A response forwarded by a friend from newly-elected Democratic Senator from Maryland, Ben Cardin. Copied from e-mail; no link. No way to confirm this viewpoint at his website. Interesting and comprehensive, though I don't like all of it.
Thank you for contacting me regarding comprehensive immigration reform.
Today, the nation is faced with an immigration and border security system that has serious flaws. Americans want the President and Congress to come together to enact a comprehensive, workable, and enforceable system for immigration and border security. The government must require that our laws are obeyed.
I reject the false dichotomy in the immigration debate between two choices that are unwise and impractical. One is to give all illegal aliens amnesty, which would be the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. Second is to deport the estimated 12 million illegal aliens out of the United States .
For two weeks in May and June the United States Senate debated a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The Senate voted on over two dozen amendments but failed to reach a final resolution on the bill.
Should the immigration bill be brought back to the Senate floor, I will use several principles to analyze the amendments and the legislation that are brought forward for debate and votes in the Senate.
First, we must restore the rule of law and enhance security at our borders. The government must immediately hire new border patrol officers and end the policy of "catch and release" which quickly turns detained illegal immigrants free. The government should require the use of a biometric entry-exit screening system for all land borders, so that we have an accurate record of who is entering and leaving the United States . The government should create a "smart" enforcement regime which will produce more efficient inspections and screenings, and allow us to target and tailor our limited resources to combat illegal smuggling of people and contraband. Congress should require "triggers" and benchmarks be met in the area of border security before probationary visas are issued and a new temporary worker program go into effect.
Second, the government must enforce the law. We must improve our interior enforcement of our immigration laws by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau. We should toughen penalties for criminal aliens, gang violence, and passport, visa, and immigration document fraud. Congress must also insist that America 's employers follow the law and play by the rules when hiring and paying any immigrant workers. The government can begin to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the country by making it harder to hire them. Employers should be required to electronically verify the identity and status of all new hires, and eventually of all current employees.
Third, our immigration system must reflect the American values of hard work and family. Immigration law should promote family reunification for legal immigrants who have patiently waited in line for visas, green cards, legal permanent resident status, and citizenship. Legal immigrants must remain at the front of the line, and undocumented workers and illegal aliens must go to the back of the line. We must reform our temporary visa program to meet the needs of the American economy while guaranteeing fair wage rates and labor protection for temporary workers. Temporary workers should have a limited stay in the United States , and U.S. employers must be required to advertise the job in the United States at a competitive wage rate before hiring a temporary worker.
Fourth, we must bring the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows in order to establish the rule of law. Congress should reject giving amnesty to undocumented immigrants, and it should also reject the suggestion to deport all undocumented immigrants out of the country. Only a comprehensive immigration reform approach can begin to solve this pressing problem. Congress should enact a bill that gives temporary legal status - but not citizenship or legal permanent resident status - to undocumented workers who come forward, acknowledge they broke the law, pay a fine, and undergo a criminal background check. During this probationary status illegal immigrants would not be entitled to social services government benefits. Before applying for a green card, undocumented workers should have to wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, complete certain English requirements, and meet additional criteria for employment in the United States.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on the comprehensive immigration reform bill to address this critical issue for the American people.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/20/2007 09:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Okay, build the fence, pass items one and two, (mostly already law of the land), use item three as immigration protocol. Then change item four to read that they never aquire the right to vote. And remember, using a false SS number and/or other false documentation is a crime.
#4
If I hear one more of these clowns give me that "out of the shadows" bullshit, I'm going down there and kick him in the balls.
And I care as much about their "families" as they do about mine.
James Bowman, Wall Street Journal Excerpted from a long piece on David Halberstam and the Vietnam mentality in American journalism; emphasis added.
Events have a way of exposing bad information in ways that provide their chroniclers with endless temptations to such bogus wisdom. The chief of these is the temptation to say: "I know now, therefore they should have known then." In this respect, Halberstam's legacy to today's Iraq war coverage--which was the subtext of so many of his posthumous tributes--has been not only to make yielding to this temptation OK for journalists--whose business of "getting it right" can always proceed at greater leisure and with fewer consequences for error--but to make it almost the whole business of journalism. This became apparent once again with the release of George Tenet's memoir, "At the Center of the Storm"--a work which will long be remembered for its self-serving chutzpah and its ingratitude in a field that is far from short of examples of these qualities. . . .
