted as the groups vie for their vision to be dominant that gets me. It's the leadership that lets up down. Not strong or articulate enough to pick the right issue to draw the line on. Why isn't McCain making a fence a bigger deal? He's got to be hearing from his constituents over this.

Is the problem in the bill...so many don't want a fence, for a variety of reasons, that it seems to me if we don't do the fence first, we may never see it. And if we don't see a fence of some sort, the problem will only grow worse with the passage of some sort of amnesty...

Has been my sticking point all along for that very reason. I'd be willing to listen to all other arguments on various positions with an open mind, if we could just close the border. It doesn't seem to be in the cards, and it frustrates me. I can't understand why the Right doesn't lever the whole deal on the big fence.

I realize a fence alone can't stop them, you need men at it, and the political will to enforce the law. But if you don't start with the bricks and mortar, nothing will ever come afterwards. Sadly, even Fred Thompson doesn't believe in the viability of a fence. Duncan Hunter has one over Fred on this one.

I am with you..."I'd be willing to listen to all other arguments on various positions with an open mind, if we could just close the border."

That is the one point where I can't feel right with compromise. As for Hunter, I am definitely leaning in his direction.

will top abortion in terms of dividing out party. I guess that means another 40 years in the wilderness.

Laura "et al" are ranting again! Do they place their ratings above our party's success? It certainly looks like it.

JD (my Tory partner) share your belief that a wall isn't going to work....remember that England has a "natural" fence because it is an island (I suppose the same with Hawaii) and he sees immigration growing everyday.

I disagree. I believe the wall will work for the reason that I want the southern border secured.

True, it won't stop all illegals any more than a locked door will stop someone from breaking in if they want to. But a wall WILL stop most of the illegals I think SHOULD be stopped...pregnant women.

What???

Hear me out.

I know a doctor in his first residency at a border state...in the last 11 months, he has delivered over 1000 babies from women who cross the border to have "new" American citizens.

Now I love babies and I actually have soft spots for women who carry their babies to term...and I also have zero problem with Mexicans.

I'm not afraid of Hispanics taking over our nation and "contaminating" our culture...but I DO have a BIG problem with inner city gangs with their "hate White" and "pity me because of the color of my skin" mentality.

I do NOT want this victim-hood to infest the excellent work ethic and family values of Hispanics and I do not want bitter American Mexicans swelling the numbers of inner city gangs.

But--and you knew there would be one...the WOT issue MUST come first and Wil...I am quite disturbed about your data on your blog and about a huge Arab community in Toronto. I have always maintained that the Liberal Northern border was more of a threat from terrorism than the Southern border--and we can't afford to wall up the entire nation like the great wall of China.

I understand your point.

And Dave's...

And Sandra's...we cannot allow the Right to be divided.

Excuse me while I go take a pain killer.

so you beat me to the medicine chest...lol.

Did you hear Hugh today? After 3 solid days of complaining of zero penalty for employers, NOW he's saying the penalty on the bill is too stiff and his big deal is he wants an ID card that will single out Arabs. You and I know that our Dem majority would just LOVE that...paint the Right as profilers and anti-Arab.

And everyone (with the exception of Medved) is saying that unless the GOP and the WH gives them a bill that the Dem majority will NEVER go for, the only viable party that wants to win the WOT is toast.

Hang on, I think I need another pill. (Too bad I don't drink, I could sure use one right now.)

How would I fix things?

Of course I don't have the power to "fix" anything, but here's what I'd love to see.

I'd like to see the RINO media act like we are a nation at war...you know the way they did in 2004 when Bush could run for another term.

They more than matched the MSM with the help of the bloggers and the internet and countered each time the MSM attacked the Right.

I'd like them to put the immigration issue where it was in 2004, on the same burner as the pro-life issue, government spending, education, gay marriage...BEHIND the WOT issue. I'd like them to encourage support for the only man that the terrorist fear and believe WILL come after them if they hurt us.

I'd like them to remember and practice the 11th commandment of Reagan and push for even more GOP to occupy Congress so that their numbers will make the gang of 14 unnecessary.

I'd like them to at least pretend that they understand that our system of government requires cooperation and compromise--and that neither is a dirty word.

Think back Dave...with most of America behind the president and the troops, we did in a few weeks what Russia couldn't do in a decade in Afghanistan...we took down Iraq in 21 days...and with a media to cancel out the MSM and Hollywood...we cleaned the Dem's clock in 2002 and 2004.

I've spent 2 years praying for the RINO media and their minions to realize that when they hurt the GOP they hurt the only chance America has to win.

But I know that Hugh wants to sell books and Laura wants to get on t.v.

So now I pray that the real base of the Right will finally get sick of the RINO media and the absolutes WILL do as they've threatened for years to do...leave and form their own 3rd party.

Then the rest of the Right can pull together and unite behind a candidate that won't scare the bejesus out of the Independents that just might want to win the WOT.

