Immigration Bill Advances in Senate

[KingBall]

:mad: Disgusting!!!

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Tuesday to jump-start a stalled immigration measure to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants.
President Bush said the bill offered a "historic opportunity for Congress to act," and appeared optimistic about its passage by week's end.

The pivotal test-vote was 64-35 to revive the divisive legislation. It still faces formidable obstacles in the Senate, including bitter opposition by GOP conservatives and attempts by some waverers in both parties to revise its key elements.

Supporters needed 60 votes to scale procedural hurdles and return to the bill. A similar test-vote earlier this month found just 45 supporters, only seven of them Republicans. This time, 24 Republicans joined 39 Democrats and independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, to back moving ahead with the bill. Opposing the move were 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the bill, said he was proud of the vote, calling it "a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity."

"We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way," Kennedy said in a statement following the vote.

Tuesday's outcome was far from conclusive, however. The measure still must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday that will also require the backing of 60 senators. And there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract even the simple majority it needs to pass.

The Senate was preparing to begin voting as early as Tuesday afternoon on some two dozen amendments that have the potential to either sap its support or draw new backers.

Republicans and Democrats alike are deeply conflicted over the measure, which also creates a temporary worker program, strengthens border security and institutes a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces.

Bush has mounted an unusually personal effort to defuse Republican opposition to the bill, appearing at a Senate party lunch earlier this month and dispatching two Cabinet secretaries to take up near-constant residence on Capitol Hill to push the compromise.

He called the measure a deal worthy of support. "In a good piece of legislation like this, and a difficult piece of legislation like this, one side doesn't get everything they want," he told business leaders and representatives of religious, Hispanic and agricultural communities earlier Tuesday. "It's a careful compromise."

The vote suggested that key senators and White House officials had succeeded—at least for now—in bargaining with skeptical lawmakers for a second chance to pass the bill. Several senators who have been promised votes on their amendments, including Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Norm Coleman, R-Mo., Pete Domenici, R-N.M., John Ensign, R-Nev., and Jim Webb, D-Va., switched their votes to support moving ahead with the measure.

Still, after a chaotic several weeks in which the legislation survived several near-death experiences, it remained buffeted by intraparty squabbles.

As senators were preparing for the showdown vote Tuesday morning, House Republicans meeting privately on the other side of the Capitol were plotting to register their opposition through a party resolution. The measure never saw a vote for procedural reasons, but an attempt to kill it failed overwhelmingly, signaling deep GOP skepticism.

"It's clear there's a large number of the House Republicans who have serious concerns with the Senate bill," said Rep. John Boehner, R- Ohio, the minority leader.

Several of the Republican amendments slated for upcoming Senate votes would make the bill tougher on unlawful immigrants, while those by Democrats would make it easier on those seeking to immigrate legally based solely on family ties.

Particularly worrisome to supporters, including the Bush administration, is a bipartisan amendment by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., that would change the bill's new program for weeding out illegal employees from U.S. workplaces.

---

The bill is S 1639



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q0KO6O0&show_article=1

[SW85]

It could be worse. Most of the people who voted yes on cloture will vote no on final passage; they only voted for cloture so they could have a chance to vote on amendments to gut the thing.

Overall, I'd say there's maybe a 75% chance the thing will fail in the Senate. Failing that, there's probably a 95% chance it will fail in the House.

I'm watching C-Span as it's unfolding so I'll provide updates here.

[USMC the Almighty]

KingBall -- you're back?

[KingBall]

KingBall -- you're back?

Until I get baned yes:cool:

[SW85]

And the bill's dead. They had their fun with amendments, all the good ones were shot down, and so the bottom fell out of the "grand bargain." They couldn't even get a majority to keep it alive when they needed a 3/5 supermajority.

Good riddance. Hopefully Sessions in the Senate and Tancredo in the House will use the momentum to put some useful legislation up front.

[TruthAboveAll]

And the bill's dead. They had their fun with amendments, all the good ones were shot down, and so the bottom fell out of the "grand bargain." They couldn't even get a majority to keep it alive when they needed a 3/5 supermajority.

Good riddance. Hopefully Sessions in the Senate and Tancredo in the House will use the momentum to put some useful legislation up front.

