One Argument, 12 Million Holes

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The big fat immigration bill that died last year in Congress was, for all its flaws, an anchor that kept debate tethered firmly to reality. Like it or not, it contained specific remedies for the border and the workplace. It had a plan for clearing backlogs in legal immigration and managing its future flow. Perhaps most critical, it dealt with the 12 million illegal immigrants already here, through a tough path to earned citizenship.

Unmoored from a comprehensive federal bill, the debate was pushed into the states and is now floating in the La-La Land of the presidential campaign. The Republicans have been battling over the sincerity of their sound bites and trying to make their fixation on one dimension of the problem — tough border and workplace enforcement — sound like the solution.

But it isn’t, of course, because it ignores the fundamental question of what to do about the undocumented 12 million. A locked-down border won’t affect them. There is no way to round them up and move them out all at once. Not even the most eagerly anti-immigration candidate would dare talk about detention camps. Amnesty is a Republican curse word. So what’s the plan?

This is the cavernous hole in anti-immigration policy that its proponents want to cover with chain link and razor wire. It’s where swaggering Republicans get vague and mushy. The emptiness of their position was acutely exposed in the Jan. 5 debate, when Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, ripped into Senator John McCain of Arizona for sponsoring an “amnesty” bill that did not call for the mass expulsion of 12 million people.

MR. McCAIN: There is no special right associated with my plan. I said they should not be in any way rewarded for illegal behavior.

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: They have to get in line —

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: — behind everybody else.

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: Some of them are, some of them are not, depending on their situation.

You’d think that Mr. Romney wanted all illegal immigrants to be sent home. But minutes later, he told the moderator, Charles Gibson of ABC News, something completely different.

MR. GIBSON: Is it practical to take 12 million people and send them out of the country?

MR. ROMNEY: Is it practical? The answer is no. The answer is no.

Mr. Romney (who in the distant past — 2005 — called the McCain bill “reasonable”) stumbled further on a talk show, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the next day. He struggled over whether the McCain bill could even be called “amnesty,” since it fined illegal immigrants $5,000.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you do believe his plan is amnesty then?

MR. ROMNEY: Not under a legal definition but under the normal, colloquial definition, yes.

Under the normal, colloquial definition, Mr. Romney is talking through his hat. But he isn’t alone. Except for Mr. McCain, the Republican candidates have skirted the issue or, worse, embraced the restrictionist approach known as “attrition.” That amounts to relentlessly tightening the screws in workplaces and homes until illegal immigrants magically, voluntarily disappear.

Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick.

Worst of all, it’s weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.

Fred Thompson has been perhaps the most vocal defender of attrition. But on Wednesday, the newly restrictionist Mike Huckabee one-upped him by signing the “No Amnesty” pledge of the nativist group NumbersUSA, formally committing to the principle that all 12 million illegal immigrants must be expelled. Americans, naturally, have no earthly idea how he would accomplish that.

Even if you accept the Republicans’ view of immigration policy as warfare against illegal immigrants, their tactics are the rejects of history, starting with that Vietnam-evoking “attrition.” The border wall is right from Monsieur Maginot’s playbook — fortifying just one of two international borders even though at least 40 percent of illegal immigrants arrive perfectly legally and then overstay their visas.

The attrition fantasy is now, by default, the national immigration strategy. The government is essentially committed to expelling all illegal immigrants, not assimilating them. Instead of bringing its power to bear, Washington has gladly handed the task to a motley collection of state and local governments, each enforcing its own rules, often at cross purposes.

Now, attrition is threatening to become a bipartisan disaster. The SAVE Act, an enforcement-only bill, was introduced last year by a Democrat, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and the notoriously restrictionist Republicans Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo. It is gaining sponsors.

The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

[bradcanuck 1]

Mitt Romney is a liar and an idiot.

[simple_male 1]

The big fat immigration bill that died last year in Congress was, for all its flaws, an anchor that kept debate tethered firmly to reality. Like it or not, it contained specific remedies for the border and the workplace. It had a plan for clearing backlogs in legal immigration and managing its future flow. Perhaps most critical, it dealt with the 12 million illegal immigrants already here, through a tough path to earned citizenship.

Unmoored from a comprehensive federal bill, the debate was pushed into the states and is now floating in the La-La Land of the presidential campaign. The Republicans have been battling over the sincerity of their sound bites and trying to make their fixation on one dimension of the problem — tough border and workplace enforcement — sound like the solution.