And who knows Dave...if we win in Iraq...the Inds just might give us enough GOPs to get BOTH borders secured...and over turn R vs. W and validate marriage between a man and a woman and keep those tax cuts and protect our 2nd ammendment and...

After the big discussion on abortion on your blog where we finally got to discuss another hot button issue with the GOP candidates, Hugh had to go off on a rant (and STILL no one has really seen the bill--even the one Hugh says he's seen he admits may not be the one that they are talking about or the one that gets to the House) and I thought...sigh, here we go again.

You're right, the RINO media is intent on dividing the GOP for the sake of ratings--and I am slowly running out of talk shows to listen to.

In regards to the coast guard what would be considered successful? 50% of crossing attempts stopped? 80%? I do'nt think you need to create new units, btw, just increase the size of the coast guard. The idea of "anti-immigration" units will be a tough sell, the coast guard already do this job.

Also whilst I see that you have said something must be done to the northern border too, is that enough to avoid claims of racism? To me this does look like a token effort on this front.

Your idea on what to do with the currect ilegals, alas just is not feasible. They give themselves up? Not going to happen, why should they? What is their incentive? To go home? Given that this unsurprisingly doesn't happen now, why is this going to change?

5 years for legal immigration, that is immigrants that America actually wants, five years is far too slow. In Australia the entire process is 2 1/2 years. I do agree the problems of the current system are glaring, so much so, that it is a common practise for a business who needs skilled workers not easily found in this country to subsidize the costs involved to "fast track" the candidate.

Your guest worker program just creates additional bureaucracy, as with other countries, just tax them like they lived here anyway. Their medicare and social program donations that they would not use would be almost negible over a two year period (an assumption on my part, but usual for a working visa).

Regardless of which plan is followed as you need at least some cross party support, not only must you ensure every republican vote you must convince at least some democrats too.

About the only thing positive is that you have a president that is not going to veto anything vaguely reasonable, so 51% is good enough.

Couldn't agree more, just look at the conservative party in the uk and their sticking point Europe. Hello, being unelectable.

I'd like them to at least pretend that they understand that our system of government requires cooperation and compromise--and that neither is a dirty word.

I really never see much compromise from the Left, mostly the Right giving in to the Left, like McCain and his "reaching across the aisle" work with Russ Feingold, and that wonderful gang of 14. Rather, I'd like to see the GOP get some gumption and go back at the Left, and the RINO press, and the MSM with an intelligent campaign to persuade with common sense.

It's not the GOP that has to get "gumption"; it's the RINO press. They are more than "reaching across the aisle"...they are leading the pack of wolves attacking Bush and anything that even smells of GOP.

How many times have they said..."I'm a Conservative first and a Republican a DISTANT second, if at all"? They do not consider the GOP THEIR party, has seemingly as much loyalty to it as the MSM, so they should either stop trying to tell the party of Republicans what to do--or at least stop pretending to be on the same side.

Dave, the public expects the MSM to go after the GOP and support the Dems...they EXPECT the SAME from the alternate press...but think about this...since you say that you are neither a Dem or a Rep...what would YOU think about the Dems if the MSM continued to go after Clinton when he was in office and the entire Dem party?

Perception is everything--and since the RINO press is in the business of selling perception and in communication--the failure to sell the Right's views is THEIRS, NOT the Bush administration. The latter is a tad busy fighting the darn war on terror, trying to keep this incredible economy, and bringing sanity back to the courts.

I get where you are coming from, Dave, we would have liked Bush to be a little more aggressive on some things than he was. The GOP senate to back up the President a little more than they did, but equally the apparent loss of the alternative press to their own ambition has allowed a very lopsided view of Capitol hill be broadcast into every home of the American voter.

The main purpose of the RINO press was to give a counter point to the MSM and for 6 years, they did a pretty good job. But after the Miers borking, it has been all about them and their ratings....I mean really, if I wanted to hear how terrible the GOP and Bush was, I'd go listen to the MSM...

I'm saying that Tony Snow needs to go back at talk radio hosts that are counterproductive in the effort to attain common goals. They Kiss UP too much to the ones who aren't helping. Criticism is needed, but constant harping is creating an environment that will allow the Dems to win. And the other GOP Senators must speak out against RINOs like McCain, who are leading us to a path of destruction. Let's right the ship, in a way that seems to accentuate common sense and highlights the opposition's lack of it.

-RINOs like McCain, who are leading us to a path of destruction.-
I agree, lets have no legislation on immigration, the current system is perfect. We don't need a bill at all, so let's kill it or better yet let's allow the Democrats to set the agenda.

I amaze myself with my common sense at times.

It would be a HUGE change if we started enforcement of the laws we already have. But I'm not hearing anybody on the Right floating better ideas except Newt and Hunter. Why is that? Most common folk of all different political persuasions can see the simple things that should be done, but they aren't being offered up in Washington. There will be no incentive for anyone NOT to illegally enter our nation with this plan.