I say, enforce the existing laws. Primary importance, close the border! We may have problems with the old bill that are unenforceable. But with the improved technology today we should be able to solve these problems.

It's ridiculous that they thought this new 700+ page bill (yep, it went from under 200, to 250, to just over 300, to just under 400, then about 600, and finally this monster of 700+!) that no one has read totally, or can even manage to organize into a cohesive summary could be a tool in solving illegal immigration. I'm convinced that Congress in general (yeah, a few exceptions) has no clue of of the KISS methodology - KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!!

Well, for today, HOORAY!

[USMC the Almighty]

To be honest, if they locked down the border with a fence, I might be able to bring myself to accept another amnesty bill.

[Abraxis Axis]

To be honest, if they locked down the border with a fence, I might be able to bring myself to accept another amnesty bill.

sheesh thats as likely as marijuana being legalized secured border.simple pipe dream is all that is the border is going to basically be eliminated

[Coyote]

Not as disgusting as this solution....

This is a bit of history we never learned in school ... :confused:


“Operation Wetback”
Illegal Immigration’s Golden-Crisp Myth
Pierre Tristam / daytona beach news-journal, april 5, 2007

Three weeks ago I wrote about Dwight Eisenhower’s 1959 “peace and friendship” tour through several Asian countries, a trip characterized by an outpouring of warmth from millions in countries where Americans aren’t as welcome anymore— Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, even India. A caller termed the piece “disingenuous” for not mentioning that Eisenhower was reviled in Mexico, because Eisenhower was the last president to solve the illegal immigration problem.

The caller, who didn’t give his name in the recorded message he left but seemed precisely informed, described how Eisenhower approved an operation that had 1,000 federal agents rounding up thousands of illegal immigrants in California and Arizona and deporting them deep into Mexico beginning in 1954. Two ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio, even took them hundreds of miles down the coast. Within months, up to a million illegals had left, most of them supposedly on their own for fear of being rounded up. The voice on the phone called it “Operation Wetback,” and said the best thing the United States could do now was repeat it and throw every last one of “them” back across the border. I thought the caller was kidding. Could this country ever have officially called something “Operation Wetback”?

Stupid question, considering the country’s racist heritage. A quick online check immediately produced the articles the caller must’ve been referencing, including a 2006 column in the Christian Science Monitor by that paper’s former managing editor, John Dillin, recalling “Operation Wetback” and those two ships admiringly. It was as if I was reading a transcript of the caller’s message.

The story has a ring of simplicity well suited to this age of one-dimensional solutions framed by force. The reality of “Operation Wetback” wasn’t so simple. Eisenhower’s sweep was effective because it was mass deportation on the Soviet model, not because it was admirable, let alone fair or, in thousands of cases, legal. Mexicans were especially targeted whether they were legal immigrants or not. Children of Mexican parents, who were American citizens for having been born on American soil, were deported, too. We just learned that Americans by the thousands (and their children) are being denied Medicaid benefits because they can’t produce proof of citizenship under a new law designed to target illegal immigrants. Imagine how many Mexicans were wrongly targeted for deportation in the mid-1950s.

On March 9, 1955, Immigration Commissioner Joseph Swing triumphantly declared mission accomplished to a House subcommittee: “The wetback situation will be definitely under control,” he said, with just 300 illegal migrants caught daily, down from 3,000. The figures are as suspect as the government’s precise tallies of people leaving voluntarily (45,953 in Texas alone by July 1954) — as if illegals were going up to border posts to record their departure and say farewell. More likely, they did what they do today. When enforcement intensifies in one sector, they move to another.

The government’s deportation methods were beyond suspect. A congressional investigation described the Mercurio as a “hell ship” where abuse of deportees may have been rampant. According to a United Press report from August 1956, “The Justice Department permitted the Immigration Service to crowd 500 Mexicans aboard a ship that normally carried seventy to ninety persons.” The Mercurio’s two lifeboats had a total capacity of 48. Less than a week after the House Government Committee investigation was made public, Mexicans mutinied aboard the ship after 40 people jumped overboard and seven drowned in an attempt to reach shore. Deportations by ship were halted. Airlifts replaced that method until the late 1950s, but even Stalinist sweeps can’t be sustained forever. “Operation Wetbacks” ended in the sunset of Eisenhower’s presidency.