But it isn’t, of course, because it ignores the fundamental question of what to do about the undocumented 12 million. A locked-down border won’t affect them. There is no way to round them up and move them out all at once. Not even the most eagerly anti-immigration candidate would dare talk about detention camps. Amnesty is a Republican curse word. So what’s the plan?

This is the cavernous hole in anti-immigration policy that its proponents want to cover with chain link and razor wire. It’s where swaggering Republicans get vague and mushy. The emptiness of their position was acutely exposed in the Jan. 5 debate, when Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, ripped into Senator John McCain of Arizona for sponsoring an “amnesty” bill that did not call for the mass expulsion of 12 million people.

MR. McCAIN: There is no special right associated with my plan. I said they should not be in any way rewarded for illegal behavior.

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: They have to get in line —

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: — behind everybody else.

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: Some of them are, some of them are not, depending on their situation.

You’d think that Mr. Romney wanted all illegal immigrants to be sent home. But minutes later, he told the moderator, Charles Gibson of ABC News, something completely different.

MR. GIBSON: Is it practical to take 12 million people and send them out of the country?

MR. ROMNEY: Is it practical? The answer is no. The answer is no.

Mr. Romney (who in the distant past — 2005 — called the McCain bill “reasonable”) stumbled further on a talk show, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the next day. He struggled over whether the McCain bill could even be called “amnesty,” since it fined illegal immigrants $5,000.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you do believe his plan is amnesty then?

MR. ROMNEY: Not under a legal definition but under the normal, colloquial definition, yes.

Under the normal, colloquial definition, Mr. Romney is talking through his hat. But he isn’t alone. Except for Mr. McCain, the Republican candidates have skirted the issue or, worse, embraced the restrictionist approach known as “attrition.” That amounts to relentlessly tightening the screws in workplaces and homes until illegal immigrants magically, voluntarily disappear.

Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick.

Worst of all, it’s weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.

Fred Thompson has been perhaps the most vocal defender of attrition. But on Wednesday, the newly restrictionist Mike Huckabee one-upped him by signing the “No Amnesty” pledge of the nativist group NumbersUSA, formally committing to the principle that all 12 million illegal immigrants must be expelled. Americans, naturally, have no earthly idea how he would accomplish that.

Even if you accept the Republicans’ view of immigration policy as warfare against illegal immigrants, their tactics are the rejects of history, starting with that Vietnam-evoking “attrition.” The border wall is right from Monsieur Maginot’s playbook — fortifying just one of two international borders even though at least 40 percent of illegal immigrants arrive perfectly legally and then overstay their visas.

The attrition fantasy is now, by default, the national immigration strategy. The government is essentially committed to expelling all illegal immigrants, not assimilating them. Instead of bringing its power to bear, Washington has gladly handed the task to a motley collection of state and local governments, each enforcing its own rules, often at cross purposes.

Now, attrition is threatening to become a bipartisan disaster. The SAVE Act, an enforcement-only bill, was introduced last year by a Democrat, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and the notoriously restrictionist Republicans Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo. It is gaining sponsors.

The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

Immigration issue is popping up again during the election year.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Mitt Romney is a liar and an idiot.

No doubt

[GaryC 7]

The big fat immigration bill that died last year in Congress was, for all its flaws, an anchor that kept debate tethered firmly to reality. Like it or not, it contained specific remedies for the border and the workplace. It had a plan for clearing backlogs in legal immigration and managing its future flow. Perhaps most critical, it dealt with the 12 million illegal immigrants already here, through a tough path to earned citizenship.

Unmoored from a comprehensive federal bill, the debate was pushed into the states and is now floating in the La-La Land of the presidential campaign. The Republicans have been battling over the sincerity of their sound bites and trying to make their fixation on one dimension of the problem — tough border and workplace enforcement — sound like the solution.

But it isn’t, of course, because it ignores the fundamental question of what to do about the undocumented 12 million. A locked-down border won’t affect them. There is no way to round them up and move them out all at once. Not even the most eagerly anti-immigration candidate would dare talk about detention camps. Amnesty is a Republican curse word. So what’s the plan?

This is the cavernous hole in anti-immigration policy that its proponents want to cover with chain link and razor wire. It’s where swaggering Republicans get vague and mushy. The emptiness of their position was acutely exposed in the Jan. 5 debate, when Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, ripped into Senator John McCain of Arizona for sponsoring an “amnesty” bill that did not call for the mass expulsion of 12 million people.

