| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Anchoress on the immigration bill |
| 2007-05-18 |
| Whatever your position on the merits of the bill, pay attention to the lady 'cause she's got some important points to make. Longtime readers know that I am no “hard-liner” on immigration. I lost lots of readers (and got “de-linked” by some bloggers) because I have never been able to hold with the “ship ‘em all back” idea that engages some conservatives. Probably thatÂ’s because deep down, IÂ’m still more of a “classical liberal” than a “conservative,” although those who identify themselves as “liberal” would strongly disagree. WhateverÂ…the truth is that “liberal” does not mean the same thing today that it meant when I was coming up. Anyway, I think this immigration bill is a start. I absolutely agree with Ed Morrissey when he writes: HereÂ’s the problem with the hard-liner arguments, which amounts to “theyÂ’ll never engage the border-security and workplace enforcement portions.” Well, that could be true of any immigration bill, even if it completely matched the conservative position on immigration. ItÂ’s an argument that only supports no action whatsoever on illegal immigration, including border controls. In fact, it applies to everything Congress passes. If thatÂ’s our concern, itÂ’s an argument for non-engagement in the legislative process — which necessarily works through making compromises that the majority in the end can support. I think it takes more wisdom than any of us have, to know what is absolutely “the best” solutionÂ…but we need to start somewhere. This is a start. And to be honest, IÂ’m much more concerned about the house passing a huge tax increase, a story thatÂ’s flying under the radar because the right Â’sphere is all about the immigration bill, today. Ronald Reagan used to say that you argued for what you could get, even if it was 60% of what you wantedÂ…then youÂ’d fight for the rest later. . . . The truth is, the hard-liners were never going to get what they wanted, and some steps finally need to be taken. One step would be revamping our choked INS, which doesnÂ’t really work, anymore. . . . I will remind some of the conservatives who insisted on an “all or nothing, our way or the highway” immigration bill, or that “doing nothing” would be preferable to not getting your way, well…”doing nothing” is NOT an option - it never was - and all your “sitting out” the election to “teach a lesson” to the GOP while waiting around for ideological purity has done is put you in a very difficult minority. “Lose in ‘06 to win in ‘08″ sounded a stinker of a plan back then. It has proved to be a stinker of a plan, I think. I have seen a lot of people, including many I greatly respect, proclaiming that they're so steamed that they're going to never vote for a Republican ever again, even Tom Tancredo; or they're gonna vote for the Libertarians or the Constitutionalists or the Pat Buchanan/Lou Dobbs ticket, or they'll never vote again, or some such. Please think carefully before you leap. If significant numbers of us sit out the next election, or vote for some fringe bozo who has not a snowball's chance of winning (*cough!* Buchanan *cough!*) as a protest vote, the 44th President of the United States will be someone named, oh, say, Hillary. Under President Hillary: 1. We'll retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan and hand the terrorists an unearned victory. 2. The SecDef will be someone with a name like "Murtha" who thinks only Americans commit war crimes, and only Americans are subject to the Geneva Conventions. 3. We'll dismantle our missile defense system as a gesture of goodwill toward North Korea. 4. Iran will get the bomb, and the civilized world will be out a few cities. 5. Your taxes will go up to pay for decontaminating the ruins. And in return for all that, you'll get an immigration policy that's probably just about on all fours with your worst nightmare. If immigration is your #1 or #2 issue, I do not think this is the result you want. Our adversaries on the Left have a strong sense of tactical discipline. Remember 1996? They were screaming white-hot furious at Bill Clinton for signing on to welfare reform--but they still stuck with him and got him re-elected. Why? Because however disappointed they were in Slick Willie, they knew that he was more likely to give them more of what they wanted than Bob Dole. They were willing to accept suboptimal results in the short term to keep their team in control for the long term. We need to show the same discipline. There's a war on, and al-Q needs the Left in power in order to win. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #12 Classic liberal equivocation liberhawk.... a criminal is a criminal, but I can change the focus if I talk about other criminals, somehow leveling the issue. They are here for the benefits you and I created and pay for. The jobs, the welfare, the hospitalization, schools, clean air, good stores, safety, etc. But they broke in to get it, and they are stealing it from the hands and mouths and lungs of our fellow citizens. lessening our treaure and national wealth, crowding our jails and hospitals and schools, taking our benefits. They are thieves! and they are criminals who are looting my childrens heritage and I'm damned if I'm going to stand for it. You shouldn't either. If it was your house and they were raiding your icebox uninvited, how hospitable would you feel? |
| Posted by: Stop the madness 2007-05-18 23:47 |
| #11 So if the law included a provision to calculate back income and SS taxes unpaid (presumably theyve paid sales, and indirectly, property taxes) and they had to pay that instead of the $5000 youd be cool. That, and healthcare costs, incarceration costs, costs related to death and injuries caused by illegals, costs incurred having to track adown and remand illegals, education costs... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-05-18 21:49 |