Enforcement is being carried out, last fiscal year, this new approach resulted in 127 criminal convictions- source departmant of hameland security.
As for better ideas, one name: Santorum and secondly the 2006 election results show the common man does not like the simple ideas, of build a huge wall and throw out the illegals.
The last part is pure opinion on your part, however, a guest worker solution, and lets face it, all solutions include a variation on this. Why pay a coyote $5000 to ship you when you can legally enter and work?
That IS incentive.

You make good arguments. But I don't think there is serious enforcement being done. We're being told businesses need a guest worker program. Okay. But I'm completely skeptical that this plan is anything but a smokescreen. I think it can be done, this just isn't the way as currently written. And, as Sanity says, no matter what is written now, can be changed in 2008 by whoever is in power. So how do you stop the destruction of the GOP and the creation of a massive entiltlement State ruled by the Democratic party?

Strategies in a word.

If what you infer was true, then why didn't the Democrats send one bill after another to the floor over abortion.

They didn't need to. Things can go wrong with a bill and you can get a result you don't expect. The bill if passed and I admit I doubt it will, will not get overturned. The Democrats will attack the GOP through the media.

That is practically risk free. The GOP gets painted as the villains, hispanics vote for the Democrats overwhelmingly and job done.

As I said near the start I suspect this bill is already dead, so I would not worry, its the status quo and the Democrats are waiting to start bombarding the media with claims of racism.

Oh and just in case you think this is ok.

In 2000 6.7 million hispanic votes were cast. By 2003 the total available hispanic vote was over 15 million and it is growing six times faster than any other voting block.

This is not down to current illegal immigration. The increase is mainly down to hispanic voters finally turning 18.

I understand what you're saying. I'm seeing this entire debate about this bill as a Lose/Lose situation for the Right. I don't see any upside for us currently. So I suggest the Right finds a way to redirect the focus of the conversation. And Sanity has previously promoted the idea of making the Immigration conversation about Law & Order. Legal immigrants can understand this. Common folk can understand it, even in South Dakota or Ohio.

I'm admittedly not one of those from the southwest who sees the effects of illegals in my life everyday, so I can't speak from that perspective with the passion that our bloggers from Califronia and Texas can. But the majority of Americans share my limited viewpoint. But we all know the need for the rule of law to protect us.

Jim, you're speaking with conviction. But I'd like to know, as I asked previously, "how do you stop the destruction of the GOP and the creation of a massive entiltlement State ruled by the Democratic party?".

Drop the extreme, try and preserve the Hispanic gains of 2004.

I would move to state that the issue has been hijacked by racist groups, as well as liberals who seek to stop a free economy, and think Americans need help to keep their jobs from hard working Mexicans.

I would further state that the republican party does not condone the actions of groups who seek to undermine the democratic process of this country that seek to curb the freedoms our forefathers much as our troops today fought so hard to protect.

Then I would pass the bill

Or something like that

my thoughts exactly.

As the pro-lifers have been told for years that they HAVE to disavow the abortion clinic bombers and the Islamics are told to do the same with their terrorist, so too the Right must denounce anyone who talks of pulling troops from the WOT, stationing them on the border with orders to shoot "a few" to make a point.

All right, I'm on board, with one small exception. The bill must be changed. It's no good the way it is. The benchmarks to certify the border security are loopholes. They need to be hard facts, not some politicians opinion. But there is a refusal to see any amendment or change in the bill by the authors, and that itself is telling. They're addressing the issues that are important, but allowing for the nullification of the bill's intent. It needs to be altered.

the insanity going on at my place? I took amnesty off the table, and discussed three of the proposals.

It just goes to show the "nutters" do not want a solution. They just want the fight.

I don't just want to fight. I'm seeing a serious danger in this bill that no one wants to discuss. Why are we refusing to talk about why we think these things will really be implemented? I'd seriously like your opinion on that.

This is a compromise...that means BOTH sides get to make changes...are you ok with that?

The big problem as I see it, is that while the GOP was the majority, the absolutes thought that only their side get to decide--and now that the GOP are the minority, they STILL think they get to decide.

Tell me first how you are going to get people like Peppermint who wants to shoot "a few" illegals and Pas Phil who wants to deport 12 million to agree to anything less...

Then tell me how you're going to get the Dems to agree to anything more.

Sandra can't even get these people to "discuss" the issue reasonably on her blog.

no I'm afraid to go to your blog...(grin)...seriously, as I told Steve on his blog; it really has become an unpleasant place to be and it is unfortunate because it should be your corner to vent and express your feelings.

I did leave a comment and will go see if you've answered. I do try not to add to the tension there.

Like all immigration policies there must be a certain flexibility built in so as the circumstances of the country change, the immigration laws can change with it. These are not loopholes, they are what is needed, unless you think doing this again in a few years and every few years is a good idea for the survival of the GOP.

Example: For the last few years Australia had a shortage of hair dressers (I have no idea why, but there we go) and thus made it easy for hair dressers to emmigrate to the country.

I suspect the reason why changes being allowed are so few are more down to the need to actually pass legislation, and a 1000 page document does speak volumes about how complex this has become.

