[typoon]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070608/D8PKB0C00.html

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S. unlawfully failed a crucial test vote in the Senate Thursday, a stunning setback that could spell its defeat for the year.
The vote was 45-50 against limiting debate on the bill, 15 short of the 60 that the bill's supporters needed to prevail. Most Republicans voted to block Democrats' efforts to bring the bill to a final vote.
The legislation, which had been endorsed by President Bush, would tighten borders, institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers in addition to giving up to 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.
Conceived by an improbable coalition that nicknamed the deal a "grand bargain," the measure exposed deep rifts within both parties and is loathed by most GOP conservatives.
Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had made no secret of his distaste for parts of the bill, said earlier he would move on to other matters if the immigration measure's supporters didn't get 60 votes Thursday night.
The defeat set off a bitter round of partisan recriminations, with Democrats and Republicans each accusing the other of killing it.
Most Republicans voted against ending debate, saying they needed more time to make the bill tougher with tighter border security measures and a more arduous legalization process for unlawful immigrants.
All but a handful of Democrats supported the move, but they, too, were holding their noses at provisions of the bill. Many of them argued it makes second-class citizens of a new crop of temporary workers and rips apart families by prioritizing employability over blood ties in future immigration.
Still, they had argued that the measure, on balance, was worth advancing.
"We can all find different aspects of this legislation that we differ with," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the leading Democratic architect of the bill.
Reid, who had made no secret of his distaste for parts of the bill, quickly pulled it from the floor and moved on to other business, costing the measure perhaps its best chance at enactment.
He insisted that the immigration bill is not dead for the year. "I, even though disappointed, look forward to passing this bill," Reid said.

This is a great temporary victory. Hopefully this bill will never pass. Illegal aliens are ruining America. I do think our immigration policy does need to be reformed but not in the way congress is proposing.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Illegal aliens are ruining America.

That's what the Natives said.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

That's what the Natives said.

And the Poles. The French just shrugged.

[Atheist]

So let's see, my partner and I left the U.S. since he couldn't extend his visa and our first inclination was to abide by the law. Now it seems if he had just stayed in the country illegally, he could have gotten amnesty. Yeah... let's reward the lawbreakers and punish those that respect the law. I love America... I think.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

That's what the Natives said.

... and our corporate interests have been getting drunk on low-wages in exchange for corn harvesting. Funny how some things never change.

The new bill does not focus on tightening the border. This would have a lot more support if it looked even remotely seriously, at the border. I don't see too many ways out of the fact that there are millions of illegals in our country right now. While amnesty is a bad word, there's simply no way this country has the resources to embrace some "ship 'em back" policy. It is not realistic to expect this. We may as well bring them into to the tax fold, seal the border tight, and absolutely hammer the corporations that employ illegal help. The US can absorb the current number of illegals, what we can't do is absorb another 2 million this year, 2 million next year, 2 million the year after that, another 2 million the year after that... at some point enough is enough.

The more complex they make this, the less people are able to stand behind it. Just another dog and pony show.

[RAILhead]

Here's to hoping it dies quickly!

[Dakarʒ]

You had me until "illegal aliens are ruining America"

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

You had me until "illegal aliens are ruining America"

That's why in countries like France of all places and other European countries they are working on kicking out the illegals and tightening their borders. Because they are finally understanding the problem. But here in the US we are doing the reverse.

[Dakarʒ]

Mexicans = Muslims?

[BlueSky]

You had me at "illegal aliens are ruining America".

[BRussell]

So, those of you who were against this because it provides "amnesty," how does this bill dying solve anything? It seems to me that we have de facto amnesty right now. To oppose this bill on those grounds, without proposing anything realistic (deporting/imprisoning/nuking all of them doesn't count), tells me that you want them to remain here illegally in the millions. You want the problem that you complain about to remain.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So, those of you who were against this because it provides "amnesty," how does this bill dying solve anything? It seems to me that we have de facto amnesty right now. To oppose this bill on those grounds, without proposing anything realistic (deporting/imprisoning/nuking all of them doesn't count), tells me that you want them to remain here illegally in the millions. You want the problem that you complain about to remain.