In spite of its special pleading, the book does have at least one serious point to make. Although the former DCI's claim to have been quoted out of context when he said that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a "slam dunk" is laughable, he has a legitimate grievance when he says that whoever leaked his remark to Bob Woodward behaved very badly. "It's the most despicable thing that ever happened to me," he now says. "You don't do this. You don't throw somebody overboard. Is that honorable? It's not honorable to me." A bit late in the day, some might think, for someone who has spent as much time talking to Bob Woodward as Mr. Tenet has to start complaining about what's honorable and what isn't when it comes to feeding the media's scandal machine. Yet there should be more joy in heaven over the one sinner that repenteth than the ninety and nine (if you can find that many) who never strayed. Now we should all recognize, along with the Mr. Tenet who found it out the hard way, that the media pursue their own interests in deciding what to report and how to report it and that, therefore, the picture we get from them is not a mere reflection of reality but something which, like David Halberstam's reporting from Vietnam, helps to shape it, often in ways that are disastrous for everyone but the media--and, of course, America's enemies.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/20/2007 06:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So...what's your point?
Posted by: Sy Hersh ||
06/20/2007 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Good argument for why we need the (conservative) blogosphere and sites like rantburg.
Fatah Isn't the Answer
By MICHAEL OREN
June 20, 2007; Page A17
America and its Middle Eastern allies have every reason to panic. The green flags of Hamas are furling over Gaza and the al-Fatah forces trained and financed by the United States have ignominiously fled. Fears are rife that Iranian-backed and Syrian-hosted terror will next achieve dominance over the West Bank and proceed to undermine the pro-Western governments of Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf.
To avert this catastrophe, the U.S. has joined with the Israelis and the Europeans in resuming the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid to the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of its Fatah president, Mahmoud Abbas, and accelerating talks for the establishment of a West Bank Palestinian state. The goal is to provide Palestinians with an affluent, secular and peaceful alternative to Hamas, and persuade Gazans to return to the Fatah fold. But the policy ignores every lesson of the abortive peace process to date as well as Fatah's monumental corruption, jihadism and militancy. Indeed, any sovereign edifice built on the rotten foundations of the Palestinian Authority is doomed to implode, enhancing, rather than diminishing, Hamas's influence.
Gunmen from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Is funding them the path to peace?
Since its creation by the so-called Oslo Accords of 1993, the PA has garnered more international aid than any entity in modern history -- more, per capita, than the European states under the Marshall Plan. The lion's share of this fortune has been siphoned into the private accounts of Fatah leaders or used to pay off the commanders of some 16 semi-autonomous militias. The PA also maintains an estimated 60,000 uniformed gunmen on its payroll, giving the West Bank the world's highest percentage of policemen-to-population.
The Palestinian people, meanwhile, languish in ever-deepening poverty and unemployment, while lawlessness plagues Palestinian streets. The unbridled corruption of the PA and its Fatah headmen served as a principal cause of Hamas's electoral victory in 2006, as well its takeover of Gaza. Viewers of Hamas television have recently been treated to tours of the lavish villas maintained by Fatah officials in the Strip, and video clips showing PA policemen, more abundantly armed and more numerous than Hamas's troops, fleeing at the first sign of battle.
Though Fatah originally aspired to replace Israel with a secular, democratic state in Palestine, the organization refashioned itself in 1990s as an Islamic movement, embracing the lexicon of jihad. Hundreds of mosques were built with public funds, and imams were hired to spread the message of martyrdom and the hatred of Christians and Jews. These themes became the staple of the official PA media, inciting the suicide bombings that began in 2000 and poisoning an entire generation of Palestinian youth. Ironically, the Islamization of Fatah legitimized Hamas and contributed to the cadres of religious extremists who are now defying its authority.
In addition to its fiscal malfeasance and Islamic radicalism, Fatah has never fulfilled its pledges to crack down on terror. Though Mahmoud Abbas routinely criticizes Palestinian terrorist attacks as "contrary to the Palestinian national interest" -- not an affront to morality and international law -- he has never disavowed the al-Aqsa Brigades, a Fatah affiliate responsible for some of the bloodiest attacks against Israeli civilians.
In the past, such assaults have served as a means of maintaining Fatah's legitimacy as a resistance movement and countering charges that the organization sold out to America and Israel. In fact, a distinct correlation exists between the amount of support that Fatah receives from the West and its need to prove its "Palestinianess" through terror.
In view of its performance over the past 14 years, the Palestinian Authority under Fatah can be counted on to squander most or all of the vast sums now being given to it by the U.S. and the international community. More gunmen will be hired and better weapons procured, but in the absence of a unified command and a leadership worth fighting for, PA soldiers will perform no more credibly than they did in Gaza. Mr. Abbas will continue to denounce terror while ignoring the terrorist units within his own organization, while PA imams will persist in preaching their jihadist sermons.