I'm personally not going to be satisfied until some ammendment to the bill stipulates that the fence actually has to be built or being built befoere all of this "Z-visa" stuff can start happening. I don't think that's asking too much from our people in the Senate.

Peppermint and Phil don't have votes in Congress. And we've seen how close they listen to their constituents. Sanity, you're showing too much emotion in this towards the wrong people. Wil and I are trying to be smart consumers. We don't like the dog as is, but we know we need a dog. We're going to get a dog, but with the right accessories.

The extremists are blowing the discussion up out of proportion to the point people are starting to stop listening. I posted what I thought was a credible and valuable link to a Heritage Foundation report and Sandra didn't take the time to even investigate. The shades are drawn and the lines are being cut. Oddly, the rhetoric was no where near what it was here against you in the last dust up. Maybe you're a little tougher, I don't know. But sad to see someone chased out.

You're asking ME if compromise is okay? Come on, Sanity. Once again, if the mechanisms are put in place to MAKE SURE the enforcement provisions and the other safeguards are implemented, it would be okay.

But to characterize this as a compromise is a misleading statement. It's a compromise between liberals, and that's the kind of bill it is. So there you have it. When it appears to be a compromise between liberals and conservatives, then it would be acceptable. How's that?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all such large pieces of legislation get time to be explored and debated, and changes ARE made. This is trying to be rammed down our throats with no questions asked.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2007/05/25/ripping_the_lid_off_a_secret_immigration_deal

I'd like your opinion about this.

Well then you're going to love this bill...there's tons of things (the fence being one) that has to be done BEFORE any z-visa gets issued.

did YOU read the link Sandra gave us?

I am sorry but I don't see anything Liberal about wanting to card illegals, make them wait 13 years MINIMUM for citizenship while we put them thru background checks and all kinds of hoops, or the kind of fines being placed on employers who hire illegals.

As you may know, Michael Medved loves to put callers on that disagree with him and he's had his fill for over a week...EVERY point you and the writers here has brought up, he's said "it's in there" and EVERY TIME, they end up saying what they REALLY want is to deport the 12 million illegals and like Peppermint, station guards with orders to shoot.

You and Wil may be looking for a compromise but I fail to see how you will ever make the absolutes happy. They want what no one, not even the core of the Right will agree to...

And unfortunately, it is this GOP minority that has been burnt twice. First when Santorum and company ran on that issue and now after trying to get SOMETHING for their base.

I doubt they will try again.

and about being emotional...yes, stupidity always gets me angry...and so does people who take what I say in general personal.

I told you from day one that I am not here to be anyone's friend...this is not a social venture for me.

I have learned much from others; you quite a lot actually. I hope I have returned the favor. But I have a reputation of being honest and people are warned not to ask if they don't want to hear the truth--as I see it. It is MY opinion and you don't get a bye because we've exchanged ideas. I don't KNOW you or how you think about everything; that is why I ask. If you are willing to compromise on this issue that you feel passionately about, say so. If not, that also is fine. It's YOUR opinion and you're entitled to it as I am entitled to disagree.

As you know this is under review by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. As you know they may modify it or even replace the bill.
The bill has not been debated on the floor, nor has it been subject to cloture.

It also contains parts from other acts, the DREAM act which was born out of HR1918 and S1291 which came into being in May 2001.

The debate itself in its modern form was initiated in January 2004. Part of this was HR6061, the secure fence act.

Just out of interest how long do you want this debate to continue?

As for the article, other than an advert for the Heritage Foundation, it tried far too hard to make opinion appear fact. eg

"Robert Rector gave a preliminary estimate" will become, "Its going to cost us $400,000 per illegal!"

"Matthew Spalding built a devastating case for why the measure amounted to amnesty" -actually he doesn't: read it. He complains that he belives that debating and voting on it, is apparently no way to pass legislation.

"The federal government has only 24 hours to produce criminal records for probationary applicants before the protection status is granted. Just 24 hours"

Yes and that should be possible. The FBI was supposed to have a new computer system in place for this rapid checking and again, this may yet be modified, see first paragraph.

The article as a whole is weak and does not do the GOP any favors, but it pales when compared to the comments it draws.

If you don't have an issue with the article, take issue with the comments, they are why the right will lose this debate.

Out of my last post, I wanted to ask some questions:

What exactly are you upset over?

Given that, if you have read the draft, and it is a draft, even the Heritage Foundation admits that much, any point you disagree with is subject to change and therefore may not even exist by the time it is published.

Or is it the concept of raise bill, send it to subcommitee, debate and vote method being used?

To me, and I apologize if I am incorrect here, this is the method all legislation is passed, admittedly subcommitees may not exist for everything, but the key debate and vote was a cornerstone, so is it an objection to the constitution?

Or is it that the alternate press were not given early drafts, and therefore a chance to influence the bill?

Certainly the Heritage foundation is keen to point out how much better it is to the Senate.

So to ask again: What exactly are you upset over?

My point exactly. They are ready to take down the only viable party that wants to win the WOT for hearsay?

