May 24 2007

Immigration Bill Observation

Published by at 4:47 am under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

On the immigration bill now being debated in the Senate I have this observation: so many people keep posting “why can’t I get what I want and nothing else?” – or variations on that theme. Why? Because this is a democracy. You will not get what you want because others want that aspect and we need a compromise to put an end to the status quo. The fact is, as someone pointed out, a majority of Reps do NOT oppose the bill (favor or are ambivalent). There is no ground swell against this. There is a vocal minority. Ask the question “this bill or nothing” and you will see the reality. Failure, like in Iraq, is not a rallying cry. The only question is will people lose (i.e., participate in our democracy) ugly or honorably. Sadly those opposing documenting the undocumented workers and making them pay a fine who equate this with treason are losing ugly. Really ugly. This is not treason on par with those who are exposing our covert and classified intelligence efforts. Exaggeration comes when the arguments are spent and left wanting. People need to respect democracy, before they decide they can or need to live without it.

22 responses so far

22 Responses to “Immigration Bill Observation”

  1. Terrye says:


    No doubt the hardliners will be using Rasmussen’s telephone survey to back up their claims that America hates compromise and this bill. It said that 48% were opposed to the bill, while the remaining 52% was evenly divided between support and “not sure”.

    But Dafydd at Big Lizards came out with an interesting finding in the poll we are not hearing so much about:

    A flurry of anti-immigration-bill conservative pundits are about to start quoting (selectively) from the new Rasmussen poll on immigration. Most will only tell you about two of the questions:

    * “From what you know about the agreement, do you favor or oppose the immigration reform proposal agreed to last Week?” Favor: 26%; Oppose: 48%; Not sure: 26%.

    * “How Important is it to improve border enforcement and reduce illegal immigration?” Very important: 72%; Somewhat important: 16%; Not very important: 8%; Not at all important: 2%.

    And from this, the opinion-makers will conclude that the very idea of a comprehensive immigration bill should be dropped, and we should move to the enforcement-only approach, which “everybody wants.”

    This leaves aside the political dilemma: Since we live in a country that has a political government, not a military dictatorship, how can we simply ignore the majority in Congress — which overwhelmingly wants regularization? Is the president supposed to issue an executive order dissolving the legislative branch?

    But the conclusion that Americans oppose any regularization also pretends not to notice a much more proximate point: Those were not the only two questions asked; and among the other questions is one that utterly upends the first question, transforming it instead into a pop quiz on current events:

    Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.” The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include “strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States.”

    That would be 2/3rds of Americans willing to support such a compromise; but only 26% willing to support this particular compromise.

    Putting these two answers together, we find that a minimum of 39% of Americans (but probably much more) do not read Big Lizards… because, in fact, every single one of those provisions is in the current compromise legislation.

  2. retire05 says:

    Terrye, I have to ask. Have you read the 1,000 page monster? Do you know what is contain in this bill?

    Are you fine with:

    illegals given amnesty will be fully vested in the Social Security fund after only 4 quarters while you had to invest for 40 quarters?

    Applicants who apply for Z visas will require background checks that the federal government is only allowing 24 hours to complete? How do you get criminal records, sometimes from foreign nations, in 24 hours?

    In-state tuition for ALL illegals and the abolishment of the existing law requiring them to pay out of state tuition while a kid from Florida, who is legal, will have to pay out of state tuition to go to the University of Michigan?

    A prevailing wage guarantee that U.S. citizens do not have?

    The dismissal of all cases now in the court system for those who have been arrested for being illegal?

    A Mexican-American committee to discuss the building of a security fence on our southern border where Mexico would have to give it’s approval before we could build any fencing on our own soil?

    Do you agree with those things?

  3. stevevvs says:

    Because this is a democracy.

    Really? When did that happen?

    The Last I Knew We Were A Representative Republic. I need to read more, obviously!

  4. patrick neid says:

    terrye and others continue to put lipstick on this and past pigs. at some point a rational person would assume they have another agenda.

    this latest poll, like the several that preceded it, all say the same thing–seal the border with a fence no matter the cost. afterwards this same majority is open to all discussions because they want reform. terrye and many others want no such thing. they continually malign and throw ad hominem attack labels on anyone who questions their positions. if i were to find out later that she was paul begala in drag i would believe it. the message is always the same–attack the messenger.

    if terrye and others really want a bill all they have to do is support first closing the border with a fence–not a faux electronic fence. when said fence is completed a compromise bill would sail through congress and be embraced by everyone. the american opinion on this is very clear. thankfully this bill, as written, has no chance of being approved until a fence first amendment is included–not this pseudo trigger mechanism that it includes now.

    while the fence is being constructed a complete discussion and compromise can be worked out–this is what the american people want. not this continued stream of invective and threats of “take or leave it, you bigot”. the 1986 agreement was six years in the making and would have been a success if congress had not reneged on its responsibilities and promises to the american people after amnesty was granted. we will not allow that to happen again.

    open border advocates and la raza types are trying to repeat the past.