Agreed. Also, I dont see how paying thousands of dollars in penalties and having to wait 5+ years to possibly gain legal status could be called amnesty.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So, those of you who were against this because it provides "amnesty," how does this bill dying solve anything? It seems to me that we have de facto amnesty right now. To oppose this bill on those grounds, without proposing anything realistic (deporting/imprisoning/nuking all of them doesn't count), tells me that you want them to remain here illegally in the millions. You want the problem that you complain about to remain.

I see you've got the talking points down.

No one on the side of enforcing the law suggest rounding up 20-30 million people- that's always been an invention of Ted Kennedy types.



We want the laws that are already on the books enforced. We want employers who hire illegals punished for doing so. We want our immigration and labor laws upheld like every other law we expect business and citizens to abide by. We don't want new laws that reward one group for breaking the law, and invite the next 20 to 30 million more illegals in to do the same thing.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I see you've got the talking points down.

No one on the side of enforcing the law suggest rounding up 20-30 million people- that's always been an invention of Ted Kennedy types.

We want the laws that are already on the books enforced. We want employers who hire illegals punished for doing so. We want our immigration and labor laws upheld like every other law we expect business and citizens to abide by. We don't want new laws that reward one group for breaking the law, and invite the next 20 to 30 million more illegals in to do the same thing.

It's funny that you call what I said "talking points" because I haven't heard any politician state what I said: That those who oppose "amnesty" want the US to continue to have millions of illegal immigrants.

Here's the problem: You don't want them deported. OK. You don't want them to become citizens. OK. What other conclusion can be drawn other than that you want them to remain here illegally? The goal of this terrible "amnesty" (there's a real talking point...) is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. To oppose this "amnesty," which, as theWOAT points out is not amnesty at all, is to keep the millions of illegal immigrants here.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Here's the problem: You don't want them deported. OK. You don't want them to become citizens. OK. What other conclusion can be drawn other than that you want them to remain here illegally? The goal of this terrible "amnesty" (there's a real talking point...) is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. To oppose this "amnesty," which, as theWOAT points out is not amnesty at all, is to keep the millions of illegal immigrants here.

First demand that they register themselves. We need to know who's in this country. Those that register and are law abiding citizens (with the exception of their initial law breaking of coming here) can stay with work permits, but not granted citizenship. Thay also cannot get unemployment, medicaid, etc. Citizens do not pay taxes to support illegal immigrants.
Second, those that are NOT law abinding get deported. Those that choose not to register get deported. This will keep the majority and get rid of the law-breakers.
Third (should have been first), build the darn wall and keep them out.

Edit: I think what most people are against is [blanket] amnesty. There also is confusion (in the American public) between being legal and being a citizen.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

We want the laws that are already on the books enforced. We want employers who hire illegals punished for doing so. We want our immigration and labor laws upheld like every other law we expect business and citizens to abide by. We don't want new laws that reward one group for breaking the law, and invite the next 20 to 30 million more illegals in to do the same thing.

Basically, "you don't want to do what’s right for America."

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

First demand that they register themselves. We need to know who's in this country. Those that register and are law abiding citizens (with the exception of their initial law breaking of coming here) can stay with work permits, but not granted citizenship. Thay also cannot get unemployment, medicaid, etc. Citizens do not pay taxes to support illegal immigrants.
Second, those that are NOT law abinding get deported. Those that choose not to register get deported. This will keep the majority and get rid of the law-breakers.
Third (should have been first), build the darn wall and keep them out.

Edit: I think what most people are against is [blanket] amnesty. There also is confusion (in the American public) between being legal and being a citizen.

What happens to them if they register? If they're allowed to stay in the US, it's called "amnesty." That's the catch-22 here: Register them in some way and you're accused of supporting "amnesty." Don't, and you keep millions of people here illegally.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

What happens to them if they register? If they're allowed to stay in the US, it's called "amnesty." That's the catch-22 here: Register them in some way and you're accused of supporting "amnesty." Don't, and you keep millions of people here illegally.

BRussell,

What I'm against is the blanket amnesty and no enforcement of our law. Anyone with a brain should realize that (1) the logistics of rounding up every illegal immigrant is impossible and (2) if it was possible and we did it, there are significant economic downsides in some areas. I compare it to a leaking ship. Fix the hole first (the border) then worry about the water. But only bail out the bad water...okay I guess that's where the analogy fails.