| #10 "Every Democrat in the Senate knows that this single act will make our county a one-party socialist state within a decade, overwhelmed by third world thieves who stole our nation, unoppossed by elected cowards who calculate when principle should have mattered." theyre just folks who come looking to work. Are they breaking the law to do it, sure. Would you break the law so your kid could eat? That doesnt say we have to legalize them, or support this bill. We dont if we think its bad policy. But it would be a mistake to think most of them are any more immoral personally than our own ancestors who came over legally. Some of whom (one of my grandparents included) broke the laws of the countries they were leaving by emigrating. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:15 |
| #9 "Well, now, people who broke the law, never paid taxes, can now just hand over $5,000 and they're scot-free. " So if the law included a provision to calculate back income and SS taxes unpaid (presumably theyve paid sales, and indirectly, property taxes) and they had to pay that instead of the $5000 youd be cool. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:09 |
| #8 The entire reason that the Senate has been able to write such a horrible piece of legislation, virtually destroying the United States as we know it if passed, is becasue of apologists who are convinced that something is better than nothing. The political calculus for Washington Republicans is simple, they win or lose elections by factors of 15% of the voters in their district. Party regulars will vote party ticket most of the time, and most states are not hugely gapped between Republicans and Democrats for states that voted in Republican Senators. (Democrats own some states like California in the Senate, and will for all time now given the demographics of immigration that have happened here.) So Republican Senators make support decisions based on that middle 15% that they need, taking for granted the base, confident that they can always use the apologist line to hold the base in. Well, this immigration thing should tear it.... This sells out the value of citizenship, national soverignty and national integrity. We are rewarding and acquiesing (for the 7th time) to people who invaded out country illegally for the expressed purpose of taking advantage of the blessings of our system that belong exclusively to citizens. We have been treating those rights and benefits with impunity, giving them away to whomever sneaks in, always terrified that racism will label us if we refuse to be robbed by some illgal who is here for the money. SO this immigration bill simply tears it for me. I won't lift a finger for one of these b*st*rds, they have sold out my heritage and my wallet for the votes they need in that 15% to keep their jobs. Criminal, dishonest, dis-honorable and worthy only of contempt. Every Democrat in the Senate knows that this single act will make our county a one-party socialist state within a decade, overwhelmed by third world thieves who stole our nation, unoppossed by elected cowards who calculate when principle should have mattered. |
| Posted by: Stop the Madness 2007-05-18 19:38 |
| #7 "Our adversaries on the Left have a strong sense of tactical discipline. Remember 1996?" You don't have to go back even that far. You don't even have to go back a month. After the VT shootings, there were a few screeches for gun control from some of the usual suspects. But overall, the DNC, as well as the bulk of the other forces on the left, showed remarkable discipline in not using the event to push for something they know alienates voters. I'm not saying that they don't want gun control or won't try and get as much of it as they can (up to and including a total ban) as soon as they think they are able, just that they've showed remarkable discipline both in the rank and file and at the leadership level in keeping their mouths shut. The Repubs could learn a lot from this sort of discipline, as they could from the discipline showed by the Dems in '96. I've mentioned this several times here on the 'burg over the past couple of months - having the best and most functional ideas is not enough to prevail. Conservatives have the correct ideas - history has shown us to be true. But simple faith in those ideas and a thin skin when one doesn't get everything he wants will not guarantee those ideas can prevail. Having a good spokesperson (think Reagan, NOT W) is also a requirement. We do not live in an era (due to our inability as a species to really get a grip on the role of mass media) where the strength of ideas by itself guarantees their successful implementation. But beyond that a mature, realistic sense of what can be accomplished is also necessary. Pursuit of ideological purity has been the undoing of the Repubs. It's easy to sit at your computer and type, "Well, since the spending in D.C. is more than I think optimum, I will sit this election out to 'teach them a lesson' or 'maybe being out of office will make the Repubs reform themselves'." It makes you feel oh-so-lofty and powerful, no doubt. But when you take this approach you ALWAYS hurt yourself more. Always. How proud you must be, now. All those who, in 2006, stayed home because the Repubs weren't "pure" enough in their conservatism to suit you, blame for this immigration bill falls as squarely on your shoulders as it does anywhere else. It never would have happened with R majorities in the House and Senate, despite the fact that some Repubs were for it. I doubt that any bill could have been passed that would have pleased the purists, no matter what, but now we have something really dreadful. And if the spending we've had until now bothers you, wait until the Clinton/Obama team take over in '08. Just remember, you engineered this - in your "lofty" quest to be "pure." |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-05-18 16:06 |
| #6 I've already been called cracker by OJ at his blog. Read Anchoress' comments. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2007-05-18 13:06 |