  5. stevevvs says:

    There is no ground swell against this. There is a vocal minority.

    Really? Have you read or listened to anything other than the MSM?

    The reason they can not just pass this disaster is precisely BECAUSE there is so much oposition! Dude, read something other than what ever it is your reading now. The senates phone lines are burning up with oposition.

    It hard for me to understand you. We can not even properly process LEGAL Immigrants now. We can not properly get rid of REPEAT CRIMINAL Aliens now. We can not sustain current Government Programs for legal Residents much farther into the future now. And yet you desire to make Illegal, Legal, and add a 2.5 Trillion Dollar Burden on to the Legal Residents of this once Republic.

    As Rush has said, We are acting as though WE have done something wrong, and WE are trying to correct OUR wrong doing.

    And Andy McCarthy said, ” I hear over and over again that it is important to do something about the status of the 12 to 20+ million
    Illegals who are already in the Country. Again I ask: Why? Why is their status – a status they CHOSE with no encouragement from me – MY Problem?

  6. stevevvs says:

    It’s Worse Than You Think

    By The Editors

    The immigration bill, according to its critics, hands out amnesty to illegal immigrants as soon as some ineffectual steps toward enforcement are taken. Don’t believe it. The bill provides amnesty as soon as it is enacted.

    The Bush administration wants to divert attention from this fact by talking about “Z visas,” and some of the critics have fallen into this trap. But the government will start issuing those visas only after it meets its enforcement benchmarks — if that ever happens. Illegal immigrants are eligible for “probationary” legal status, on the other hand, as soon as the bill passes. The government has only one business day to run a background check on people applying for this status.

    Even those illegal immigrants who have already gotten deportation orders are eligible for this status, if the Department of Homeland Security concludes that deportation would cause “extreme hardship” to the illegal immigrant or his family. As soon as the bill passes, deportation judges are out of work, as a practical matter, and states, localities, and federal agents will no longer be enforcing immigration laws.

    What happens if the government never meets its benchmarks? Does anyone really believe that the government will, at that point, make all of the illegal immigrants who have gotten “probationary” legal status illegal again?

    The bill provides amnesty immediately, and forever; the “triggers” and “benchmarks” for law enforcement are meaningless; and no one who votes for the bill has any excuse for not knowing these things.

    Great news! The terrorist Z-visas will take 48 hours! [Mark Steyn]

    Kathryn, that Cornyn amendment is a good example of the kind of final “bipartisan compromise” Congress may settle for: The 12-20 million illegal immigrants will get legal residency in the United States by the end of the next business day (and, incidentally, I’d love to see a list of other US agencies which guarantee full service within 24 hours – or is the express line only available to lawbreaking foreigners?), but terrorists will have to be subjected to what Sheila Jackson-Lee described to me as an “ongoing background check”.

    The more you look at this bill the more it seems just the usual Beltway kabuki. Secretary Chertoff says in a time of war we need to know who’s in the country. Okay. But is dumping a gazillion new applications on a sclerotic immigration system the way to do that? Mohammed Atta was the second most famous terrorist in the world and on the front page of every American newspaper but the then INS still sent him a valid US visa six months to the day after he died, and without even updating his address from that Florida flight school to Big Hole In The Ground, Lower Manhattan. And the excuse the agency made was, oh well, we’re only issuing visas to dead terrorists not living ones – which Americans pretty much had to take on trust and which seems a distinction far less likely to be maintained once there’s another 15 million in the system entitled to next-day service. If I were Mullah Omar, I’d apply for a Z-visa. The odds have got to be better than even.

    So it will be a fraud on “conservative” enforcement grounds. As for “liberal” fast-track-to-citizenship grounds, I would be surprised if most of those “undocumented” choose to go beyond limited legalization. If you’re remitting vast percentages of your income back to your village in Mexico every month, US citizenship is only going to complicate your life, given that the IRS is one of the few revenue agencies on the planet to claim global jurisdiction. Some things are best left “living in the shadows”.