[peeb]

Immigration in general is a benefit to the USA. Every successive wave of immigration has tried to close the door to more. It's deeply ironic.

[ebuddy]

The benefit of illegal Immigration has been grossly overestimated in the USA. Every successive wave of illegal immigration has ushered in more illegal immigration statistically. It's deeply concerning.

A bill which does not substantially secure the border is not a bill at all. The American people want border security. We can absorb the current population of illegal immigrants, but we cannot continue to support the current influx of them. This bill is nothing, but a dog and pony show and a feeble attempt by this President at a domestic legacy.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Legal immigration in general is a benefit to the USA.

Fixed

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It's funny that you call what I said "talking points" because I haven't heard any politician state what I said: That those who oppose "amnesty" want the US to continue to have millions of illegal immigrants.

I don't buy for a second that you haven't heard that line of B.S. elsewhere, because it's straight out of the Ted Kennedy playbook, and makes no sense in light of the actual debate. It's just a silly talking point, and you know it.

Here's the problem: You don't want them deported.

Actually, that's an oversimplification as well. When people are caught, committing fraud like stealing other people's ID's and working using other people's social security numbers, yes, I DO want those people deported. When illegals commit crimes, yes, I do want those people deported. When it's possible to deport people here illegally who not only display a complete lack of respect for our laws, but openly violate them, they should be candidates for deportation. When the next wave is caught at the border, there should be more enforcement in place to turn them away as well.

The myth that this country "benefits" from importing the 3rd world, from obliterating the native populations of our own inner cities with millions and millions of the poorest people from other countries, so that they all can have 30% and greater unemployment rates, all so cheating businesses can keep exploiting more people for more fun and profit, is just that- a myth.

It's not a benefit, it's a degradation of our country, paid for the most by the poorest of our citizens, those whose neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, social services, jobs. etc. are being overrun. I knew all along that liberals least of all *really* give a good crap about the poor when they aren't pulling a lever for a Democrat, but this debate has proved it beyond a shadow.

OK. You don't want them to become citizens.

Why the hell does someone who's cut in line ahead of everyone else who's played by the rules to become a US citizen deserve to be automagically granted citizenship? Of course I don't want to reward those people with citizenship, nor do I want to send that insane signal to 30+ million more people to sneak across so they can expect the same thing. That's pure insanity.

What other conclusion can be drawn other than that you want them to remain here illegally?

If you knew what the debate was actually about, you'd know what a silly talking point question that is. If major employers aren't allowed free reign to break our immigration, wage, and labor laws, then there would be no demand for many of the illegals to remain here. of course we won't ever stop ALL illegal aliens from being in the country- that's unrealistic, but what we can stop is an absolute flood of them coming in because idiots like Ted Kennedy want to hand over amnesty and "citizenship" to them.

The goal of this terrible "amnesty" (there's a real talking point...) is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.

That's like saying you reduce the "number of burglaries" by just making it legal to break into people's homes and steal whatever you want. Hey, you've reduced the number of burglaries alright! Because that mass wave of breaking and entering is no longer a crime called burglary- it's now just another legal activity.PROBLEM SOLVED!

Simply brilliant! Problem with people doing things illegally? Just make it LEGAL.

Wow, such a bunch of "thinkers" we're dealing with on the "pro-illegal" side.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't buy for a second that you haven't heard that line of B.S. elsewhere, because it's straight out of the Ted Kennedy playbook, and makes no sense in light of the actual debate. It's just a silly talking point, and you know it.

I'm sure that you slavishly follow Republican politicians, but I've never read a single thing Ted Kennedy has said about immigration, ever. I've mostly seen Republicans like Bush and McCain talk about this issue, and I've never heard them say that opposition to "amnesty" is support for the de facto amnesty that we have now. Perhaps it is in "the playbook," but I've never heard it before.

Actually, that's an oversimplification as well. When people are caught, committing fraud like stealing other people's ID's and working using other people's social security numbers, yes, I DO want those people deported. When illegals commit crimes, yes, I do want those people deported. When it's possible to deport people here illegally who not only display a complete lack of respect for our laws, but openly violate them, they should be candidates for deportation. When the next wave is caught at the border, there should be more enforcement in place to turn them away as well.