MR. McCAIN: There is no special right associated with my plan. I said they should not be in any way rewarded for illegal behavior.

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: They have to get in line —

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: — behind everybody else.

MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?

MR. McCAIN: Some of them are, some of them are not, depending on their situation.

You’d think that Mr. Romney wanted all illegal immigrants to be sent home. But minutes later, he told the moderator, Charles Gibson of ABC News, something completely different.

MR. GIBSON: Is it practical to take 12 million people and send them out of the country?

MR. ROMNEY: Is it practical? The answer is no. The answer is no.

Mr. Romney (who in the distant past — 2005 — called the McCain bill “reasonable”) stumbled further on a talk show, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the next day. He struggled over whether the McCain bill could even be called “amnesty,” since it fined illegal immigrants $5,000.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you do believe his plan is amnesty then?

MR. ROMNEY: Not under a legal definition but under the normal, colloquial definition, yes.

Under the normal, colloquial definition, Mr. Romney is talking through his hat. But he isn’t alone. Except for Mr. McCain, the Republican candidates have skirted the issue or, worse, embraced the restrictionist approach known as “attrition.” That amounts to relentlessly tightening the screws in workplaces and homes until illegal immigrants magically, voluntarily disappear.

Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick.

Worst of all, it’s weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.

Fred Thompson has been perhaps the most vocal defender of attrition. But on Wednesday, the newly restrictionist Mike Huckabee one-upped him by signing the “No Amnesty” pledge of the nativist group NumbersUSA, formally committing to the principle that all 12 million illegal immigrants must be expelled. Americans, naturally, have no earthly idea how he would accomplish that.

Even if you accept the Republicans’ view of immigration policy as warfare against illegal immigrants, their tactics are the rejects of history, starting with that Vietnam-evoking “attrition.” The border wall is right from Monsieur Maginot’s playbook — fortifying just one of two international borders even though at least 40 percent of illegal immigrants arrive perfectly legally and then overstay their visas.

The attrition fantasy is now, by default, the national immigration strategy. The government is essentially committed to expelling all illegal immigrants, not assimilating them. Instead of bringing its power to bear, Washington has gladly handed the task to a motley collection of state and local governments, each enforcing its own rules, often at cross purposes.

Now, attrition is threatening to become a bipartisan disaster. The SAVE Act, an enforcement-only bill, was introduced last year by a Democrat, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and the notoriously restrictionist Republicans Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo. It is gaining sponsors.

The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

The guy that wrote this is an idiot. By enforcing the laws we already have the illegals will go home on their own. Saying that it would involve more government intrusion into our lives is a major cop out. The laws are there already, enforcing them isn't an intrusion. This has already shown to work in states that have adopted an enforcement path. If it were adopted nation wide our problem of illegal aliens would be diminished to the point where we can deal with those left without breaking the bank.

[peejay 327]

The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue.

The NY Times has it dead wrong. If they (the Dems) had a better position they would exploit it. You can bet the farm on that. The silence is deafening.

The Dems want to play both sides of the fence for their own self serving interests. They want to be the saviors of the struggling American working class while supporting and rewarding an endless stream cheap illegal foreign labor (mostly from Mexico and Latin America).

Ever wonder why the demise of American unionism coincides with the first (of 7) illegal alien amnesties starting in 1986? Reagan signed it, but the Democratic Congress passed it first for him to sign. Both were dead wrong.

The question is...who are they (the Dems) supposed to be working for? Illegal aliens from foreign countries working illegally in our country or the American people that elected them.

The answer is...12 to 20 million amnestied illegal aliens with a pathway to citizenship would very likely dance with who brung 'em. Need I say more? For the more dense among us..."you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

I'm an independent that has voted for both parties since my first election in 1976. The Dems are full of sh*t on this issue and they don't want the American people to realize it. Some people are so blinded by Iraq and the foolishness of that idiot Bush that they will get suckered into another amnesty that is not in the best interests of our country.

Attrition Through Enforcement is the cure. An 8th amnesty is not. They can call it "Legalization", "Regularization", "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", or whatever deceptive nomenclature they want...it's still another illegal alien amnesty. How many times do we keep doing something that doesn't work? Isn't 7 enough?