Amnesty Alive

by Mike on June 14, 2007

in Politics

Like the medieval peasant in Monty Python, the amnesty bill isn’t dead yet. In fact, it has been revived and is now on its way to final passage.

It’s no secret that the Republican Party has been spineless for years now. What’s frustrating is that this is the issue that caused them to find their backbones.  Our party really is the stupid party.

HT: Michelle Malkin

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

Chris June 14, 2007 at 10:30 pm

The fact that Immigration Amnesty has revived itself has flat-out dangerous implications for the US. First, it will not protect the border, which in a post 9-11 era is imperative…an unprotected border will allow terrorists who want to kill us wide open opportunities. Second, its passage will be the death knell to the Republican Party…it is already contributing to the lowered Bush approval ratings and the Republicans don’t get it that only 20% of Americans want the bill passed. Apparently, they did not learn their lesson from the Harriet Miers debacle and the Midterm Elections fiasco of 2006…Liberals will tell you that it was a vote against Iraq, but in reality, it was a vote against spineless Republicans lacking conservative values. Third, it will increase the economic strain of many states and because they want to get more eventual voters, the Dems will give them stuff (entitlements) on the taxpayers’ dime. If this bill goes through the Senate and the president signs it, they will throw away the potential which has been growing in the past few months that 2008 could be a good year for Republicans.

Other observations about the Amnesty/Illegals debate:

- Nobody ever talks about Mexican enforcement of the Guatemalan border. Total double standard and somebody needs to call them out on it, especially when Mexico whines about our border with them.

- Today, Rush brought up an interesting point about langauge the media and politicians use…back in the day we referred to those who illegally crossed as ‘aliens’ and today, that term is thought of us ‘unkind’ and ‘racist’…we also recently saw Dingy Harry call them undocumented Americans…very, very scary.

- More on vocabulary…apparently if you do not support this bill, you are called a ‘racist’ Bad move by the Republicans or anyone supporting this monstrosity that has dangerous implications for the US.


Phil June 15, 2007 at 2:23 am

It is interesting to note that on a separate survey, Americans were shown to support provisions of the now failed Senate immigration bill. A NY Times/CBS poll conducted between May 18 and 23 with 1,125 adults (NY Times, 5/27/07) shows the following:

*66% favor a guest worker program
*51% say that education, work experience, and job skills should be given priority when admitting immigrants
*67% say illegal immigrants should get a renewable visa if they pay a fine, have a clean record, and pass a background check
*62% say illegal immigrants who have been in the US for at least two years should be allowed to apply for legal status

The poll did not ask participants for the opinion on the specific immigration bill, but instead on provisions included within it. This poll was published a bit earlier than the Rasmussen poll that the previous commenter cites in a Limbaugh transcript.

While that commenter laments Republican weakness, I think the lowered American support for the bill might be due to the Republican’s success in characterizing the legislation as an “amnesty” bill. Bush’s attempt at defending the bill against Republican critics failed to ring with the American public. Why? Since his approval rating was low already, and given the debacle of his administration, many Americans may feel more skeptical of whatever he says. Also, Americans still worry about “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, which might have made the Republican argument all the more salient.

I do not agree with many of the bill’s provisions (and no one has called me a racist for it). Its a piece of compromise legislation that has many kinks and requires more debate and refinement. However the bill should NOT be mistaken for an amnesty bill.

Lets consider the vocabulary: according to, the term ‘amnesty’ is a “general pardon for offenses” or an “act of forgiveness for past offenses,” or a “forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.”

Now lets consider the bill’s provisions: in order to be considered for legal status, illegal immigrants would need to turn themselves in, pay thousands in fines, return to their host country, pass a background check, and get onto a waiting list for re-entry. Hardly a “forgetting” or “overlooking” or “forgiveness” of their illegal status.

Politicians always use language to suit their needs and desires. Both the left and the right engage in verbal deception. Its one of the many bad sides of politics and unfortunately the public always fall victim.

As for the immigration bill, it has some good and some bad. But lets set the record straight: its not “amnesty.”


Ryan June 15, 2007 at 7:33 am

It is amnesty with doilies and pretty curtains, plain and simple. We can argue semantics all day but what’s the reality? The current law states that they should be jailed and deported. This bill doesn’t even enforce current law or do either of those things. The aliens will have to leave, but are not being deported. This bill is dangerous and unnecessary, and taking an honest view on our government right now, it’s ABSOLUTELY UNENFORCABLE! The government just gave up on the new passport laws because it was creating a “backlog”. Boo hoo, I feel such sympathy for a government who’s laws are just too inconvenient to enforce (during a War on Terror by the way).