The myth that this country "benefits" from importing the 3rd world, from obliterating the native populations of our own inner cities with millions and millions of the poorest people from other countries, so that they all can have 30% and greater unemployment rates, all so cheating businesses can keep exploiting more people for more fun and profit, is just that- a myth.

It's not a benefit, it's a degradation of our country, paid for the most by the poorest of our citizens, those whose neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, social services, jobs. etc. are being overrun. I knew all along that liberals least of all *really* give a good crap about the poor when they aren't pulling a lever for a Democrat, but this debate has proved it beyond a shadow.

Why the hell does someone who's cut in line ahead of everyone else who's played by the rules to become a US citizen deserve to be automagically granted citizenship? Of course I don't want to reward those people with citizenship, nor do I want to send that insane signal to 30+ million more people to sneak across so they can expect the same thing. That's pure insanity.

If you knew what the debate was actually about, you'd know what a silly talking point question that is. If major employers aren't allowed free reign to break our immigration, wage, and labor laws, then there would be no demand for many of the illegals to remain here. of course we won't ever stop ALL illegal aliens from being in the country- that's unrealistic, but what we can stop is an absolute flood of them coming in because idiots like Ted Kennedy want to hand over amnesty and "citizenship" to them.



That's like saying you reduce the "number of burglaries" by just making it legal to break into people's homes and steal whatever you want. Hey, you've reduced the number of burglaries alright! Because that mass wave of breaking and entering is no longer a crime called burglary- it's now just another legal activity.PROBLEM SOLVED!

Simply brilliant! Problem with people doing things illegally? Just make it LEGAL.

Wow, such a bunch of "thinkers" we're dealing with on the "pro-illegal" side.

Two points:

1) There actually is something to be said for solving a problem by making an illegal activity legal. Unenforceable laws are bad laws. If there's widespread disregard of a law - say, illegal alcohol, or drug laws, prostitution, etc. - one solution is to simply get rid of the law.

2) But again, that's not what has been proposed. What has been proposed is that there be fines, a wait that's longer than there would be if they came to the US from outside the country, and deportation or imprisonment if they were involved in criminal activities while here.

And you still haven't provided any solution to the basic problem. You and your fellow crusaders can fret all you want about changing the white, Christian male power structure, and about how American will become a third-world country, but in the end, after you've increased global warming with your hot air and driven every ethnic minority group against you with such rhetoric, we'll still be a country with millions of illegal immigrants.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm sure that you slavishly follow Republican politicians, but I've never read a single thing Ted Kennedy has said about immigration, ever.

I don't think you've read a single thing about the entire issue, which is why you know so little about it, and regurgitate tired talking points.You've heard sound-bites, and no doubt parroted far-left insanity blogs.

1) There actually is something to be said for solving a problem by making an illegal activity legal. Unenforceable laws are bad laws. If there's widespread disregard of a law - say, illegal alcohol, or drug laws, prostitution, etc. - one solution is to simply get rid of the law.

Well, there you have it. Everyone just throw up their hands, pretend there's no such thing as a border, no such thing as immigration, labor or wage laws, and just let cheaters have their way. Such a brilliant "solution". Only in the mind of the incredibly lazy and complacent are a nation's immigration and labor laws deemed "unenforceable".

You've simply bought into a lot of nonsense that paints it as such, and are willing to sell out to the special interests (namely businesses that cheat by using illegal labor, and the politicians in their pocket) that have sold you a bill of goods.

But again, that's not what has been proposed. What has been proposed is that there be fines,

Actually, that right there shows you don't know what you're talking about, since most of the "fines" have been removed from the bill, and talk about "unenforceable."

The bill rewards millions of illegals with legal status instantly, which is all most care about. What puny "fines" remain, are only for anyone who would seek a path to citizenship- millions simply won't bother, and have no incentive to bother, to say nothing of the fact that fraud in actually saying who's been here long enough to "qualify" and who just snuck across last night will be rampant and completely unenforceable.

The whole thing is a recipe to turn the US into the third world- which we all know people like you SALIVATE at the idea of, so you can bitch about how terrible America is, then turn around and preach to us all how much better Europe or wherever is.

