May 28 2006

Congress Opposing Voters

Published by at 1:40 pm under All General Discussions

In a fit of twisted logic, Congressional Republicans are afraid they will get voted out of office is they support any leniancy on immigrants – any!

Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (Fla.), who is not known as an immigration hard-liner but is one of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents, said there is virtually no chance of a compromise this year that includes a guest-worker program or a pathway to citizenship. Shaw said the politics of the issue are more mixed in his Fort Lauderdale district, which includes a large number of hospitality firms and other companies that rely on low-cost labor from illegal immigrants.

But he emphasized that Congress needs months, and perhaps years, of public hearings to determine the economic effects of legalizing millions of immigrants.

In other words, even though a majority of voters (here, here and here) support treating immigrants whose only crime is trying to make a living and raise a family with some modest dignity, the reps need years to grow some spine against the more emotional and voiciferous conservatives.

Whimps.  Just vote to give us a comprehensive package.  It will take years to build the fence, expand the guest worker program, set up assimiliation support, document and background check people…

Stop whining Congress or there will be an American Kadima movement this fall. We need action, not handringing and talk of retribution.  America is fed up with the ‘no compromise’ margins in this country who fight over everything and accomplish nothing.  Give me more Tony Snows and less Savage-Begala.

33 responses so far

33 Responses to “Congress Opposing Voters”

  1. crosspatch says:

    Besides, we can always ammend later. If the number of work permits turns out to be too high, we can always reduce it. It isn’t hard to produce a bill that ammends one single sentance of a previous bill. People look at this stuff as if it is cast in stone, but it isn’t. That is the beauty of our system. We can change it next year.

  2. Terrye says:


    Yes, they can even sundown parts of the bill so that it comes up for a vote again like the Patriot Act. If they do not act, if they continue to be stupid about it the only people who will benefit are the smugglers and coyotes who traffic in illegal and undocumented labor and the Democrats who will be able to say with a straight face that Republicans are too partisan to govern as a majority.

  3. Terrye says:

    Remember Kos, he backs a loser every race…but in spite of that the Democrats are afraid to stand up to him. He is not representative, but he scares the pants off them and the result is the Democrats are a minority, because they let people like Kos take advantage of them and rule the party. I would hate to see Republicans do the same thing with the other extreme..while the silent majority just looks on in disgust.

  4. MerlinOS2 says:


    I only relate what I see.

    Let me flesh this out a bit. I have no worries in this issue, I made my money years ago thru hard work and being in the right place at the right time. I used to live in an “exclusive” gated community where house were in the 3 – 6 million dollar range. I left because I got tired of the politics and the backbiting bitching of the neighborhood. I moved to this small blue collar town to a historic house on a river view. The area here is 95% blue collar pulpwood harvest and agricultural labor is the main employer. They work in the potato and cabbage industry. We have experienced the influx of the illegal workers. Most here were living paycheck to paycheck due to their low wage jobs. There are a large number here who have been young couples employed in those labors who have subsequently been displaced in those jobs by illegals. They have had thier homes forclosed on due to their unemployment running out and had to move in with their parents. To add insult to injury the illegals have pooled their funds to buy up the foreclosures.
    Last week I went to a local tire company to get a new set of tires on my car. They employee about 15 workers. It used to be a mix of caucasian and black. When I went in , it is now 2 blacks and the balance hispanic.
    Your experience may be different, but here it is like a virus infection eating at our underbelly.
    Add to that I live in a southern redneck town and you can draw the conclusion that I am sitting on a powderkeg ready to blow. This whole debate is only stiring up the emotions even more.
    No it was a scientific pole, but it is what people feel here.

  5. AJStrata says:


    I can always count on you to illustrate the wrong thinking. Stealing my SS number is a felony and rightfully so. Working for a living to raise your family is not a felony, and rightfully so.

    Thanks for illustrating my point. And if you will junk the entire bill because it has MORE than you want, then that explains why the Reps should and could lose Congress this year.

    Polls show Bush is in the right with the people. The die is cast. The far right succumbs or loses it all. Personally, to cleanse the conservative movement of the zero sum types, I could see a good cleansing as a positive. If they cannot work with the broader conservative movement then they are not allies conservatives can rely on. Petulance is not a characteristic of leadership. Neither is vengeance and the need to payback. Neither is a lack of compassion. Neither is calm and cool headed thinking…

    Geez, come to think of it, very little on the ‘hurt the immigrants’ side demonstrates qualities we want to embrace.

  6. Terrye says:


    I report what I see as well, and among the things I see is a lot of people getting sick of the debate and a lot of other people demogagueing the issue.