    “Comprehensive” reforms usually backfire in spectacular ways: the “war on poverty” gave us ongoing cross-generational poverty, etc. “Comprehensive” immigration reform will metastasize illegal immigration, embed the “undocumented” support networks as a permanent feature of American life, expand identity fraud, and make it even more impossible for Washington to know which aliens are in the country at any one time.

    05/24 09:44 AM

  7. stevevvs says:

    This is Manuel Flores. He is an illegal alien fugitive from the law. He is accused of raping and sodomizing his girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter.

    Nine-year-old daughter.

    Manuel Flores is free, reportedly headed back to Mexico, because federal immigration officials screwed up, according to a local Denver report. I linked to this story earlier today, but it deserves greater exposure. And it deserves the attention of DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who has been too busy demonizing immigration enforcement proponents to make sure his behemoth bureaucracy is doing its damned job:

    Law enforcement agencies say they followed policies and procedures, but an illegal alien, accused of sexually assaulting a nine year-old Denver girl, was still able to post a bond and flee the country.
    The man, who called himself Manuel Flores, was arrested February 15 and accused of raping and sodomizing his girlfriend’s daughter. According to police documents, he was not able to provide a Social Security number or driver’s license. When he was booked into the Denver Jail, he told Officers he was born in Moralos, Mexico.

    A Sheriff’s Department spokesman says they alerted federal immigration officials that Flores might be an illegal alien, but ICE apparently did not put an immigration hold on him.

    A private bounty hunter tracked Flores down. But no one’s lifting a finger to bring him back here to face charges:

    Bounty hunter James Ness discovered Flores real name and tracked him to his hometown in Mexico. Ness says he provided the information to prosecutors, but there is no move to bring the suspect back to the United States. Ness says he thinks this case fell through the cracks, but he adds, “But the crack is huge. A lot of people fall into that crack.” ICE and the Judge did not respond to Fox31 calls. The Denver Sheriff’s Department says they report roughly 20 suspected illegal aliens under arrest to ICE each day. But the federal agency typically puts holds on only two or three.
    Yet another case of the federal immigration bureaucracy following “standard procedure,” eh, Secretary Chertoff?

  8. stevevvs says:

    Man accused of killing deputy an illegal immigrant
    Racine Journal Times ^ | 5/23/07 | By Brent Killackey and Janine Anderson

    By Brent Killackey and Janine Anderson

    Journal Times

    The man charged with killing Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy Frank Fabiano Jr. was in this country illegally and had previous contact with law enforcement, but none of the various law enforcement agencies either knew he was illegal or contacted immigration enforcement officials until his most recent arrest.

    Kenosha County District Attorney Robert Zapf said the Department of Corrections provided the information that Ezeiquiel Lopez, 44, of Kenosha was an illegal immigrant. Lopez was under DOC supervision while he was on probation for 2005 and 2006 battery and domestic violence offenses in Kenosha County.

    Lopez is being held in the Racine County Jail on $1 million bail. He appeared in Kenosha County Circuit Court on Friday. If convicted, he will be sentenced to life in prison.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed a “hold status” on Lopez on Thursday, Zapf said. That ensures he will be turned over to immigration enforcement officials after any criminal proceedings and sentences have been completed, according to an ICE spokesperson.

    ICE had no record of having contact with Lopez or any law enforcement referrals regarding Lopez.

    Lopez’s previous criminal convictions in Kenosha County involved misdemeanor offenses of battery and domestic violence — offenses which Zapf said he believed would have qualified for a removal action.

    John Dipko, spokesman for the DOC, said the agency does refer illegal immigrants to federal authorities, but only when the person is convicted of a serious crime. Otherwise, he said, ICE is generally not interested in pursuing the case. (Better to wait until he HAS Committed a serious Crime! Steve)

    “Federal authorities put higher priority on felony incidents,” Dipko said. “They do not pursue deportation for misdemeanors, except for misdemeanors involving sex crimes.”

    He was unable to say Monday exactly when the DOC learned Lopez was an illegal immigrant.

    According to online court records, Lopez has been under DOC supervision since November 2005, when he was sentenced to 18 months probation with 30 days work release after a Kenosha County conviction for battery and disorderly conduct.

    The probation was revoked in March 2006, after he was convicted on another battery charge. He received nine months in jail for his revoked probation. The second battery conviction earned him two years probation, consecutive to the other sentence.