Forgotten in that bullying decade and since was the Truman commission on illegal immigration that came closest to solving the issue, but at a price: Better wages for migrant laborers and strictly regulated working conditions. Federal agents wouldn’t be raiding workplaces to check on the legality of workers, but to verify employers’ documentation of fair pay and the kind of working conditions Americans would not consider beneath them. Employers’ advantage of hiring illegal immigrants would vanish. No demand, no need for supply. The recommendations never became law. The West’s big farmers defeated them, because that, in the end, is who enables illegal immigration — the employers who profit from it and the consumers who demand it by way of low-cost food, nannies, maids, fern-cutters.

“Illegals” are the most despised, most abused, most punished and most condemned for the problem. But they’re the least to blame and the worthiest of praise. They’re busboys to American extravagance.

[USMC the Almighty]

Eisenhower approved an operation that had 1,000 federal agents rounding up thousands of illegal immigrants in California and Arizona and deporting them deep into Mexico beginning in 1954. Two ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio, even took them hundreds of miles down the coast. Within months, up to a million illegals had left, most of them supposedly on their own for fear of being rounded up.

Where's Ike when we need him?

[Coyote]

Where's Ike when we need him?

Anyone ever tell you yer a dork?:D

[USMC the Almighty]

Anyone ever tell you yer a dork?:D

Never.

[Coyote]

Never.

I believe you might meet the qualifications for that position.:rolleyes:

[SW85]

With proper modifications, an Operation Wetback-style mass deportation could be applied today without being cruel or unconstitutional.

[Cuttothechase]

Mass deportation without first securing the border would be very inefficient, as deportees can easily currently break back in. While the borders are being secured the country could start gearing up for mass deportation. Deporting 20 million illegals, certainly no easy task, would be greatly helped by cracking down on the scumbag employers of illegals. By drying up the jobs for illegals, the reason most come here in the first place, most illegals would have to go back home of their own accord. Natural attrition. Millions would not self deport, including all the criminals that have come in, so we would still have mass deportation.

We need to end ridiculous chain migration. Citizenship should only be granted to the best and the brightest on an individual basis. Let's do what's best for the future of America, not what 3rd worlders think is best for themselves.

The anchor baby abuse has to end. Only those children born to legal parents should have automatic citizenship. What a no brainer.

[SW85]

Oh, yeah, it goes without saying border security would have to come before any deportations. You plug up a leak before you start bailing out water. (I did the math -- at the high point of the current wave of deportations, all the immigrants we expelled in the span of a few weeks were replaced in about two or three days).

Deporting 20 million illegals, certainly no easy task, would be greatly helped by cracking down on the scumbag employers of illegals.

I agree insofar as businesses are concerned, but not where ordinary people are (who constitute a fairly large portion of the illegal immigrant hiring business). The alternative to employing an illegal is jumping through a ridiculous amount of hoops, paperwork, and very high taxes (yes, we have a "nanny tax," which applies to gardners, butlers/maids, etc.) that most people don't have the time or money for. If we reformed the way the government handles this (or just abolished the nanny tax altogether) so that normal people can hire a nanny without also having to hire a tax consultant, I'd be all for uniform employer crackdowns. (Businesses, by contrast, actually have the resources to absorb costs related to background checks and paperwork. They have no excuse).

[Coyote]

Citizenship should only be granted to the best and the brightest on an individual basis. Let's do what's best for the future of America, not what 3rd worlders think is best for themselves.


Why?


How many famous and successful Americans would not have existed had that been the case in the past? How many immigrants arrived rich and well educated? How many came impoverished and desperate and made a life for themselves through hardwork?

[SW85]

Why?


How many famous and successful Americans would not have existed had that been the case in the past? How many immigrants arrived rich and well educated? How many came impoverished and desperate and made a life for themselves through hardwork?

Probably substantially fewer than the number of criminals, paupers, and plague dogs that came here and wound up in gangs, corrupt political machines, prisons, sweatshops, etc.

And I know for a fact that number is lower than the number of immigrants who found conditions in America unbearable and went back home. (About 1 in 3).

[Coyote]

Probably substantially fewer than the number of criminals, paupers, and plague dogs that came here and wound up in gangs, corrupt political machines, prisons, sweatshops, etc.