And bingo! on the RINO press. They are like their Liberal counterparts who think they have a God-given right to tell the WH and Congress what to do via polls. How many times during the Miers borking have you heard them say that Bush ISN'T a lawyer like they were with the implication that they should have been consulted.

This is exactly why the Right lost and will lose again in 2008. Middle America will not tolerate the branches of government being dictated by the media and their minions.

Let me give this another try. I dislike this bill because it currently has in it language that will enable the benchmarks to be circumvented. Border security would probably be bypassed. It doesn't appear to clearly solve the problem of the ID issuance, and a computer check system that is "supposed to be in place" isn't. It's authors refuse to allow an amendment that forces sanctuary cities to cooperate with law enforcement's effort against Illegal alien criminals.

I hear you saying these things are taken care of in the bill, but I disagree. I will not take it on an act of faith that the government will keep it's promises.

That said, I am perfectly willing to compromise in a reasonable way to reach a solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens in this country. The issues discussed above have to be guaranteed in a more ironclad way than currently written.

I realize you both disagree with me, and I respect that. The government has no intention of looking out for me, nor should it. It's up to me to make sure the government doesn't do me or my people wrong by being vigilant.

The small percentage of conservatives represented by the views that sound racist and xenophobic do the Right a great disservice. That we agree on. As always, it's the tone of the debate that carries the weight.

As far as the Heritage article is concerned, if you choose to disregard it, that's your privilege. We can debate on other grounds. But you see, I keep saying I'm all for the solutions that we are reaching for, it's just you seem to trust the government to keep their word, I'm saying I'm from Missouri.

Jim, I only want this debate to last as long as it takes to make the bill HONEST. That may be possible in what comes out of the House. Maybe.

Sanity, of all the people at TH, you've been the subject of more personal attacks than anyone else I've witnessed, though I'm not offering a pity party. I certainly can see you're not here for the friendships and I don't think I deserve a bye from anyone. I'm also not interested in engaging in the kind of stupid rhetoric that arises when people lose control of their emotions. You only heard me being wary.

Your alternative viewpoints have been extremely valuable for my political outlook, and have given me the luxury of having a "different channel" to get viewpoints from here at TH.

But I don't think the opposition to this bill is the result of the RINO media and their minions. I believe there is a broad based bi-partisan opposition. And not because people hate hispanics. And you and I have the right to tell our Representatives what we think in an effort to convince them of our positions.

I do not want a compromise that will satisfy the small minority of Conservatives you may be referring to as the core. I just want one that I think will be honestly implemented. And you and Jim have not convinced me it will. That's the sticking point. Of course it's not your job to, you don't owe me that, but this place here at TH is about exchanging ideas for me. Not attacking someone else's position, at least that's my intent.

So I'll reconsider what you guys have to say and then go on. Thanks for the honest exchange.

on Sandra's blog.

As I mentioned before, my frustration is running smack into your earnest desire to come to some workable solution.

It is my opinion that too much has happened. The GOP party got burnt twice...once in 2006 when people like Santorum ran on this issue--and now when the so called core is going balistic on what is really a draft...I doubt the GOP will be initiating another illegal immigration reform bill any time soon if this one dies...why should they? You guys won't believe them anyway.

Immigration to the South may only affect 4 states [directly].

But our border with Canada is much longer. And as the recent health crisis with the TB person somewhat easy to cross. The millinum [sp] plotters came across our northern border. Illegals spread across the entire country [Colorado, NY] and other areas so the direct effect may just be along our Southern border but it is a national problem.

As far your point about sounding racist, the majority [LARGE] of the 12 to 20 million came across our Southern border.

Until we can get new Judges on the SCOTUS like Alito, Roberts, who can overturn Roe it will not be done [BTW who nominated them]. The PAB decision was a good first step, but we have to get out [constantly] that we want to send abortion to the states [where it should be] for them to decide. You can talk all you want about Roe but until there are like minded Judges on the Court that's all it will be. And if you think that the other party will nominate Judges that will overturn Roe I don't think it's likely. Also we must get more Senators elected so the Judges will be confirmed.

If the absolutes were just as insistent about closing the Northern borders, I think they'd have more credibility when they talk about "National Security". I actually want those borders closed for a different reason than the reason I mentioned in my other post. The Liberal Canadian border has huge communities of Moslems and while I have wonderful Canadian friends and colleagues...they are not exactly our best buds internationally.

However; the problem is that Canada is our number one trading partner AND MANY northern state people frequently cross the border to get more bang for their American buck. NONE of these groups will be pleased to have a double side Berlin type wall between Canada and America.

Miers picked Roberts (yes, the woman judged unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS by the same ex-lawyer, turned talk show host people who are going balistic over the illegal immigration issue)and could have, if she and Bush were vindictive, picked someone on the RINO press' wish list. Then we would have launched the "nuclear option" (which doesn't seem like such a bright idea now that the Dems are in the majority) or have Sandra "abortion" O'Conner casting the deciding vote when the PBA bill came up.