But hey, I do look forward to seeing another of your rants about low wages, business breaking laws as they see fit, gaps between rich and poor, mass unemployment, third world working conditions, etc.. after your ilk is sitting there constructing unprecedented new LOWS for all of it.

deportation or imprisonment if they were involved in criminal activities while here.

Riiight- so we need an amnesty bill to do what we should be doing RIGHT NOW, under our current laws! Suuuure.

If the govt. isn't deporting and imprisoning people involved in criminal activities RIGHT NOW (it should open your eyes that you even have to state such and obvious thing as some sort of "selling point") then what the hell makes you think that will change because you magically pass YET ANOTHER law that can also be equally ignored as the cheaters see fit?

And you still haven't provided any solution to the basic problem. You and your fellow crusaders can fret all you want about changing blather blather...

Yes of course, enforcing laws aren't solutions to the problem, ignoring the laws as lawbreakers see fit, and declaring the illegal to be legal is. Riiight.

And just as I always pointed out, when your side starts trotting out all your "It's racism!" bullcrap, it's the exact point when you're signaling you simply have nothing to debate. You ALWAYS fall back on that, and it just proves the point that you have no real argument.

It's just so predictable that this is all just some big "chance to get back at whitey" racial issue for you, when it's not for everyone else. Yet you just can't ever help yourself from revealing your hand, and your purely racial and class envy-based motivations.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So, those of you who were against this because it provides "amnesty," how does this bill dying solve anything? It seems to me that we have de facto amnesty right now. To oppose this bill on those grounds, without proposing anything realistic (deporting/imprisoning/nuking all of them doesn't count), tells me that you want them to remain here illegally in the millions. You want the problem that you complain about to remain.

It happens that the majority of illegals are caught now when they break laws, sexbudy-beating, robbing liquor stores, mugging etc.. Why can't we just leave it the way it is but get rid of the flaming hoops of bureaucracy one has to go through to deport them, then build a wall.

I'd rather keep them here illegally because then they have a chance of being deported when their true criminal personality shines through.

and maybe we should get rid of 'illegal rights'...

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Parkland Memorial Hospital
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Bank of America Credit Cards for Illegals

[BRussell]

As usual CRASH, most of your spittle-flecked ranting can be ignored.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The bill rewards millions of illegals with legal status instantly, which is all most care about.

Yup, legal instantly. Not citizens, but not illegal either. But once again we're left with my basic premise: You want millions of them to remain here illegally, with all of the negative consequences that you complain will happen if reform is passed. It's happening now, and it's worse if it remains under the table. You simply can't address that, because you know it's the fundamental irrationality of your position.

It's just so predictable that this is all just some big "chance to get back at whitey" racial issue for you, when it's not for everyone else. Yet you just can't ever help yourself from revealing your hand, and your purely racial and class envy-based motivations.

I quoted two of the leading conservative crusaders speaking about this issue, Tom Tancredo and Bill O'Reilly. I'd say it's them revealing their hands. We all know that's what it's really about, and it's what a significant portion of conservatism is all about more generally: It's putting a nice wrapper on the nastiest of human impulses.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Fixed

No, GreenG4, immigration is good for America. Not just 'legal' immigration.

[Atheist]

It's easy to be so magnanimous about amnesty when you aren't directly affected by it. But granting amnesty is so freaking unfair to those who have struggled for years to get into the U.S. legally. It sets an awful precedent and will only lead to even more people entering the country illegally. Let the lawbreakers remain with an illegal status. Let them worry each day that they will be caught and deported. Make them suffer. They must not be rewarded for their actions. They are despicable people. Can you tell I'm bitter? You people preaching amnesty sicken me. I'm suffering every frickin' day in a miserable third-world country because of our f**ked up immigration laws and you want to let these people with no respect for the law enjoy all the opportunities and freedoms that the U.S. has to offer. It's just insane... I can't think of any other way to describe it.

[peeb]

Well, I feel for you - US immigration laws suck. But making others suffer will not help your case - we must fix it for everyone.

[greenG4]

Pretty much all of this debate is useless. We need to get the federal government to build that wall the promised. Otherwise, nothing else really matters or will change--no matter how much legislation you pass.