And I know for a fact that number is lower than the number of immigrants who found conditions in America unbearable and went back home. (About 1 in 3).


They all deserve a chance. We shouldn't be elitist -that's not what made America great.

[SW85]

They all deserve a chance. We shouldn't be elitist -that's not what made America great.

No one "deserves" a chance here. Residency and citizenship are privileges we administer to others because they are of use to us (or at least that's how it ought to be). We are certainly not obligated to invite every unemployed hand laborer from the Third World here and then lavish them with all the benefits of citizenship. We couldn't afford to do such even if we wanted to (and virtually no one outside Capitol Hill does). And it's not elitist to say as much.

(And I'm interested in hearing how you think elitism isn't what made this country great. We are as rich, powerful, and free as we are because our forefathers undertook deliberate efforts to conquer the desirable parts of this continent from natives, whom they regarded as vastly inferior people on the rare occasion they acknowledged them as people at all. Hell, take a look at the original, unamended constitution and you'll see the Founders drafted a document that was not particularly democratic). I'll bet most instances of egalitarianism you'd cite are more likely just elitists acting out of a sense of noblesse oblige).

[Coyote]

We opened up our country to immigration many times - and, at least turn of the century, there were no requirements besides health and a willingness to work.

[SW85]

We opened up our country to immigration many times - and, at least turn of the century, there were no requirements besides health and a willingness to work.

At the turn of the century we still had a sparsely-populated frontier and a fledgling industrial economy that was starved for labor; we didn't "open up our country" to them because we wanted to act like Santa Claus, we did it because it was in our interest to do so. And at any rate, what's your argument here? That we had a policy in the past and so we're obligated to keep it forever and ever?

We also had no safety net for immigrants who failed; if they didn't learn English, assimilate completely, and work their bums off, they failed. And most of them failed anyway, which is why a third of them went back home and most of the rest lived in utter, abject squalor. They got no welfare, no social security, no loudmouthed ethnic lobbyists -- nothing. Quit revising our history with immigration; it was miserable for almost everyone in the country except the fatcats, much like today.

[USMC the Almighty]

Which century are you guys talking about? If it's 1800s into the 1900s, then you're forgetting about the Chinese Exclusion Act/Gentleman's Agreement.

[Coyote]

Which century are you guys talking about? If it's 1800s into the 1900s, then you're forgetting about the Chinese Exclusion Act/Gentleman's Agreement.

I'm not and never have said there weren't anti-immigrant sentiments and legislation. Indeed the more things change, the more they stay the same. What's being said about immigrants today is the same as was said against the Irish, the Chinese, the East European Jews. Yet despite that, they came here and many managed to make a success.

I think they deserve the opportunity. I wouldn't be here if that oppertunity had not existed for my great grandparents and they were dirt poor when they arrived.

[Coyote]

Quit revising our history with immigration; it was miserable for almost everyone in the country except the fatcats, much like today.

Where have I revised it?

[USMC the Almighty]

I think they deserve the opportunity. I wouldn't be here if that oppertunity had not existed for my great grandparents and they were dirt poor when they arrived.

I think the law-abiding folks who have been waiting for years for the chance to legally immigrate to the U.S. deserve the opportunity this country has to offer more than those who hop across a fence in defiance of this country's laws.

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm not and never have said there weren't anti-immigrant sentiments and legislation.

You said:

at least turn of the century, there were no requirements besides health and a willingness to work.

One requirement was that you weren't Chinese...

[Coyote]

You said:



One requirement was that you weren't Chinese...


Ahhh...point taken:)

[SW85]

Which century are you guys talking about? If it's 1800s into the 1900s, then you're forgetting about the Chinese Exclusion Act/Gentleman's Agreement.

Various groups were excluded at various points in history; poor people were excluded for some time until the federal government claimed exclusive jurisdiction over immigration (it was feared that Europe was dumping their rabble-rousing proles here so that they wouldn't have to deal with them). Not to mention there was a big four-decade gap between the 1920s and 1960s where virtually no immigration was permitted at all.

I think they deserve the opportunity. I wouldn't be here if that oppertunity had not existed for my great grandparents and they were dirt poor when they arrived.

So? I am the descendents of immigrants as well. (My father's parents came here during the abovementioned time when it was virtually impossible to immigrate here legally). I don't delude myself into thinking this country wouldn't still be great without me.