| #5 Whatever is written in the bill still needs to be enforced. I mean they can write in sub-paragraph 10 of sub-sub-section 29, buried on page 855 that there will be a 2-mile high fence made of adamantium stretching the entire distance of the Mexican border. Bills are cheap. History shows that enforcement is not. And I don't have much confidence in the ability of the government to do anything like what has been leaked so far. Oh, and a $5000 fine is likely going to piss off a lot of immigration attorneys who, I have a sneaking suspicion, charge a bit more than that to do things the right way. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-05-18 10:51 |
| #4 Here's one problem with the amnesty: how many of us have paid more than $5,000 in taxes over the course of our working lives? Well, now, people who broke the law, never paid taxes, can now just hand over $5,000 and they're scot-free. Where can I get myself declared an illegal and get my taxes refunded? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-05-18 05:28 |
| #3 Mike, you tremendously overstate the probable disposition or ability of a Dem admin to f**k up the GWOT. Sure, they'd do their worst, and their instincts are as unsuitable as they could be, but inertia, cowardice, and other things would limit the damage. (I take second place to no one in fearing or loathing the return of the likely suspects on the staff/appointee side, many of whom I worked with in the 80s before the Clinton years raised them up way beyond where they ever should have been) Besides, you and whose electorate or GOP admin. are gonna do jack-all in the GWOT anyway? Noticed the collapse of public will lately? The astonishing public cowardice and classlessness of even GOP politicos WRT Iraq? Seems like you're assuming the Bush admin. that existed for about two years after 9/11 will somehow re-emerge under any of the possible GOP heirs. Uh uh. That temporary appearance of common sense and resolve is long gone. This Anchoress doesn't understand classical liberal. That tendency reveres rule of law - it doesn't tear it up and cross its fingers. Even people like her are clearly vulnerable to the preposterous insecurity that being rational about illegal immigration will be interpreted as intolerance or xenophobia. Free clue: rule of law and immigration are as separate as the space program and farm price supports. They have no inherent linkages. You can be clear-headed enough to focus on rule of law and 1) favor 100 million new immigrants a month 2) oppose all immigration forever. Totally. Separate. Issues. Oh, and you can be as internationally oriented in your work, travel, food, languages, and female company as possible - and yet still, somehow, think rule of law is important. Imagine that. So the Anchoress should grow up and stop worrying that anything other than support for disastrous chaos on illegal immigration brands her as "racist" or "intolerant". As I noted above in a separate comment/rant, any familiarity with federal enforcement capacity and willpower renders this "good start" approach a farce of the lowest order. There's not the slightest chance that any of the enforcement provisions would be even partially implemented. I'm not talking probabilities - there is not the slightest chance, period. And this is well known to anyone with any contact with this issue or the relevant federal agencies. This is the equivalent of depending on enforcement by "UN peacekeeping forces" - ain't gonna happen, period. So your tactical political analysis is solid - but sadly, because of the underlying situation, it's mostly or entirely academic. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-05-18 03:16 |
| #2 Don't forget O'REILLY's "talking point" on the FAR LEFT + SP's, etc agenda in America > they and aligned want the USA to give up its sovereignty and be suborned to a governing coalition of world nations, a coalition or group which must include RUSSIA-CHINA in order to allegedly counter "arrogant" US policies, decisions, and influence, WHETHER BY DIPLOMACY, ECONOMICS, OR MILITARY FORCE. Lest we fergit: *"THE USA MUST OBEY THE UN/WORLD COMMUNITY" *"THE USA MUST BE CONSTRAINED", andor "CONTROLLED", andor "RESTRAINED". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-05-18 01:17 |
| #1 $2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for party priorities such as education and health care Yeah, instead of budgeting, this will go directly for all the illegal health care we've been paying out. This really needs to stop. Emergency medicaid has been paying for alot more than true emergency care. It's been covering antepartum care as an example for all the months of a pregnancy. Encouraging the anchor baby. Come to America we'll pay for your health care and for your baby for the next 18 years plus now that he's an American by birthright. While I have to pay out of state tuition for my kids to attend college in another state, the illegal will be able to pay in state tuition? Did I miss something? Where is this fair, who came up with this crap. Actually not many graduate from high school, another problem being that our country is having a higher percentage of undereducated folks. We don't need that many people to flip burgers. Although we don't have many other jobs here these days. Stop this insane flow of cash to illegals for all of the free handouts. There are folks that were born here and now are in their 20's and they still don't speak English and have no intention of learning, why do they have to, we pay for interpreters. They aren't here because they want to assimilate, they are waving their flags and having the Mexican anthem sung at local sports here in the Denver area. I have patients that have several names, on one form they only use one name, on another form they may use a hyphenated name with two surnames. When I ask which is correct they don't want to discuss it as this way they have two names to get double the services. I'm on the front lines so to speak seeing this first hand and it just kills me. This is so wrong on so many levels, my head is spinning. |
| Posted by: Jan 2007-05-18 01:10 |