Edit: And really enforce laws against employers hiring illegals.

[peeb]

LOL! A Big Wall! Have you ever seen the border? The problem is the same one that led to the collapse of prohibition. To get compliance you need good laws. Strong enforcement of stupid laws never works.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

LOL! A Big Wall! Have you ever seen the border? The problem is the same one that led to the collapse of prohibition. To get compliance you need good laws. Strong enforcement of stupid laws never works.

Yeah, I heard they built one in China once. Worked for them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

As usual CRASH, most of your spittle-flecked ranting can be ignored. Yup, legal instantly. Not citizens, but not illegal either. But once again we're left with my basic premise: You want millions of them to remain here illegally, with all of the negative consequences that you complain will happen if reform is passed. It's happening now, and it's worse if it remains under the table. You simply can't address that, because you know it's the fundamental irrationality of your position.

I'll let you and Crash sort out your differences, but there are a couple of points I want to make. The problem with this bill very simply is that it does not address the border. There are two realities here; 1) We have a lot of illegal residents currently leading a "shadow existence" in our country and... 2) We have a porous border. While "amnesty" has become little more than an inflammatory word, I've not seen convincing arguments on how to address the current population of illegal residents. I'm not wholesale opposed to loosening restrictions on the illegal residents currently here because I think our economy can absorb this number. At least this way we can attempt to bring them into the tax fold. The real problem I have with this bill is that it does not address the border at all. This is a concern shared by most of us by the way. I have no problem with the "color of someone's skin" or their ethnicity. I'm fine (as are most) with absorbing the current population of illegal residents while ensuring the actual problem is corrected. If this bill passes, it will give our leadership a smug sense of security that it has actually addressed this issue when it has not. It will be another 10 years before we seriously look at this again because neither side wants to touch it and another 2 million crossing the border illegally each year. Unskilled labor is at 30% unemployment. Contrary to popular belief, we do not need more unskilled labor, but this is the lions-share of those crossing our borders illegally. This is a problem. A bill that legalizes illegal residents yet does nothing to secure the border not only fails to solve the problem, but is not a bill at all. I'm not opposed to action on this issue. I'm opposed to inaction disguised as action being nothing more than a dog and pony show. This President gets some sense of domestic legacy, both parties enjoy their new base of votes and constituency, corporations can continue exploiting inexpensive, illegal labor and the American people are ignored yet again. Enough is enough. I for one am in favor of forcing them back to the table to actually solve the problem.

I quoted two of the leading conservative crusaders speaking about this issue, Tom Tancredo and Bill O'Reilly. I'd say it's them revealing their hands.

This is where I don't follow you. Bill O'Reilly was addressing commentary made by Charles Barron, a former Black Panther, including "the browning of America" which poses a threat to the [my words] "white establishment". He makes this statement in context of welcoming illegal immigration. Barron's points are patently clear yet you seize on O'Reilly's alleged nuance? Bill O'Reilly did not say this was a pervasive argument among those who advocate immigration, rather simply acknowledged the mentality exists. Is it possible that Tancredo views the immigration problem (as do most) as a threat to the the state of our country in numerous ways? He referred to his argument using an emotional appeal of "third world", but this is what politicians do. Get the tag lines. What other evidences are there that Tancredo is racist, the fact that there's an (R) after his name?

We all know that's what it's really about...

Yeah, intellectual laziness. It is much easier to simply pass someone off as racist, defeating the actual weight of the term in its overuse while ignoring the facts surrounding the particular issue.

... and it's what a significant portion of conservatism is all about more generally: It's putting a nice wrapper on the nastiest of human impulses.

This is patent BS. The notion that liberals somehow hold the monopoly on policies of racial integrity simply has no basis in fact. View any polling data you wish as well as any voting behaviors among the parties and you'll find white liberals less likely to vote for a black representative than Conservative whites. Fact. Both parties are capable of producing wolves in sheep's clothing, but you've been duped by the party line with these simpleton talking points. BTW; a party line increasing numbers of minorities are dumping every year.

I'm starting to think you're nothing more than a Moveon.org seed with these baseless "hit and runs".