    Zapf said there’s no indication his office or Kenosha County law enforcement agencies were aware of Lopez’s illegal status.

    Informing immigration enforcement officials of potential illegal immigrants after conviction hasn’t been a priority for Kenosha County prosecutors, who put that responsibility on Department of Corrections officials.

    The DOC said they do not routinely refer people convicted of misdemeanors to immigration, because they have learned ICE does not pursue those cases.

    Burlington Police Chief David J. Walsh said his department has contacted immigration officials on suspected illegal immigrants in the past and were “blown off a couple of times” and told to “just let them go.”

    Those experiences, plus the need to use limited resources elsewhere, has kept contacting immigration officials from becoming a normal part of their police procedures.

    Walsh said the incident in Kenosha, however, will probably prompt a follow-up with immigration officials.

    County prosecutors generally don’t get involved in deportation matters because that’s a federal issue and not part of their jurisdiction. There doesn’t appear to be any requirement that local or state authorities contact immigration enforcement officials.

    “It has not been our practice in Kenosha County, based on my predecessor or to my knowledge, that we have a hotline or ‘red phone’ to immigration,” Zapf said.

    Additionally, it is also not always easy to tell if a person is an illegal immigrant, Zapf said.

    “Even as we’re speaking, I’m still have difficulty confirming his correct name,” he said of Lopez.

    Lopez also is known by a number of aliases, including Ezeiquiel Acuna, Ezeiquiel Acunez-Lopez, Lopez Ezequiel, Ezeiquiel Lopez-Acuna and Ezequiel Quintero, according to a criminal complaint.

    Lopez has criminal records in several other states as well, and ICE officials maintain no one had ever contacted them about him.

    An FBI records check showed Lopez had a criminal record in three states besides Wisconsin, Zapf said.

    In June 2003, Lopez was convicted in Texas of unlawfully carrying a weapon.

    In September 2003, Lopez was convicted in Missouri of operating while intoxicated.

    In 2001, Lopez was convicted in Utah of lewdness.

    Lopez’s status as an illegal immigrant doesn’t change the prosecution of the murder case, Zapf said.

    “There’s not a greater penalty to be applied or a different kind of prosecution,” Zapf said. “The law is applied to all individuals across the board.”

    In Racine County, the District Attorney’s Office makes it a practice to report illegal immigrants to ICE.

    “If we become aware of that information … we contact the INS (now known as ICE),” said Deputy District Attorney Richard Chiapete. “Whatever they do with it is out of our control.”

    Chiapete said they don’t contact ICE on a hunch — they need some type of documentation or information the individual is an illegal immigrant.

    Lt. John Hanrahan of the Racine County Sheriff’s Department said ICE is notified anytime the Sheriff’s Department suspects someone is an illegal immigrant.

    “We contact them and they make the determination if they are illegal,” Hanrahan said.

  9. retire05 says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how people use the excuse that you cannot deport 12 million (more like 20 million according to the Border Patrol). Yet, I see that there is no problem with them crossing the border the same way they crossed into the U.S. in the first place. They just walk across. No one is stopping them from re-entering.
    Oh wait, the Mexican army is going to stop them. They have a fear of being shot by their own if they reenter their own nation. Just as the Mexican army has a nasty habit of shooting South Americans who try to enter Mexico.

    And can someone please explain to me why they consider making people return to their own home a punishment? Punishment is going to work at a prison farm for a year. No being made to go home.

  10. For Enforcement says:

    This leaves aside the political dilemma: Since we live in a country that has a political government, not a military dictatorship, how can we simply ignore the majority in Congress — which overwhelmingly wants regularization?

    What an amazing statement. Ignore the majority in Congress? Shouldn’t the question be: How can congress ignore the majority of citizens? Isn’t this a republic where the elected members of congress are supposted to represent the will of the people? Didn’t you get it just a little backwards? Wow.

    I saw one poll on AOL that said 91% oppose this compromise bill. Do they get ignored? (yes, i know that’s not a scientific poll)

    And add to that list of benefits by Retire 05

    Free legal representative. Any illegal will be appointed a US citizen paid attorney to represent him.

    So, this is a bill to ensure lawyers will have full employment.

    Let’s secure the borders. The other issues will go away.