Again, Jev...I agree with you on most of the issues but not on the method.

Yes, we must have more GOP in Congress and we must keep the WH to win the WOT and get some control of our immigration. Yes, we must have a pro-lifer in the WH, pro-lifers that advise him, and failing that, at least in the "holding" VP pen a strong pro-lifer ready to step in 8 years from now.

But if this is a game of chicken...remember it isn't just the GOP that can go over the cliff...and die.

We must have control of our borders [both] and have enforcement, before any of this other stuff.

As I said "the majority [LARGE] of the 12 to 20 million came across our Southern border." So you would think we should get control over where the biggest problem is first, wouldn't you?

So Miers picked Roberts he worked out ok. Could have IF vindictive, "picked someone on the RINO press list" but they didn't do that, and nuclear option not launched.

This bill [as written] is bad and should not be passed.

So it seems we are half way there, just don't agree on method.

If we don't have a pro-lifer as President what makes you think that he will want a strong pro-lifer as VP?

I went to college in Northern Idaho. When we went to Canada, we didn't sneak across the border, we had no problem going through checkpoints. After all, a border wall will have gates. Northern state people aren't sneaking through the wilderness to avoid agents, unless they are doing something illicit, in which case we want to catch them.

I agree and have said many times we need to enforce the Northern Border as well. Especially in the Toronto/Detroit area where there have been a number of instances that have been a problem. But needing to deal with both borders (and the coastline) doesn't change the problems with the plan on the table now for the Southern Border.

Nor does it change the fact that what is being proposed is a whole lot better than what we have now.

And I want SOMETHING NOW...not when we have the perfect bill and the perfect party and the perfect president.

I want a wall on the Mexican border, even if it's only 700 miles...I will believe that they will built it because the alternative is for them to not even try.

I want illegals to be carded even if not all of them are because right now, we can't even ask them what their legal status is.

I want employers given stiff fines for hiring illegals (and given the legal tools to do back ground checks and validate the worker's identity) because unless you take away the illegals reason to be in America, they will continue to come here if they have to dig tunnels or pay a coyote with a boat to take them in.

I like offering citizenship for those who has withstood over a decade of jumping thru legal hoops because that's 13 years minimum for America to keep tabs on people living and working in our nation.

Most of all, I want the immigrants to hold on to the work ethic of hard work that they share with my ancestors...those who fled the poverty and sickness of foreign countries to work from sun up to sun down, 7 days a week on plantations and never, in their wildest dreams thought that their children's children's children would produce professionals...doctors, lawyers, business leaders.

Mexicans (or any other people) will not value what they get free...I want these illegals to spend the next decade WORKING for what we and most Americans get by accident of birth.

The question to me isn't "Can I live with this bill?" It's "Can I live without another bill to address this issue?"

"We must have control of our borders [both] and have enforcement, before any of this other stuff."

What do you mean by "control"? And are you willing to WAIT to address "stuff" like doing background checks, fining employers, validating identities?

Yes, we need to START with the Southern border but the rest of the issues cannot wait until we are satisfied with a government project (the wall)...especially one of this scope.

Miers picked Roberts AND Alito and 94% of the fabulous judicary picks on the lower courts. The RINO press admitted knowing NOTHING about her (or this bill). All they knew is that she was NOT on their wish list and they WANTED that nuclear option to go off...why?

For the same reason they aren't listening--nor do they care--why the GOP's highest rated senator supports this bill...because DRAMA makes for great ratings.

I've listened to senator after senator tell a caller that what they want is "in there"..."addressed in the bill"..."can be modified or tweaked"...only to be told by the caller that what they REALLY want is to get rid of the 12 million law breakers and to station troops at the Mexican border with orders to shoot.

I've heard Hewitt move the "goal post" sometimes mere hours at a time as more and more of what's "really" on the bill is explained.

Hewitt is looking out for his own business...and being pro-Bush, pro-GOP, and giving the bill a fair hearing is bad for business right now.

It is easy to talk of "principles" but in the real world, principles really is a hill few of us have the luxury of dying on.

As for a strong pro-life VP...Jev, the second slot has always gone to someone that can appeal to the voters on issues that the presidental candidate is weak on. In Rudy's case, the VP has to be strong on the 2nd ammendment, marriage between a man and a woman, and strongly pro-life because the NRA and C/PL groups are too large to be ignored.

Control as in stop the millions coming over, if it takes a fence yes. Enforcement of existing laws send back illegals that authorities contact. We have the power to fine businesses now.

I was not aware that Miers had picked the SCOTUS judges and 94% of the other picks [she did this all by herself] with no help at all? She was not on the "list" because of no judicial experience. We don't want another appointment which turns out to be O'Connor do we? Wanted the nuclear option to stop the filibuster of appointments. Then McCain formed his gang of 14 to "help" things [or stab the party in the back].

Who is this GOP highest rated Senator? I hope not McCain?

Sanity how many of your "principles" will you give up before you do say no more?