[BRussell]

ebuddy, this bill would have significantly increased border enforcement. The problem critics had with this bill was "amnesty," as crash's and others' posts indicate, not lack of border enforcement. They want only border enforcement and nothing done about those currently here illegally.

On the real motivations behind many conservatives' views on this issue: Deny if you want, but don't think people aren't listening to the talk radio, to the rhetoric about the "third world," to Fox News telling white people they need to have more babies, etc. etc. They are listening, and it's going to have an effect.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Yeah, I heard they built one in China once. Worked for them.

Well, I realize that you're joking, but it reinforces the point, that the wall didn't work for them. Impossible laws with strong enforcement lead to damaging and unhelpful outcomes. It's like prohibition all over again.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

As usual CRASH, most of your spittle-flecked ranting can be ignored. Yup, legal instantly. Not citizens, but not illegal either.

In other words, your side is lying when you try and float that this isn't amnesty. That's exactly what it is. The current group of people don't deserve amnesty for having cut in line ahead of legal immigrants who come to this country through the proper channels, and worse, you've got NO ANSWER to dealing with the NEXT 20-30 million that will be encouraged to come seeking the same free ride you're stumping to hand out now.

In fact, we know what your answer will be- amnesty for them too. Then the next thing we know, you'll be whining that "Boo hoo! It's unfair and racist that millions of people are now "legal", but gee whiz, they can't vote or collect social security or welfare. Meanwhile, the more you reward the last crop of newly 'legal' illegals, the more you'll start crowing for the need for more fresh illegals- after all, whose going to do all those jobs that even newly legal Amercians won't do? As the pro-illegal side ALWAYS makes clear, you NEED your permanent underclass, and at the heart of it, this is what this bill is really all about setting in motion.

But once again we're left with my basic premise: You want millions of them to remain here illegally, with all of the negative consequences that you complain will happen if reform is passed.

Again, your little talking points, parroting MoveON type morons, and sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala!" whenever anyone of the opposing viewpoint explains their actual position.

The millions that are already here, are here because they know we don't enforce our laws, and that they can count on people like you to feel obligated to give them things like amnesty bills. If we would enforce our own laws, make it punitive for businesses to hire illegals, and enforce our own borders, THEN, and only then, could we have a constructive discussion about what to do about the illegals already here- which wouldn't be a constantly growing number because the other factors are in place. But we can't get to that point, with people like you stumping to toss out our immigration laws out to serve your own need to maintain an underclass.

The fines and so-called border measures are all a pack of bunk. You were one that probably bought into the "build the wall" measure the last time around. Oh wait, the same idiots that came up with that, and then dropped it, you now claim will secure the borders IF ONLY they pass yet another silly bill. And everyone just ignore the fact that if any of these twits were actually serious about protecting the border, they could do so RIGHT NOW, under our existing laws, without any stupid amnesty bill.

I quoted two of the leading conservative crusaders speaking about this issue, Tom Tancredo and Bill O'Reilly

First of all, you haven't paid attention to what any conservative has actually said on the matter, and only reveal your agenda by trying to find examples that merely fit into your own racially motivated view of the subject. If you'd actually pay attention, some of the most vocal opponents of the bill, are themselves immigrants to this country, or have family that are immigrants that came the legal way.

You also might be surprised to learn that MANY of the people that will be the ones to find their neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, police departments, social services, housing markets, etc. etc. overwhelmed by an influx of 20 million+ more illegal aliens, aren't all that thrilled by arrogant, agenda-driven political hacks selling out their livelihoods in order to accommodate your new underclass, either. (Oh wait, that's right, you imagined that a massive influx of illegals would move to lilly-white suburbs, not far more likely overrun inner cities and working class neighborhoods as has happened already.)

And yes, when you advocate for bringing the third world across the border, you do indeed end up turning much of the country into the third world. I know that P.C. stupidity keeps you from admitting the obvious, and just kneejerking and yelling racism when you can't deal with facts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I'm suffering every frickin' day in a miserable third-world country

You're in Britain?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy, this bill would have significantly increased border enforcement.

How many per mile? I'm not sure "significant" is the most accurate word here.

The problem critics had with this bill was "amnesty," as crash's and others' posts indicate, not lack of border enforcement. They want only border enforcement and nothing done about those currently here illegally.