Where have I revised it?

Where haven't you?

[Coyote]

Various groups were excluded at various points in history; poor people were excluded for some time until the federal government claimed exclusive jurisdiction over immigration (it was feared that Europe was dumping their rabble-rousing proles here so that they wouldn't have to deal with them). Not to mention there was a big four-decade gap between the 1920s and 1960s where virtually no immigration was permitted at all.



So? I am the descendents of immigrants as well. (My father's parents came here during the abovementioned time when it was virtually impossible to immigrate here legally). I don't delude myself into thinking this country wouldn't still be great without me.



Where haven't you?

I am looking back at my statements. I have never claimed that there were never issues with immigration or that all were welcomed with open arms. Indeed the exact same verbage used to day against Mexicans was used against other groups at other times. However - despite the attempts at restrictions, etc - huge numbers of poor and relatively undeducated people came into the country and many made a life for themselves that was better then where they came from. In some small part, they made America what it is.

So point out please where I am rewriting history?

[Coyote]

I think the law-abiding folks who have been waiting for years for the chance to legally immigrate to the U.S. deserve the opportunity this country has to offer more than those who hop across a fence in defiance of this country's laws.

I agree. I do not support illegal immigration. But I also think if you want to fix the problem you need to streamline the legal end - why are those people required to wait so long? Because the INS is archaic.

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't agree. I think they need to restrict immiggration to some level because the effects of unrestricted immigration on education, healthcare, and Social Security would be devastating.

[Chip]

The recent immigration bill is dead, thankfully.

But upon realizing its demise, many of its disgruntled supporters in the senate chastised the American people by saying that now nothing will get done on the matter until after the 2008 election.

Just who do these obstinate little children think they are?!

There is NOTHING stopping them from doing the right thing, the right thing which is: blockading the border with Mexico, deporting illegal aliens, rescinding citizenship from those born here to illegals, and managing immigration for the sake of our infrastructure as the existing law requires.

But because each side in the issue is really more concerned with party power than what's right for Americans, they could care less about respecting the current law.

Yes, the economic conservatives want the cheap slave-wage labor, forgetting that our own civil war was fought because of such a heartless ideology, and the social liberals want the votes that minorities traditionally provide them, forgetting that the significant majority who now vote them into office aren't minorities, but multi-generation Americans with European ancestry people whose jobs would be sacrificed to the slave-wage class they wish to pardon.

So as long as their party power political struggles are more important to them than the healthy behavior of respecting boundaries, these temper-tantrum throwing senators will continue to try to do the wrong thing ...

... Such as giving up and chastising us Americans because we opposed their amnesty bill.

Impeach them all ... and vote loyal Americans into Congress.

[TruthAboveAll]

Republicans and Democrats BOTH have totally evolved into a governmental entity that is anything but effective. The amnesty bill that we can all thank God (or your lucky stars, or whatever it is you give thanks to) that went down in flames was a cumbersome, unwieldy piece of bureaucracy. I'm not sure why we have to have these absolute monstrosities of bills on nearly any subject. The Heritage Institute has done the work for Congress, if any of them care to take a look. You can see their New Strategy summation (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1499.cfm) for yourself. If you choose to dismiss it as a creation of a Conservative group, you are missing an opportunity at some very insightful, problem-solving work.

You're right, Chip, impeach them all! But that would be unimaginably difficult and expensive. The best thing we can do is start diligently seeking the qualified candidates NOW for the 2008, 2010, 2012 elections. I hope, for example, that the Democrats in Michigan are already in the process of looking for qualified candidates to run against Levin in the primary in 2008.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to go to the polls and get to select from Mr. Smith A and Mr. Smith B? I mean, people that may have very oppositional philosophies in some social and political matters, but who truly LOVE America and want to see it preserved and defended above all! I'd love to see every candidate have to list: 1) their knowledge of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and 2) their 12 reasons why they think America is a great country. Now THOSE are questions I'd love to see in debates, for all national offices.

[vyo476]

The recent immigration bill is dead, thankfully.

But upon realizing its demise, many of its disgruntled supporters in the senate chastised the American people by saying that now nothing will get done on the matter until after the 2008 election.