These groups "the NRA and C/PL groups are too large to be ignored." are these the ones that don't elect a President? The ones if we cater to the Independents will be spooked?

Miers was the Chief Legal advisor to the president...implying that she wasn't responsible for the judiciary picks "all by herself" is like trying to imply that a lawyer doesn't win his case because his paralegals did the research. It was no secret that the President relied on her judgment and credit for his 94% record was placed--BEFORE he nominated her (and Bush could not run again)--directly on Miers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the reason for the RINO press borking of Miers was that the RINO press WANTED to launch the nuclear option (it makes for some pretty exciting programming and ratings, doesn't it?)

Jev, if you want me to take you seriously and for our converation to be productive, please don't pretend ignorance on how our political system or the media works.

The Senator with one of the highest conservative ratings is Kyl and he was AGAINST the bill last year (the one the "base" barely blinked over) because it didn't go far enough--and he is solidly behind this, don't you want to know why?

If we have all the power to do something about the illegal immigration situation now, then why are we trying to change the law at all?

"These groups the NRA and C/PL groups are too large to be ignored." are these the ones that don't elect a President? The ones if we cater to the Independents will be spooked?"

The Independents get spooked when the GOP is perceived to be listening only to their base and that base appears inflexable and dictatorial.

The C/PLr & NRA are the groups that believed the absolutes on this issue when the RINO press and their minions told them in 2006 that the GOP has failed and that there is no difference between them and the Dems...

It cost us Congress and the cost of joining the Liberals in excercising the freedom to "disagree" with the only viable party that wants to win the WOT may very well cost us the WH and ultimately the lost of the war, the courts, and our economy.

It is the price I am not willing to pay any more than Peppermint was unwilling to stand on her principles and her right to freedom of speech and risk her job.

Tell me Jev...are you?

I don't remember the RINO press "Borking" Miers, I heard many conservative commentators complaining about her nomination. The Nuclear option wanted to be launched due to the filibuster of nominations by the other side. If votes were allowed on the nominations this option would never have been brought up.

After Miers nomination I don't recall the fact she was responsible for the President's picks being brought up as one of the reasons for her choice.

You can take me seriously or not. Because I did not know something about Miers [that I have only seen here] if you feel that discredits me ok.

This Independent spooking is another thing, are they only spooked when the right seems to cater to their base and not the left?

One of the things that may have cost us Congress was the Democrats running what appeared as more conservative people [so-called "blue dog" Democrats].

Who do you think goes out and does the grassroots work for candidates? Do you think the Independents do it? It's the party base. It's this base that has seen judges appointed who will not legislate from the bench, so we may see some action on abortion.

If the GOP nominee is someone the "base" feels is not that different from the Democrat, we may have a change in the White House in 2008.

It's, the MSM it's not a RINO press it's a liberal [for the large part] press. The GOP has left its core values. This is from a post I put up. "Republicans used to stand for smaller government, federalism, and strong national defense. Not all of that conflicts with the Bush legacy, but enough of it does that we need to start publicly demanding a return to those core concepts. Rather than repudiating Bush over his insulting attacks on the base, the better path is to generate a positive agenda that demonstrates our dissatisfaction with the previous six years -- and give Republicans something to vote for, rather than something to vote against."

I have looked at what's in the immigration bill and I feel [as written] it should not pass. Kyl likes it, he has a high rating, then why does he want to give amnesty to 12-20 million illegals?

Take me seriously or not it's up to you, I feel different on issues than you do, so whatever you want to do is you call. But I'll still read your blog.

so you weren't aware of the full page ads run by so called "conservatives" on National Review Online or Ingraham and Krauthhammer appearing on MSM demanding a litmus test of their own (judiciary PUBLICATION experience as Miers had not written anything that the media could point to--which was kind of the point in nominating her)? This "test" after they spent YEARS complaining about the Dem's litmus test for judicary appointees?

You weren't aware that these people told us for months, years, that Bush was the only man that could be trusted to send our children to war...and because Miers wasn't on THEIR wish list...went on to tell us that Bush could not be trusted to pick an elite to sit on the SCOTUS?

I am sorry Jevica but the highest trust you can ask of a parent is to trust their children's lives to someone.

You also weren't aware that these same pundits ADMITTED to not knowing anything about this woman-except she wasn't on their list...just like they had no real knowledge of what was on this illegal immigration bill before going balistic?

If this is correct, then Jevica, I have one question for you...how on earth can you be sure that this bill is as bad as you think...are you listening to the SAME pundits who has no concept of the word loyalty?

are spooked by either side appearing to be controlled by their base...why do you think the Dems pushed centrist Liberals? Why do you think Hillary and company will not defund the troops?

As for the base...Jevica, perhaps you ought to start listening to the REAL base. Did you know that many of the GOP politicians listening to Ingraham and NRO were shocked to learn at their fundraisers just how much the base loves Bush? Even Ingraham has said that whenever she has Bush in her soundbite contest, the man wins hands down and with commments like..."MY man Bush" and "I love that man".