In response, Israel will be precluded from lifting the checkpoints that not only block suicide bombers but hinder communication between Palestinian cities. Impeded by Palestinian attacks and Israeli countermeasures, the peace talks will inexorably grind to a halt. In the end, the Palestinian people will remain impoverished, divided and stateless, and more than ever amenable to the purist polity of Hamas.
If funding and empowering Fatah is not a viable option for the U.S., what other courses might the administration take? Clearly no progress toward Palestinian statehood can be made before Fatah has reformed itself financially, ideologically and structurally. Even under the most propitious circumstances this process is certain to take many years -- longer if economic aid and political support are provided to the PA unconditionally. Similarly, proposals for containing Hamas's influence by stationing an international force along the Gaza border are unlikely to succeed if for no other reason than Hamas's avowed determination to resist such a deployment. Yet the need to combat Hamas and provide Palestinians with an attractive diplomatic horizon remains acute. There is, fortunately, an interim answer.
The U.S., together with its Quartet partners, can work to establish areas of extensive Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank. Within these districts, local Palestinian leaders will be fully empowered to manage all aspects of daily life including health, education and resource management. A national assembly, comprised of representatives from each district, will meet regularly to deliberate issues of West Bank-wide concern. Security, however, will be jointly administered by Israel and Jordan. The Jordanian involvement is crucial to convincing Palestinians that the status quo of occupation has ended and they may in the future assume full responsibility for their internal defense. Such an arrangement will benefit Jordan as well, by facilitating its efforts to fight radicalism and stem the flight of Palestinians over its borders.
Visiting Washington this week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert described the Hamas conquest of Gaza as an opportunity for the Palestinians. This indeed may be the case, but not by resurrecting long-failed policies and imposing a state structure on a corrupt and incompetent Fatah. Doing so is tantamount to investing in the Titanic. Significant opportunities do, however, exist for policy makers -- American, Israeli, and Palestinian -- who are willing to consider new paradigms and incremental steps toward the realization of a durable peace.
Fr'instance, Fatah is the answer to "Who should FOAD?" and "Who are some of the whiniest losers in the ME?"
(Hamas is, too, for that matter.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2007 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The green flags of Hamas are furling over Gaza
That would be, "UN-furling", just one of several glaring mistakes this author makes.
In addition to its fiscal malfeasance and Islamic radicalism, Fatah has never fulfilled its pledges to crack down on terror. Though Mahmoud Abbas routinely criticizes Palestinian terrorist attacks as "contrary to the Palestinian national interest" -- not an affront to morality and international law -- he has never disavowed the al-Aqsa Brigades, a Fatah affiliate responsible for some of the bloodiest attacks against Israeli civilians.
Yet, the author feels compelled to argue that Fatah can be rehabilitated.
Significant opportunities do, however, exist for policy makers -- American, Israeli, and Palestinian -- who are willing to consider new paradigms and incremental steps toward the realization of a durable peace.
The above statement ignores the simple fact that Palestinian leadership absolutely refuses to abandon their duplicity in mouthing peaceful sentiments whilst subsidizing terrorism at every turn.
The only "new paradigms" worth considering are ones that involve the eliumination of all Palestinians who refuse to embrace peaceful coexistence with Israel. If that group numbers every single living Palestinian then they should all be dispatched at the earliest opportunity. It is long past tea for the curtain to be run down upon this "two state" farce. Gaza stands as stark testimony to what sort of "state" the Palestinians would elect to establish.
Unabashed, unrepentant terrorist Hamas, still bent on destroying Israel, vs. corrupt, ineffectual ostensibly repentant terrorism-enabling Fatah, which allowed this state of affairs to develop. The Palestinians, having divided, were in the process of conquering themselves. Not surprisingly, utter murderousness trumped weaseling deception, and Hamas emerged the victor. But like everything else in the Middle East, its never that simple. Hamas victory almost immediately was revealed to be a disaster, Fatahs rout an opportunity.
That was not immediately apparent to some observers. There were fears expressed of a terrorist state emerging on Israels flank in Gaza, an inroad for Iran. Those who hold these fears must not have been paying attention. Israel has been surrounded by terrorist states for its entire modern existence, and the presence of Iran-backed terrorists in Gaza is nothing new. Hamas had suspended its suicide bombing campaign, but maintained a steady barrage of deadly rocket attacks, along with abductions, as much as Hamas figured it could get away with, while Iran was both providing support and egging Hamas on. Having already brought war and economic ruin on the Palestinians, any fig leaf of legitimacy the terrorist organization might have had from its election was blown away by merciless internecine slaughter.