I don't think you're reading the points clearly here. People are saying "border first, current illegal residents second." When the problem becomes the illegal residents currently here and the solution is simply legalizing them; we've not solved anything. The problem is a porous border. Amnesty has been a tag line used by politicians to work people up, but it works because it's a valid concern. IMO, the painful fact of the matter is that you can't deport someone you can't identify. That said, we've dedicated woefully little in resources to identify and address illegal residents throughout the agricultural and meat packing industries particularly. Many corporations enjoy a massive lobby for cheap labor and the only one not being listened to is the American public. I'm not comfortable giving this President the false and smug sense of security in thinking he's actually addressed the problem when he has not. Both Congress and the President realize if they are unable to come up with a policy on immigration (even if complete dog and pony show), the American public's approval of both will absolutely fall through the floor. The American people have them on the ropes and we need to continue holding them accountable until we have a real bill.

On the real motivations behind many conservatives' views on this issue: Deny if you want, but don't think people aren't listening to the talk radio

I listen to talk radio. In a week I may catch any one of three or four different radio shows. You? Which ones?

to the rhetoric about the "third world,"...

You know what I hear most on these radio shows? Complaints about how people frame this debate. Complaints on how when people have no logical basis to argue a point-they immediately resort to indictments of racism and how they like to use little rants that offer absolutely nothing of substance. With all due respect, rants like this last paragraph of yours. As long as you continue to focus on what you feel the real motivations are behind "many Conservatives views", you'll never be able to address an actual issue. Every thought you have and every decision you make will be contingent upon what you think "conservative views" might be. Look at the issue for what it is and make up your own mind. Don't wait for a conservative to take a position, then take the opposite. I'm urging everyone to stop thinking in terms of what you oppose, start thinking in terms of what you support. As long as we buy into this left/right hype, we'll never discern right from wrong. The only loser in this setup is the American people.

to Fox News telling white people they need to have more babies, etc. etc. They are listening, and it's going to have an effect.

BRussell, do you watch Fox News? No? How on earth would you know? Are you really trying to tell me that you're getting your news about Fox News from a competing news outlet or media? Can you see the obvious conflict in this? I've not once heard, not even in a subtle way nor have I ever come away with any conviction or notion or ideal at all to have more babies as a white person. Not once. This is preposterous. Though I am seeing far too much of Paris Hilton.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're in Britain?

Louisiana.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're in Britain?

I'm in the Caribbean (yes it sounds nice... but that's if you're staying in a resort for a week or two)... and anyone that is currently or has ever lived in a developing country can tell you it's not a pleasant thing. At least for those of us that are originally from the "First World". I don't take my plight lightly and am doing everything humanly possible to get out of here. The world is not a nice place for bi-national gay couples.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

The world is not a nice place for bi-national gay couples.

Ain't that the truth - another reason we need gay marriage asap.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I'm in the Caribbean (yes it sounds nice... but that's if you're staying in a resort for a week or two)... and anyone that is currently or has ever lived in a developing country can tell you it's not a pleasant thing. At least for those of us that are originally from the "First World". I don't take my plight lightly and am doing everything humanly possible to get out of here. The world is not a nice place for bi-national gay couples.

That sucks.

But look before you leap - the majority of the first world is going to become not a nice place before so very much longer.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That sucks.

But look before you leap - the majority of the first world is going to become not a nice place before so very much longer.

Isn't Bush going to be out of power in 18 months?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Isn't Bush going to be out of power in 18 months?

What's that got to do with owt?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What's that got to do with owt?

"But look before you leap - the majority of the first world is going to become not a nice place before so very much longer."

[Doofy]

Nope. Still not seeing the correlation.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nope. Still not seeing the correlation.

Wow. Not sure how to explain it any clearer - have you been asleep the last 6 years?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Wow. Not sure how to explain it any clearer - have you been asleep the last 6 years?

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those "when Bush is gone the cure for Cancer will miraculously appear" people.

[peeb]

No, when Bush is gone one of the major cancers of democracy and global peace will be gone.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, when Bush is gone one of the major cancers of democracy and global peace will be gone.

All the lefties are going to kill themselves when Bush goes? That's a bit of a strong reaction but hey, don't let me stand in their way. Whatever floats your boat.