And listen carefully to the things being written...many of the posters on TH aren't Republicans...they even proudly proclaim to use the party; that they are Conservatives first and Republicans maybe or not at all.

This is why, I suspect, Sandra left...she thought she was among kindred spirits who loved the president and her party like she did.

I did not say anything about not hearing conservatives [so called if you want] against Miers. How can you call National Review Online or Ingraham [I listened to her on my way to work against Miers] and Krauthhammer RINO press? Because I support the President in the WOT, economic policy and most of what he does, does that mean I must support a bad immigration bill?
Read below about some of the reasons for non-support of Miers. How on earth can you support amnesty for 12 or more million illegals, why are you listening to?

About Miers;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

Bush appointed Miers as head of the search committee for candidates to replace O'Connor. On July 19, 2005, Bush announced John G. Roberts, Jr. as O'Connor's replacement. After William H. Rehnquist died of thyroid cancer on September 3, Bush withdrew this nomination and renominated Roberts for Chief Justice of the United States. The Senate confirmed the nomination on September 29.

Meanwhile, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-Nevada), recommended Miers as O'Connor's successor [14][15][16]. Bush took the recommendation seriously, factoring into account suggestions by several senators that the nominee should come from outside the appellate court system [17]. This caused several commentators to draw parallels with the 2000 election, when Dick Cheney, the head of Bush's vice-presidential search committee, was ultimately selected as the running mate [18].

On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Miers' nomination was criticized from people all over the political spectrum, based on her never having served as a judge, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush's political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign. Summing up the complaints from all sides that her appointment was an exercise in cronyism, social satirist Who's willing to draw water for George Bush and carry it?

Early one-on-one meetings between Miers and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were said to have gone poorly, and the White House considered suspending them to focus on preparation for the confirmation hearings. In an unprecedented move, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Senator Patrick Leahy also requested that Miers re-do some of her answers to the questionnaire submitted to her by the Committee, noting that her responses were "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting" because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail. Her answers also included an error on constitutional law where she mentioned a constitutional right for proportional representation which the Supreme Court had previously ruled did not exist. In addition to the demand for new questionnaire responses, the Committee repeated its request to review internal White House documents that would illustrate her experience as White House Counsel and the constitutional issues she worked on.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) stated shortly afterwards that "I think, if you were to hold the vote today, she would not get a majority, either in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor." However, Specter, the committee chairman rejected the notion that Miers' nomination was shaky. He said that most senators were waiting for the hearings before making up their mind. "There are no votes one way or another," he said on CBS' Face the Nation. On October 19, 2005, Specter and Leahy announced their intent to begin confirmation hearings for Miers on November 7, 2005.

Are you surprised to learn that fund raising is down?

I have supported the President in just about all matters. I have always said I did not agree with his policy on immigration, even before this Senate bill.

The NY Timesreports that the Democrats have an enormous early lead in 2008 Senate campaigns.


"The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reported raising $4.6 million in April, bringing its total for the year to $18.3 million, compared with the Republican totals of $2.1 million for the same month and $9.1 million for the year."

For the GOP, the troubles are piling on. In 2008 they have to defend 21 seats, while Democrats only have to defend twelve.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-04-16-prezmoney_N.htm

Energized Democratic donors out pace GOP
By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Even though Texas votes Republican in presidential elections, it's still lucrative ground for Democrats when it comes to campaign cash.

A USA TODAY analysis of first-quarter fund raising reports shows that Texans donated nearly $4 million to Democratic presidential candidates, much of it to former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who has strong ties to the state's trial lawyers. GOP White House contenders, led by former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, took home $4.4 million from Texas.

CHART: State-by-state look at contributions

Overall, Democrats led in eight of the 10 states that are the top sources of presidential campaign contributions, and outraised Republicans across the country in the first three months of the year. Democratic candidates raised a total of about $79 million the first quarter, vs. $51.3 million for Republicans.

"Democrats think this nomination is worth having and that the 2008 campaign is winnable," said Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, about the flow of money to Democrats. "They are worked up about getting the Bush administration out of Washington. The lower numbers for Republicans reflect the opposite of that: There's no energy, and they are unhappy with this field."

Rich Bond, a former GOP national chairman, said it's too soon "to be pressing on the panic button." He said the Democrats' early fund raising prowess reflects momentum from their gains in the 2006 congressional elections.

Of course the Dems are excited...the GOP would be too if the Dems were fighting over an issue that has cost them an election before. They smell blood in the water. The absolutes on this issue does too...they just don't realize it's THEIR'S.

And money ALMOST ALWAYS follow a winner.

Jevica, PLEASE answser this question. If the GOP walks away from this issue and no one else will touch it for decades...what are the absolutes on illegal immigration going to do?

They can stay home...they can form a 3rd party...they can continue to complain...but in the end, you STILL need a VIABLE party to address your issues and fix them.

If they want a bill fix this one, what's wrong with that? This bill will amount to amnesty.

Third party not an option, I believe.