You ever wonder just who those supporters were? And why they supported it? I do.

Just who do these obstinate little children think they are?!

Bureaucrats. :cool:

There is NOTHING stopping them from doing the right thing, the right thing which is: blockading the border with Mexico, deporting illegal aliens, rescinding citizenship from those born here to illegals, and managing immigration for the sake of our infrastructure as the existing law requires.

I think you're taking it a bit far here. Better border security is all well and good, but I think we should look into letting those here in this country illegally earn their citizenship instead of just deporting them. Also, rescinding the "anchor baby" law is a good idea - but those already affected by it ought to be grandfathered in. Ex post facto.

But because each side in the issue is really more concerned with party power than what's right for Americans, they could care less about respecting the current law.

Sadly, that's nothing but the truth.

Yes, the economic conservatives want the cheap slave-wage labor, forgetting that our own civil war was fought because of such a heartless ideology, and the social liberals want the votes that minorities traditionally provide them, forgetting that the significant majority who now vote them into office aren't minorities, but multi-generation Americans with European ancestry people whose jobs would be sacrificed to the slave-wage class they wish to pardon.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretations of the "why" - mostly I think that true economic conservatives adhere to the small business, Adam Smith model of capitalism, which doesn't include slave labor (and is in fact hurt by it). Other than that I'd say you're pretty close to spot on - these are how the parties are viewing things.

So as long as their party power political struggles are more important to them than the healthy behavior of respecting boundaries, these temper-tantrum throwing senators will continue to try to do the wrong thing ...

... Such as giving up and chastising us Americans because we opposed their amnesty bill.

Impeach them all ... and vote loyal Americans into Congress.

Once again with the extremes...impeachment is something that we really ought to save for especially nasty things, otherwise it loses some of its power. We can frighten our party-centric representatives well enough by letting them know that the next election is right around the corner.

[SW85]

I am looking back at my statements. I have never claimed that there were never issues with immigration or that all were welcomed with open arms. Indeed the exact same verbage used to day against Mexicans was used against other groups at other times. However - despite the attempts at restrictions, etc - huge numbers of poor and relatively undeducated people came into the country and many made a life for themselves that was better then where they came from.

The "verbage" used against Mexicans today and other groups of yesterday largely has a point. Excepting the nonsense about "inferior races" and such, immigrants are today are as poor, as uneducated, and as liable to disease, crime, and exploitation as those of history.

Your argument that we should permit immigrants because they came here and made a better life for themselves is dishonest. First of all, it is hardly true: many went back home because they hated it here, and most of the rest remained in the same kind of squalor and exploitation they were trying to escape. And second, it's also self-defeating -- that immigration is of benefit to immigrants is immaterial; we don't enact policies for their benefit but for our own.

And no, immigrants did not continue to come here en masse despite restrictions. Immigration plummeted in the 1920s when the first mass-restrictions were enacted. I have no idea of the effectiveness of ethnic-specific laws but I'm not terribly interested in defending them, anyway.

So point out please where I am rewriting history?

Again, you're saying immigrants made America great. I have seen absolutely no evidence that this country wouldn't have been great if immigration had ended after the American revolution.

Beyond that, I assumed you were being intellectually dishonest about our past with mass immigration because I have a hard time believing anyone can advocate it straight-facedly knowing about it, as you say you do. Why would any nation deliberately inflict such a wound on itself?

[palerider]

I think you're taking it a bit far here. Better border security is all well and good, but I think we should look into letting those here in this country illegally earn their citizenship instead of just deporting them. Also, rescinding the "anchor baby" law is a good idea - but those already affected by it ought to be grandfathered in. Ex post facto.

And exactly what sort of message does that send to people who have spent thousands of dollars and years jumping through the legal hoops to become "legal" American citizens?



Sadly, that's nothing but the truth.



I'm not sure I agree with your interpretations of the "why" - mostly I think that true economic conservatives adhere to the small business, Adam Smith model of capitalism, which doesn't include slave labor (and is in fact hurt by it). Other than that I'd say you're pretty close to spot on - these are how the parties are viewing things.



Once again with the extremes...impeachment is something that we really ought to save for especially nasty things, otherwise it loses some of its power. We can frighten our party-centric representatives well enough by letting them know that the next election is right around the corner.[/QUOTE]