Already isolated before its henchmen started tossing Fatah members off the roofs of Gaza, Hamas is now pleading for Arab neutrality. Egypt, already active against smugglers, is moving to contain Hamas. Israel has promised to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. But what Hamas did was turn Gaza into a free-fire zone for the Israeli Army. There is no reason whatsoever for Israeli restraint in crossing the border to excise the cancer, and no one who can credibly raise an outcry against Israel when it does.
Fatah, having lost, immediately won Israeli and western financial and political support. But the defeat that brought victory is a defeat that Fatah immediately had to address. Already seen as a tool of the west, Fatah has confirmed it, becoming completely and overtly beholden to western interests. To make up for that, Fatah is now promising to ship money into Gaza, and to pay civil servants regardless of their political affiliation. Fatah needs to buy broad Palestinian support, and doesnt mind humiliating Hamas with its newfound largesse.
. . . There is talk of concessions, a West Bank first initiative to reward Fatah, somewhat prematurely, before it has shown any maturity as a political entity itself. It is up to those who hold the pursestrings Israel and the west to quietly ensure that Fatah behaves responsibly. Palestinian peace and reconciliation may well be possible, if the criminal organization that is Hamas agrees to disarm, disband and disavow the destruction of Israel. Anything less will require a measured and reasonable response: the withholding of all cash, and the destruction of Hamas in Gaza by Israel.
The terrorist masters of Hamas, with their exuberant outburst of murder last week, have taken themselves hostage. This is no time to give in to terrorist demands. As weve learned, that only encourages them. If they will not release themselves, there is nothing we can do for them. If Hamas is bent on destroying itself, we shouldnt try to stop them. If Fatah wants to lead the Palestinians, it will need to show it is capable of doing so.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/20/2007 12:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
It's easy--we should supply whoever's getting the short end of the stick. Once they strike back and get the upper hand, we can turn around and support the new underdog. Rinse, repeat until there is only one guy left on each side. Then whack 'em both!
Posted by: Dar ||
06/20/2007 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Can't we root for a long term stalemate? I'm rooting for a bloody war of attrition.
#3
There is no reason whatsoever for Israeli restraint in crossing the border to excise the cancer, and no one who can credibly raise an outcry against Israel when it does.
Not that a lack of credibility ever stopped anyone from bitching about Israel . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/20/2007 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hamas on one side, Fatah on the other, and Israel in the middle.
#2
same dude got an op ed in the Wash Post (a day after Jimmy Carter urged recognition of Hamas).
-----------
Engage With Hamas
We Earned Our Support
By Ahmed Yousef
Wednesday, June 20, 2007; Page A19
GAZA CITY, Palestine -- The Palestinian National Authority apparently joins the list of elected governments targeted or toppled over the past century by interventionism: nations that had the courage to take American rhetoric at face value and elect whomever they would. No doubt some in Washington persist in the fiction that the United States is following a "road map" to democracy for Palestinians, just as others believe the Iraq war has been a sincere exercise in nation-building. Neoconservative strategists have miscalculated, however, and Hamas is stronger than ever.
For the first time in months, Gaza is secure. This may be a momentary peace as Israel prepares an attempt to retake parts of Gaza. Yet neither blunt force nor U.S. subterfuge will extinguish Palestinian aspirations for self-governance, free from outside interference.
#4
Time will tell, Ahmed (#2). In the mean time, I'm stocking up on popcorn.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/20/2007 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has now tried to replace the winning Hamas government with one of his own, returning Fatah to power while many of our elected members of Parliament languish in Israeli jails.
Sort of tells you something right there, doesn't it?
It tried to engage the international community to explain its platform for peace.
Killing all the Jews is just so peaceful, isn't it?
Our stated aim when we won the election was to effect reform, end corruption and bring economic prosperity to our people.
Along with chopping off heads, hands and clitties.
bring about the release of the British journalist Alan Johnston, whose kidnapping in March by non-Hamas members is a stain on the reputation of the Palestinian people.
Here's some news for you, the Palestinian people themselves are "a stain on the reputation of the Palestinian people".
We reject attempts to divide Palestine into two parts and to pass Hamas off as an extreme and dangerous force.
What part of "Terrorist Organization" do you not understand?
Who sets Hamas strategy? As the radical Palestinian movement braces itself for what could be a long struggle against its rival Fatah, if not a full-blown civil war, the question merits more than mere academic interest. Just days after Hamas staged its coup to achieve exclusive control of Gaza, it's now clear that the military operation launched against the positions of the Palestinian security forces in the strip was never discussed in the Islamist organization's Consultative Assembly (shura).