    My point is if you asked me if I support everything in the Senate bill, I would say no. But if you ask me if I want to round up millions of people and load them 0nto buses and cattle cars, put them in detention centers and ship them out of the country I would say no to that as well.

    I know a dairy farmer who could not find people to live and work on his farm. About 15 years ago he hired a young hispanic to work. I do not know this man’s status. But he still works on that farm, minds his own business, and he has a wife and two kids now. I do not want to takel him away from his home and family. And I think there are millions of people like him.

    So the question when you make assumptions such as you did, is am I correct in the conculusion I draw from this?

    Keep in mind that the Senate has a filibuster rule and the House does not. Any bill that makes it out of the Senate will have certain things in it both sides insisted be there in order to get closure.

    Now the point is to send it to conference and clean it up, not kill it.

  7. MerlinOS2 says:

    [Comment ID #12117 Will Be Quoted Here]

    No I haven’t read it all, I am about 130 pages into it and working down the rest.
    Question back, how many people read any bill before congress? It is probably a smallish percentage.

  8. Terrye says:

    I think that any bill will have both things we can and can not support. In fact I would not be surprised if the lawmakers don’t count on some things being cut in the long run. They just want to be able to say they tried, even if the know that it will not all make it.

    For instance, making people pay back taxes sounds great, but the working poor do not pay many federal taxes and if they have children and they file they will probably get back more than they paid. So with some people asking them to pay back taxes can be a net loss. There are dozens if not hundreds of provisions in the bills that are like that.

  9. For Enforcement says:

    Geez, how does everyone miss the point so easily? Here’s a quote from Terrye above:
    “A question to ask would be “Would you rather see a compromise which includes enhances border enforcement, an end to catch and release, stronger penalties for people who hire illegals, a guest worker program, a wall or barrier at the border or would you prefer zip because the Congress refuses to do its job and pass legislation when legislation is needed?”

    The point is: The Senate bill is NOT a compromise, it only does ONE thing, it makes illegals, legal. There is not border enforcement in the bill. There are some words about it, some more agents, I think 5000 in 5 years, a little bit of fence and that’s it. There is nothing in it that says, “The border will be secured within 12 months so that zero persons pass over the border without proper authorization. Whatever means are necessary to accomplish this is authorized. If this requires 200,000 military troops, 5000 deputy sheriffs in each county, 2000 miles of triple or quadruple fencing. All these things are authorized if necessary to secure the border” But to belabor the point, there is NOTHING in the bill that requires the border be secure. Just as there is nothing in the bill that requires people to speak english, only enroll in a course. The “less than two years” will be required to return to Mexico, but no enforcement, the person only has to state that he has been here over 5 years and if that is questioned or investigated, the enforcement person will be fired. Get the drift, THERE is NO enforcement only misdirection to make someone feel like something will be done. If you disagree with this, state exactly where you get your information that I’m not correct and what is that information? So the question from Terre was do you prefer the compromise or Zip? The answer is: it is the same thing, if you get the “compromise” you get “zip”.

  10. Terrye says:

    No for enofrcement….. the point is the Senate bill is not intended to be what everyone wants, but the right’s answer is that instead of making it better they just abandon the process. if you are waiting for perfect, forget it..there is no such thing this side of Heaven. If you just want to pick out the things you object to and say that means it all sucks so to hell with it then we will never get anything done.

    And you know what else, they had 20 years to just enforce the laws and they have failed. So why should I believe they will do any better in the future without a comprehensive bill?

  11. For Enforcement says:

    And you know what else, they had 20 years to just enforce the laws and they have failed. So why should I believe they will do any better in the future without a comprehensive bill?

    Left by Terrye on May 29th, 2006
    That was a “comprehensive” bill in 1986 that didn’t get enforced and since as I said above there are absolutely no provisions for enforcement in this new bill, why would you think anything in it would work. At no time did I advocate doing nothing. My answer is as I said above:”“The border will be secured within 12 months so that zero persons pass over the border without proper authorization. Whatever means are necessary to accomplish this is authorized. If this requires 200,000 military troops, 5000 deputy sheriffs in each county, 2000 miles of triple or quadruple fencing. All these things are authorized if necessary to secure the border” After the 12 months and the border is SECURE there will be no illegals coming into the country. Any that leave will have to be properly documented to get back in. Employers will have to have this proper documentation to put anyone to work. Seems as if this would have a little teeth in it. NO, I don’t want to force anyone to leave if they are certifiably a good citizen. But I also don’t want them to stay if they are certifiably bad people. But let me say again, the compromise is zip. There is not one single enforceable provision in the whole bill only “feel good” words.

  12. MerlinOS2 says:

    First let me state I am neutral on the debate surrounding the bill. My reports of local conditions and effects may give a different but wrong assumption of my position. I am pragmatic enough to know that my position, were I to take one, wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans on whatever outcome congress will conclude with. My local issue illustrations are to demonstrate impact of the problem that some may have not seen in their area where they live.