  11. retire05 says:

    Terrye has decided that we are a representative nation ruled by OUR representative. It is no longer what the American people want, it is what the congress critters and the Senators want in order to secure their re-elections.
    Barney Frank said it correctly; “immigrants can help elect Democratic minorities”. He said this after admitting that the arrival of additional immigrant workers is “bad for blue-collars”.

    It is all about votes. Pew Hispanic Research says that 49% of Hispanics vote Democrat while 20% vote Republican.

    Any questions?

    And if anyone tells me Bush is a conservative, I am going to go off on them. Catch words like “compassionate conservative” means closet liberal and “comprehensive immigration reform” is another way to say AMNESTY.

  12. Bikerken says:

    Out here in So Cal, we have high speed police chases all the time. The local tv stations break into regular programming and people actually make popcorn and watch. Because so many of the crashes have ended in accidents that killed innocent people, some bleeding hearts have come up with a great idea, don’t let the police chase them anymore. Just let the helicopter follow them and try to catch them when they stop. That way, the criminals won’t run and nobody will be hurt. OKIE DOKE! This is the same kind of thinking that is being used by the proponents of the open border amensty to all, (including gang members) comprehensive head up our asses bill.
    First of all, the reason most people are hit by police chases is that they ignore all of those lights and sirens and don’t get out of the way! Second of all, if I’m a criminal and the police light me up, now I know all I have to do is hit the gas and they will back down. Now I’m doing 80 miles an hour down a crowded boulevard with no lights and sirens warning anyone of my presence. How does that make things better? It is the law of unintended consequences. Why is it that for some people, the answer to the situation is to always back away from the law and cede to the lawbreaker? I just don’t get that mindset.

    And any of you who think that this bill has any kind of a majority support are totally deluding yourselves. When they first started talking about this bill, I was thinking that it was a done deal no matter what, but the outrage against it is so strong, I’m starting to agree with Patrick, I don’t think this thing is going to pass.

  13. For Enforcement says:

    Terrye, would you refresh me on what a “hardliner” is?
    Is it someone that is for enforcing laws?

  14. The Macker says:

    “hardliners” are those fixated on a single solution who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. They want draconian punishment for small struggling businesses but can’t understand that these businesses need the tools to verify their hires. They object to grandfathering illegals whose only crime is being here.

    Finally, they gag us with rhetoric like “amnesty”, “open borders” and “Bush isn’t conservative.”

  15. retire05 says:

    Sorry, Macker, but amnest is what it is; forgiveness for a crime. Open borders are what we have because we don’t have enough BP to man the border and when our National Guard were put there, they were instructed to only do things that require no enforcement. That is why National Guard stations were attacked on the border, because the drug runners and cayotes knew they could not fire back.

    Put all the lipstick on this pig you want, but at least Reagan had the cajones to call it what it was: AMNESTY.

    Let me ask you this; if you had the choice between 1 million uneducated strawberry pickers or 10 Ph.D.s who could invent a strawberry picker that would eliminate the need for physical labor, cut the farmer’s expenses for picking those strawberries and would never be a drain on taxpayer covered social services, which would you chose?

  16. Terrye says:

    Hey, I just linked an article, I did not right the damn thing.

    I don’t care anymore. Really. I think there are people on the right who want this to go on and on so that they can use it politically, like Sharpton does race.

    For instance, how many of you even know that the fence is under construction? I hear people say all the time, where’s my fence? Well they are building it. But this is the government and while it might seem like all they have to do is wave a magic wand something that looks like the Great Wall of China will erupt from the ground, the truth is…it will take awhile.

    I would just hate to see the bill die without a viable alternative that can pass. Because if that happens, the additional border security and additional border agents, and tougher employer enforcement will not happen.

    We will be right we where are now. Oh Joy.

  17. Terrye says:


    I don’t care what you call it. An amnesty is a general pardon. As a general rule if people pay a fine or make some kind of recompence it is not considered amnesty.

    But if calling it amnesty makes you happy go ahead. You can say it will make more come, but just sort of ignoring them and bitching about them will not stop it either.

    I would like to see some kind of regularization just because I want to keep track of who is here. And if the people who are already here can not all be deported, then people who find a way in can hide among the millions of illegals too easily. And I would rather see them paying more taxes.

    I prefer the guest worker program, I am not really interested in seeing these people become citizens, but I just do not think we can get another kind of bill through and I would rather see one with border security provisions than hope the next one is not worse.

    It seems to be that some people are making impossible demands and decided before they ever saw the bill that they would hate it. On principle. Yep, anything other than what they want and what they alone want is lipstick on a pig.