Well-placed sources close to Hamas tell me that, had the issue been brought up, a majority of shura members most likely would have opposed the coup de force, which has divided the Palestinians as never before. Many believe that even ousted Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, the man who headed the first Hamas-led Cabinet, is "less than enthusiastic" about the operation. "Only a few people knew about the scheme," says a member of the Palestinian National Assembly who, though close to Hamas, is an independent. "Many Hamas leaders knew that by seizing Gaza and expelling Fatah they would be burning all bridges."
Haniya appears to have placed his hopes on an impending mediation by Saudi Arabia to persuade Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah's leader, to put all security forces under a neutral command. The issue of Fatah's armed forces in Gaza did not come up in the secret talks that led to the Mecca accord a few weeks ago. Nevertheless, there was an implicit understanding that Fatah would transfer control of the bulk of its armed groups in Gaza to the so-called national-unity government formed under Saudi patronage.
Tehran, meanwhile, was concerned that a Hamas-Fatah deal would strengthen those in the Syrian leadership who dislike what they see as their country's increasing vassalization to Tehran. The same Syrian leadership elements recently opened an indirect dialogue with Israel and received some encouraging hints from Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert.
Syrian critics of the alliance with Tehran pointed to the Mecca deals as a model that might help repair ties with moderate Arab states, placate the United States and, eventually, even persuade Israel to give up the Golan Heights, which it won in the 1967 war. A Hamas defection followed by a Syrian change of policy would have left the Islamic Republic isolated and exposed.
Had the deals made in Mecca worked, Hamas would have geared its strategy to moderate Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan and, indirectly through them, to the Middle East policies of the U.S.-led Western powers. Until earlier this month, when the first Hamas guns fired in Gaza, it seemed that hopes of Tehran and Damascus to organize a new "Rejection Front" to oppose Israel and the United States had hit a bump on the road. What looked like a Hamas sell-out to the moderate Arab powers came as major disappointment to the Islamic republic in Iran and its Syrian allies and Lebanese Hezbollah clients.
Palestinian sources concur that the man who effectively vetoed the Mecca deals is Khalid Mishaal, Hamas' "Supreme Leader," who lives in exile in Damascus. Mishaal initially endorsed the Mecca deals but was persuaded to change his position under Iranian and Syrian pressure. During a visit to Tehran, where he was supposed to brief Hamas' Iranian allies on the Mecca deals, Mishaal heard point-blank that the Islamic Republic favored "an intensification of the struggle against the Zionist enemy" rather than an easing of tension that a coalition with Abbas implied.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has structured his foreign policy on the assumption that a military showdown with America and Israel is inevitable. He also thinks that, when and if it comes, the radical forces led by Tehran would be able to resist long enough and to raise the cost of the conflict in human terms to break the adversaries' will to fight.
For Ahmadinejad's policy to succeed, it is imperative that Lebanon and the Palestinian territories become advanced posts for the Islamic Republic. Despite occasional threats to unleash a hailstorm of missiles against Iran's Gulf-Arab neighbors, it is unlikely that the Tehran leadership would take the risk of killing large numbers of the very people it hopes to win over to its cause. The only U.S. regional ally that the Islamic Republic might attack without concern for who gets killed there is Israel. Tehran and Damascus believe that they can win the tug of war with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his governing coalition in Lebanon. In November, the Lebanese parliament, in which Siniora has a majority of five seats, is scheduled to meet to elect a new president of the republic to succeed the pro-Syrian incumbent Emil Lahoud.
It's enough to murder four more anti-Syrian parliamentarians for Siniora to lose his majority. In the meantime, the series of assassinations may well frighten some members of Siniora's coalition to switch sides and support ex-Gen. Michel Aoun, a Maronite Christian ally of Hezbollah and Syria's candidate for the Lebanese presidency.
In anticipation of winning control of Lebanon, the Islamic Republic has increased its shipments of money and arms to Hezbollah and its allies. Most analysts agree that the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah had replaced virtually all of its losses in last July's war against Israel. A Lebanese army bogged down in battles against Sunni radical groups controlled by Syria would lack the means to take on Hezbollah if the Shiite party decided to stage a coup in Beirut. And with Lebanon in turmoil to its north, the last thing that Israel would want is to be forced to intervene militarily to its south in Gaza.
The battle in Gaza was something more than a local struggle for power between rival Palestinian factions. It was dictated by strategic imperative that could affect the broader region as the Islamic Republic and the United States intensify their rivalry over who sets the agenda for the future of the Middle East.
#1
DRUDGEREPORT > de Borchgrave > Israel finds itself surrounded by three pro-Iran entities, two of which are also pro-AL QAEDA. Like Custer? or a Global PYWAR simulation???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