    My only interest , and why I am reading the bills on both sides of congress, is I am an investor, and I am doing the homework I need to do to try to catch the essence of how the bill or even lack of one will alter or effect future investment strategies.

    I am also reading some of the first draft early financial impact studies about potential financial impacts of the various senarios that are starting to come out of various political thinktanks of all political persuations.

    I am for one, not going to turn the outcome, whatever it is on this issue into a litmus test for voting or not as general reaction, or even for a single congressman. I look at overall bigger picture view. I will still send money to my candidates of choice, I will vote and express my preferences.
    My advice, which you can take or leave at your choice, is that the last thing we need, despite however strong a party balance may be, to end up with only and extreme left and an extreme right with no or diminished numbers of middle ground representatives will only be a receipe for gridlock.
    Also it is important to point out that whatever the final form of the compromise solution is, it will still have to be translated into tens of thousand of pages of regulations and rules by the vast government departments charged to implement the various final outcomes.

    Also based on the potential complexity of the result, more than a few special interest lawyers are sharpening their knives and firing up the word processors in advance.

  13. retire05 says:

    AJ, you are correct. Stealing someone’s identity by using their Social Security number IS A FELONY. But if you read S.B. 2611, there will be no prosecution, no fine, no arrest for that felony. One in a number of “get out of jail free” cards.
    Junk the bill because it has more than I want? No, I say re-write the bill in conference because it has LESS than what most Americans want.
    I find it odd that when polls disagree with some on this blog, they are discounted but when polls agree with those same people, they are facts set in stone.
    And btw, allowing people to break the law is not a sign of leadership. We are a nation of laws. That one thing is what sets us apart from all other nations.
    I am sick of the word “compromise”. Who is being compromised by allowing illegals to only pay back taxes for three years? Who is being compromised by guaranteeing illegals “prevailing” wages if they are ag-workers when Americans do not have the same guarantee? Who is being compromised when they are allowed in-state tuition when Americans who sent their children to out of state universities must pay non-resident tuition? Who is being compromised when a once illegal worker will now be able to bring his parents to the United States and they will be able to collect Social Security without ever paying a dime into the system? It is the American taxpayer being compromised, not the illegal who had no regard for our laws in the first place.
    How much are you willing to pay for your warm fuzzy, feel good, “I am a good samaratin” stance? $1,000 a year? $5,000 a year? Because your taxes are going up and your tax burden for those who are now legal, and their newly immigrated families, is going to go up.
    Do you really think you are doing Mexicans a favor? Do you think that by making them legal you will change the attitude about laws they have grown up with? Or will it only allow Mexico to export it’s uneducated, lower class who will not work for the $3.50 a day in Mexico that Mexican businesses and farms pay Central Americans?
    Mexico, as a nation, is a disaster. It is the middle class of any society that keeps that society running. The middle class in Mexico does not exist and change will never happen in Mexico if it keeps bleeding off those who could become middle class. Corruption, low taxes (10%) for the rich, those are things that must change in Mexico for it to prosper.
    I hear “Mexico is a poor nation”. It is not. It has more millionaires than any other Spanish speaking nation. The third richest man in the world lives in Mexico. But due to the corruption, those riches do not trickle down to the working class. Due to corruption, investment in Mexico businesses is at an all time low.
    Since you put so much stock in polls, there was a poll done in Mexico that found that 40% of Mexico’s population wanted to immigrate to the United States and were willing to do it illegally, if necessary. What do we do with 40% of Mexico’s 115 million?
    I understand that you cannot see the big picture. And the big picture is that we do not need to change our laws to accomodate illegals, Mexico needs to reform it’s government to provide for it’s own citizens from the wealth it holds. Until that happens, Mexico will continue to bleed.
    Fox promised to change his nation. He did that all right, he changed the face of his nation to the very weathy and the Central American worker who works for less than Mexican citizens will. No middle class.
    Why is it that because I do not agree with you, you feel the need to insult me? You accuse me of vengence, pay back, lack of compassion and “hurt the immigrants”. I do not feel vengence towards the oppressed in Darfur but I also do not want to send 757’s over there to bring all the oppressed to the United States.
    What I do want to see it pressure brought on Mexico to change their system for the benefit of their own citizens. I want to see Mexico get a handle on the corruption that is the blight of Mexico. I want to see Mexico utilize it’s weath an bounty for the benefit of it’s people. But you see, even though Mexico feels it has a right to interfer with our political processes, we do not do that to Mexico.
    So insult me if you will. And when you wake from your warm, fuzzy dream you can remember “I told you so”.