    And you know something? if the majority of the American people had not allowed this to happen all these people would not be here. I have said that before and I mean it. In recent years Arizona has tried to deal with this problem and they have asked for federal help, but as a general rule the states and cities have not done a thing to deal with the people in their midst until it got to be a bigger problem than they could deal with. In fact the mayor of Los Angeles has virtually made his city a sanctuary, a city of millions. Congress did not do that. This is about a lot more than Congress or even Bush….the people who claim their government failed them are responsible as well.

    So maybe we need to stop the useless bitching and try to do something that might actually help the situation.

  18. The Macker says:

    Today, “amnesty” is used to blur the difference between technical violations and real crime. How about calling it “statute of limitations?”

    Regarding your strawberry example, I thought the point system in the new bill rewarded immigrants with skills and education?

    Most of us want a solution, don’t want the thugs and do want decent and willing workers to fill the need.

  19. momdear1 says:

    Don’t be so ready toss out the latest polls that indicate that 3 out of 4 US citizens are against this immigration bill. If you think that poll was rigged how about all those immigrant restriction initatives that have passed over whelmingly in Calif. TX, and other states that have been immediately overturned by liberal judges? How many times do the people of Calif have collect signatures to get an initative on the ballot and then overwhelmingly vote for it, only to have a judge say it is unconstitutional, before it becomes obvious that what the people want does not matter to those in power. They sell out to the highest bidder. If you don’t think this is ture, tell me how Bill and Hillary Clinton can be worth $25 million now when Hillary claimed they got involved in that White Water deal so they could pay for Chelsea’s college. If this is indeed a democracy, then people should be able to change things via the ballot. As it it, we are constantly being told to “bend over, we’ve got another deal for you. ”

    When we had over half a million people demonstrating in Texas last year for illegal immigrant rights, it would have been easy to surround them and slowly march them all back across the border. That would have left only 10 and 1/2 million we wouuld have to deal with. The easiest way to solve the problem is to give serious jail time to employers who hire illegals. And especially hard time to those who send paid recruiters to Mexico the hire them and sneak them across the border.

    As for jobs Americans won’t do…We have a mushroom factory , which grows mushrooms in manure, which hired low skilled people in this area. A woman at the local laundromat told me that they fired her husband and all the other local emplouyees and brought in a bunch of illegal Mexicans to do the work. This is a rural area with no major manufacturers. But we now have Mexicans all over the place, and the Catholic Church has built a huge Spanish Style Church and brought in a Spanish Speaking Assistant Priest. These non English speaking people seem to have lots of money and buy only the best produce in the local super market., which is something that most local people are not able to do. Can you spell Resentment? I see a second Civil War , or at least Vigilantes who put sheets of their heads and ride in the night, to get rid of them. When the govt. does not protect it’s people, they will find a way to protect themselves.

  20. retire05 says:

    To begin with, dear Terrye, if the Mexican government was booming and the Candian government was in the tank and it was white French Canadians sneaking across the border in the middle of the night, we would not be having this conversation. The border would be closed and we would not be in the position we are in.
    This whole argument has been based on the fact that if you say anything against those who ILLEGALLY come to our nation, it becomes a racial issue and people like me who believe in the rule of law all of a sudden become racist against brown people.

    They break the law. They need to be removed. They can self deport just as they self imported. No need for your beloved “cattle car” senario. Remove the lure and you remove the illegal.

    And I have news for you, Macker, entering our nation without permission IS a real crime. And you may want a solution, but at what cost? Over 2 trillion (yes, with a T) just for the Social Security they will be allowed to draw. And for the point system, it is also a shame. The Z visa is just the start; there is the Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3. And what happens when the illegals have to pay their fines and the ACLU starts screaming that making them do that is discrimination? The fines will go out the window.

    Have you read the bill? Do you even know that it abolishes a 1986 law prohibiting the granting of in-state tuition to illegal? So if you live in Florida and want to send your kid to the University of Texas, you will pay out of state tuition, but the illegals will get in-state tuition.

    It will take a few years for Americans to realize that this bill is a sell-out of our very society and the death knell for the Republican Party for generations. Who will pick up the tab for the low wage earning illegals who are now, as legal residents, eligible for all social services? I can tell you; it will be us middle income taxpayers who gets hosed even greater than we are being hosed now? Who picks up the tab for the education, incarceration and more services for 30 million now legal immigrants we are going to see within just a few years?
    There is an old saying “Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.”