What do you really think is going to happen if this thing gets passed? The Heritage Foundation has already done a cost analysis of the bill and we’re talking severe economic disaster if all these aliens are allowed to bring the three family members over with them– schools, hospitals, urban infrastructure, crime, and a welfare-state “gimme” mentality. Plus, I’m always weary of polls that sample “adults”, statistically the most unrelaible and manipulatable polling cohort.

Like I mentioned in a previous comment on another post, this debate reminds me of the 1990s debate on gun control. What good is a new gun law when the 20,000 ones on the books aren’t being enforced? This bill is Bush’s transparent attempt at a positive legacy and it’s a way for the Democrats to solidify their electoral majority for 50 years, by cow-towing to a welfare-state-minded union-grubbing populace of unassimilated law-breakers.

Strong, militant borders should be put up with zero-tolerance for violators, and with very loose rules of engagement for the border patrol. Aliens don’t have American rights– they’re not Americans, remember, they’re law breakers that Congress is unabashedly wooing for future votes! Seriously punishing businesses that hire illegals will dry up demand pretty fast. We can legally do both of those things right now without ANY new bill. President Eisenhower had great success with this in the 1950s with “Operation Wetback.”

All of these closed room deals and political posturing is another HUGE sign that the writers of this bill are even afraid to show the rest of us what’s in it, or let the public debate its merits. The aliens should leave and get to back of the line like everyone else who wants to be here legally. Since they’re not going to just get up and leave, we should show them the door while impatiently smacking truncheons in our hands as they walk by.


Phil June 15, 2007 at 10:28 am

I hope your response isn’t serious, because its a tad bit vitriolic. But on that point, I digress.

As far as whether the bill is “amnesty” or not, I can’t see how one can ignore the very simple logic. If this were a true amnesty bill, then its provisions would grant legal residence to all illegal immigrants without any condition. poof! you’re a legal resident! that would be amnesty.

Now, however imperfect the bill may be (and it is very imperfect), its provisions actually implement a lot of what you want done. It sends the “aliens” out, and makes them “get to the back of the line” in their home country.

As for the Heritage Foundation, given their unabashed conservatism, I take anything they publish or say with lots of skepticism. I do the same for left-wing think tanks. And you should too. Without having read their report, its hard to see how “economic disaster” will come even with a new immigration bill. Undocumented immigrants have been in the US for a very, very, long time. In fact they’ve been great for our labor market, as they take many jobs ordinary Americans do not want. Enjoy any strawberries lately? They were picked by your local friendly illegal “alien.”

And your critique of the NY Times/CBS poll is confusing. You’re weary of polls that sample “adults?” Do you suggest polling children instead? Who do you think the Rasmussen poll surveyed? Toddlers? If you read the NY Times/CBS poll, they state fairly clearly how they conducted it.

The problem with those on the ultra right or left is that they discard reason and logic. This is tragic because when debating immigration policy, we need all the logic and reason we can get. That’s how good public policy is made. Not with truncheons :)


Mike June 15, 2007 at 12:25 pm

I’ll focus on one part due to time constraints. There ar two alternatives to polls of “Adults” and neither one of them is children. The first is “registered voters” which is more accurate because those are th people who elect people who make the policies. The second alternative and even more accurate is “likely voters” which is determined by subjective responses and past voting history. This is the most accurate because it filters out registered voters who are unlikley to vote. The “likely voter” model is more difficult to determine the further away an election is so “registered voters” is the norm at this point in a cycle.


Ryan June 15, 2007 at 1:11 pm

While I enjoy your attempt at condescension, there are real points that you choose to ignore. I agree with Mike that your knowledge of polls is actually laughable– or were you trying to be funny???

Also, they’d instantly be given a legal status, which gives them access to the 14th Amendment’s due process clause and equal protection. They’re effectively citizens and the ACLU is lining up ready to sue the moment this bill is passed.

On the economic disaster issue, you obviously lean liberal because you aren’t quite able to think past the dollars and cents after passage of this bill and have drank somebody’s the Kool-Aid on this issue. In fact, they’ve depressed wages, created a huge pool of non-taxed workers, and an underclass. This bill creates a true underclass and a civil rights nightmare when you listen to the debate (they take jobs we don’t want, they’ll work for less, someone needs to cut our lawn, etc.). That’s actually quite racist and our businesses should be punished under the the basic tennants of the EEOC and Civil Rights Act of 1964.


BillT June 15, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Food fight at the Axis of Right! But, also a great indicator of how emotionally charged this issue is.

That’s a great question on the 14th Amendment. Does the “Z” Visa status give them that protection? If so, then we’d really swamp the courts. I’ll be checking that out.

As for the polls, saw one this morning showing 80% disagree with the bill as it was written.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: