Stupid US immigration bill is dead in the water! Woo Hoo!

[SUBMAN1]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3326016&page=1

[waste gate]

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants,

Nice spin there. I think it was Kennedy-McCain, admittedly with Bush's support, who introduced the Bill.


Here is the roll on the cloture vote in case you wonder how your senators voted.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00235

[geetrue]

This is a shocking turn around to me, Washington is like the weather sometimes.

From Fox News "We report you decide it"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html

WASHINGTON — A defiant group of senators refused to continue down the path of a widely unpopular immigration reformbill Thursday, putting up a roadblock on a procedural debate and squeezing out any time left to work on one of President Bush's top domestic priorities.

On the cloture vote — the test to end debate and move to passage — the Senate voted 46-53 not to carry the motion. Sixty votes were needed for forward progress.

The tally is a turnaround of 18 votes from two days earlier. For varying reasons, six Democrats and 12 Republicans changed their votes to 'no' from a Tuesday vote that allowed the Senate to take up amendments on the bill. No one changed their votes to 'yes.'

[waste gate]

A correction to my earlier post:

Bush is acting like it was his bill. If he wants it let him have it.........dummy.


PRESIDENT BUSH: I thank the members of the Senate and members of my administration who worked so hard on the border security and immigration reform bill. I'm sorry the Senate was unable to reach agreement on the bill this morning. Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress's failure to act on it is a disappointment. The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It -- it didn't work. ...

[August]

Yeah smart move. The country seemed energized to kick someone in the short and curlys if this thing had passed.

[geetrue]

Look at this little blurb from the fox news report: Proves phone calls and talk shows work ... :yep:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html


Senate leaders began to see the writing on the wall as tallies for the necessary 60 votes showed critical support had been lost. Part of the change of heart was no doubt spurred by public opposition to the vote, spurred by talk radio hosts.
Opponents of the bill — Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who had been a frequent guest on the radio circuit, and Jim DeMint of South Carolina — remarked on the Senate floor that the sergeant-at-arms' office told them that the volume of calls leading up to the immigration vote was so high it had crashed the phone system, and no one was able to get through during morning debate.
The phone calls that came in "did make a difference," DeMint said after the vote.

[waste gate]

This is a shocking turn around to me, Washington is like the weather sometimes.

From Fox News "We report you decide it"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html

WASHINGTON — A defiant group of senators refused to continue down the path of a widely unpopular immigration reformbill Thursday, putting up a roadblock on a procedural debate and squeezing out any time left to work on one of President Bush's top domestic priorities.

On the cloture vote — the test to end debate and move to passage — the Senate voted 46-53 not to carry the motion. Sixty votes were needed for forward progress.

The tally is a turnaround of 18 votes from two days earlier. For varying reasons, six Democrats and 12 Republicans changed their votes to 'no' from a Tuesday vote that allowed the Senate to take up amendments on the bill. No one changed their votes to 'yes.'


I think the turn came yesterday when the house leadership rejected the senate bill.

[waste gate]

Look at this little blurb from the fox news report: Proves phone calls and talk shows work ... :yep:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html


Senate leaders began to see the writing on the wall as tallies for the necessary 60 votes showed critical support had been lost. Part of the change of heart was no doubt spurred by public opposition to the vote, spurred by talk radio hosts.
Opponents of the bill — Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who had been a frequent guest on the radio circuit, and Jim DeMint of South Carolina — remarked on the Senate floor that the sergeant-at-arms' office told them that the volume of calls leading up to the immigration vote was so high it had crashed the phone system, and no one was able to get through during morning debate.
The phone calls that came in "did make a difference," DeMint said after the vote.


Over the last two or more weeks I've been calling my two senators about it every day.
One didn't listen. I guess we know how I'll vote with regards to him come election time.

[Tchocky]

So, is there going to be any change until after the next election?

[waste gate]

So, is there going to be any change until after the next election?

Probably nothing until '09 on immigration (too hot a topic for the proffessional Politician). Actually securing the border should be the top priority now.

[Tchocky]

Arg, focus on the hardest, the most serious issues first. There's so much time between here and '09

[geetrue]

Arg, focus on the hardest, the most serious issues first. There's so much time between here and '09

The next hurricane will take care of that, but at least we only have 16 and half months till we know who the next person with veto power will be.

[August]

I dont think they'll do border security without it being part of immigration reform. It would be too hard to get it (IR) passed on its own.

[waste gate]

Arg, focus on the hardest, the most serious issues first. There's so much time between here and '09

I'm not sure I know what you think is the most serious issue Tchocky, but going into a general election most folks running for president are white bread on any really contentious issue. Immigration reform has certainly turned into that.

I think the grass roots folks rose up against this bill because it left the most glaring symbol of its failure, unsecured borders, unaddressed or at least uncommunicated.

That is where my opposition came from. The flood has to stop before any clean up can begin.

[waste gate]

I dont think they'll do border security without it being part of immigration reform. It would be too hard to get it (IR) passed on its own.

And I think that will mean the downfall of any other reform. You have to stop the flood before any clean up can begin. Sounds like a broken record.

[SUBMAN1]

Something tells me, McCain isn't going to be a very popular guy come the presidential election. He might as well drop out now.

-S

[waste gate]

Something tells me, McCain isn't going to be a very popular guy come the presidential election. He might as well drop out now.

-S

His poll numbers have been dropping since this immigration bill has been debated.
I agree he has no chance and should bail out now and pray that the people of Arizona elect him to another term. After all Arizona is on the front lines of the illegal crossings.

[geetrue]

Something tells me, McCain isn't going to be a very popular guy come the presidential election. He might as well drop out now.

-S

He's my favorite front runner ... if he was a democrat he would win for sure :lol:

[Heibges]

So, is there going to be any change until after the next election?

Probably nothing until '09 on immigration (too hot a topic for the proffessional Politician). Actually securing the border should be the top priority now.

I agree. Congress will bravely choose to do nothing.

[waste gate]

So, is there going to be any change until after the next election?

Probably nothing until '09 on immigration (too hot a topic for the proffessional Politician). Actually securing the border should be the top priority now.

I agree. Congress will bravely choose to do nothing.

Brave Sir Robin one and all. (see Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

[SUBMAN1]

Something tells me, McCain isn't going to be a very popular guy come the presidential election. He might as well drop out now.

-S
He's my favorite front runner ... if he was a democrat he would win for sure :lol:

Bank on Thompson. McCain I am convinced can't win, just like he couldn't win last time his hat was in the ring against Bush. Thompson however can win and probably will.

Guilliani, who is the current repub front runner isn't even a Republican! He holds nearly all democratic views and stands to muddy the waters from a conservative standpoint.

I mean, Guilliani is banking on his 9/11 fame to carry him through, but wait until he gets to the debates. He will sink like a rock!

-S

[Heibges]

Something tells me, McCain isn't going to be a very popular guy come the presidential election. He might as well drop out now.

-S

He's my favorite front runner ... if he was a democrat he would win for sure :lol:

Me too. It really bothered me when the Bush's smeared him. :nope:

I wrote in Wesley Clark in the last election.:up:

[waste gate]

Something tells me, McCain isn't going to be a very popular guy come the presidential election. He might as well drop out now.

-S
He's my favorite front runner ... if he was a democrat he would win for sure :lol:

Bank on Thompson. McCain I am convinced can't win, just like he couldn't win last time his hat was in the ring against Bush. Thompson however can win and probably will.

Guilliani, who is the current repub front runner isn't even a Republican! He holds nearly all democratic views and stands to muddy the waters from a conservative standpoint.

I mean, Guilliani is banking on his 9/11 fame to carry him through, but wait until he gets to the debates. He will sink like a rock!

-S

Rudy is a republican all right he just isn't a conservative. If he is nominated he will get scuered by HRC just like in the NY senate race. What the republican base is looking for is a real conservative, financially, socially and politically. I guess we will see if such a person exists within the republican party. So far I have yet to see that person.

[SUBMAN1]

Rudy is a republican all right he just isn't a conservative. If he is nominated he will get scuered by HRC just like in the NY senate race. What the republican base is looking for is a real conservative, financially, socially and politically. I guess we will see if such a person exists within the republican party. So far I have yet to see that person.

He is only a repub by name, not by actions. I guess what you could call him is, a democrat in republican sheeps cloathing. He holds not one single view of the republican side of things. He is openly liberal, and left wing, so how exactly outside of what he calls himself, is he a repub? He was even elected democrat governor of NY!

[waste gate]

Rudy is a republican all right he just isn't a conservative. If he is nominated he will get scuered by HRC just like in the NY senate race. What the republican base is looking for is a real conservative, financially, socially and politically. I guess we will see if such a person exists within the republican party. So far I have yet to see that person.

He is only a repub by name, not by actions. I guess what you could call him is, a democrat in republican sheeps cloathing. He holds not one single view of the republican side of things. He is openly liberal, and left wing, so how exactly outside of what he calls himself, is he a repub? He was even elected democrat governor of NY!

RINO Republican In Name Only. Much like the current mayor of NYC Bloomberg who just recently dropped out of the Republican Party.

My rule of thumb is; if the candidate comes from the coasts he was, is, and always will be a liberal.

[SUBMAN1]

RINO Republican In Name Only. Much like the current mayor of NYC Bloomberg who just recently dropped out of the Republican Party.

My rule of thumb is; if the candidate comes from the coasts he was, is, and always will be a liberal.
Exactly - RINO. Here are some examples that show his Giuliani's colors:

Gay rights

During his mayoralty, gays and lesbians in New York asked for domestic-partnership rights. Giuliani in turn pushed the city's Democratic-controlled New York City Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Council), which had avoided the issue for years, to then pass legislation providing broad protection for same-sex partners. In 1998, he codified local law by granting all city employees equal benefits for their domestic partners. Giuliani also allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in his administration. He does, however, support the preservation of marriage between a man and a woman and considers it holy.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-34)

Gun control lawsuit

On June 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_20), 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000), Giuliani announced that the City of New York had filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors.[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-35)[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-36) [61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-37) President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act) in October 2005 in an effort to protect gun companies from liability.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-38) In 2006, the Tiarht Amendment was added to an appropiations bill and was signed into law. The amendment seeks to prevent ATF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BATFE) data from being used to sue gun companies. Despite these two legislative attempts to end the case, the case remains active.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-39)


Immigration and Illegal Immigration

Giuliani was criticized for embracing illegal immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrants).[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-15)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-16) Giuliani continued a policy of preventing city employees from contacting the Immigration and Naturalization Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service) about immigration violations, on the grounds that illegal aliens must be able to take actions such as to send their children to school or report crime and violations without fear of deportation. He ordered city attorneys to defend this policy in federal court. The court ruled that New York City's sanctuary laws were illegal. After the City of New York lost an appeal to the United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court), Giuliani vowed to ignore the law.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-17) Giuliani also expressed doubt that the federal government can completely stop illegal immigration.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-18) In 1996, Giuliani said, "I believe the anti-immigration movement in America is one of our most serious public problems." In 2000, Giuliani said of New York City, "Immigration is a very positive force for the City of New York. Immigration is the key to the city's success. Both historically and to this very day."[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#_note-19)


Abortion

“After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in coming days,” writes the New York Times.

[geetrue]

Exactly - RINO. Here are some examples that show his Giuliani's colors:



Those examples just show that there are more bad guys than good guys and Rudy is trying to get their votes. :yep:

[Tchocky]

Well, there are more than two political positions that a candidate can take, so this argument is more than a little silly.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, there are more than two political positions that a candidate can take, so this argument is more than a little silly.
If you understood American politics properly, then this would make sense to you. So no, it is not silly.

-S

[waste gate]

Exactly what I was speaking about SUBMAN1. I think we are on the same page when it comes to Giuliani.

I understand the need for compromise on certain issues in the political process, but Giuliani has consistantly esposed the beliefs which you posted and for that reason will not gain the nomination of the GOP in '08.

This is a great site for tracking poll numbers as well as opinion from leading journalists on both sides of the aisle.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[SUBMAN1]

Exactly - RINO. Here are some examples that show his Giuliani's colors:


Those examples just show that there are more bad guys than good guys and Rudy is trying to get their votes. :yep:

It has nothing to do with getting votes. Most of these were actions while in office.

-S

[Tchocky]

Well, there are more than two political positions that a candidate can take, so this argument is more than a little silly.
If you understood American politics properly, then this would make sense to you. So no, it is not silly.
Yeah, probably.

Criticising someone for holding views that do not fit with the general scope of a political party is fair and good. You cannot voice party allegiance while working in the other direction.
....but, (and this is where the US comes in) when there are only two major parties capable of electing someone to high office, a candidate needs to be in with either one in order to be elected. Maybe since the 2-party system ensures that a moderate won't be elected, anyone who crosses party lines is shooting themselves in the foot.

[geetrue]

Exactly - RINO. Here are some examples that show his Giuliani's colors:


Those examples just show that there are more bad guys than good guys and Rudy is trying to get their votes. :yep:

It has nothing to do with getting votes. Most of these were actions while in office.

-S

If Rudy didn't change his mind on what he is for and what he is against ... then he is trying to use his track record to get votes for the primary's.

[waste gate]

Well, there are more than two political positions that a candidate can take, so this argument is more than a little silly.
If you understood American politics properly, then this would make sense to you. So no, it is not silly.
Yeah, probably.

Criticising someone for holding views that do not fit with the general scope of a political party is fair and good. You cannot voice party allegiance while working in the other direction.
....but, (and this is where the US comes in) when there are only two major parties capable of electing someone to high office, a candidate needs to be in with either one in order to be elected. Maybe since the 2-party system ensures that a moderate won't be elected, anyone who crosses party lines is shooting themselves in the foot.


T., I posted this in a thread 03-03-2007, 04:54 PM
I hope it gives some insight.


During the conventions, which choose the candidate who will run under the respective party banner, a platform is established. Delegates to these conventions come with influences from other parties w/in the US. Some of the delegates are to use a term extremists, others are moderate. Together they draw up the platform. It is during this process, that the negotiation and alliances which are seen in parlimentary systems, takes place.

When looking at the platforms you can see the results of these negotiations and alliances. Although it may not appear evident even the smaller, less well funded political entities get a say in the process.

Attached you will find the platforms from 2004.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004_GOP_Platform.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106709&highlight=platform

[Tchocky]

The conventions don't choose the nominees anymore, surely? Wasn't Eisenhower the last one voted in from the convention floor, in 1952?

[waste gate]

The conventions don't choose the nominees anymore, surely? Wasn't Eisenhower the last one voted in from the convention floor, in 1952?

Well those conventioners come from some where. Perhaps 1952 was the last time the delegates broke from the primaries (i don't know), but ultimately all other party delegates are involved in the negotiation the platform. Greens, Communists, Evangelicals, NAZIs the whole lot can and do have influence on the party platform under which the candidate runs for election. If the electorate doesn't take the time to investigate the platform, or the media doesn't report it, what can I say?

[Heibges]

The conventions don't choose the nominees anymore, surely? Wasn't Eisenhower the last one voted in from the convention floor, in 1952?

The vote is at the Convention, but it is largely a formality. The most interesting convention from this perspective was probably the 1976 Republican Convention where Gerald Ford ended up being the nominee over Ronald Reagan, although neither held a clear majority at the start of the convention.

[bradclark1]

I agree. Congress will bravely choose to do nothing.
They'll talk about it and vote for secure borders and like last time they won't allocate the money to do it. Maybe next elections it will be all independents voted in.

[Tchocky]

Maybe next elections it will be all independents voted in.

*Tchocky straps rockets to pig, prays*

[P_Funk]

Well, there are more than two political positions that a candidate can take, so this argument is more than a little silly.
If you understood American politics properly, then this would make sense to you. So no, it is not silly.

-S I have a fairly good understanding of American politics for a hapless Canuck. I think the whole two party system where candidates are encouraged to not show individual political slants is just... silly.

You know for a nation that lives and breathes the ideological foundation for Capitalism it sure seems funny that there isn't much fair competition in the political scene. Where are the rogue left wing communist parties that drive the Dems to actually be left wing and where are the progressive conservatives that force the hard right to migrate just a bit closer to the centre?

Democracy is about diversity of opinion. Two parties just ain't enough.

But don't let me go on and derail things.

[SUBMAN1]

...anyone who crosses party lines is shooting themselves in the foot.

Though some crossover is tolerated (unlike the UK), the issues I presented will not be tolerated. It is not one, and not even two. I gave four big political stumbling blocks. Doubt he will be nominated as the GOP nomination. There are even more issues. By definition in the US, he falls along the democratic party line nearly 100% of the time if analyzed. That is the problem.

I wonder how many people in the US realize how he votes?

-S

[Onkel Neal]

So, is there going to be any change until after the next election?

Probably nothing until '09 on immigration (too hot a topic for the proffessional Politician). Actually securing the border should be the top priority now.

I agree. A country that allows 12 million illegal aliens to live and work with no regard for the law is not much of a country. Secure the borders and then take a page from Eisenhower's book; round them up send them back. Then, we can implement a guest worker program, but no citizen ship. The US does not need the Mexican government to reverse colonize us.

[SUBMAN1]

I have a fairly good understanding of American politics for a hapless Canuck. I think the whole two party system where candidates are encouraged to not show individual political slants is just... silly.

You know for a nation that lives and breathes the ideological foundation for Capitalism it sure seems funny that there isn't much fair competition in the political scene. Where are the rogue left wing communist parties that drive the Dems to actually be left wing and where are the progressive conservatives that force the hard right to migrate just a bit closer to the centre?

Democracy is about diversity of opinion. Two parties just ain't enough.

But don't let me go on and derail things.

Don't get me wrong. I agree on the idea of a third party that is equally as strong as the other two to shake things up a bit and to but things back in balance. Nothing would be better for America. As it is today however, you get to choose one or the other. Democrats however seem to engage in warfare on a 2 to 1 scale over repubs (based on historical figures), and I think I'm tired of the warfare as we have it today, so I defintely won't be voting that way this year. It is possible for me to swing, but unlikely this year either. I don't like the front runner for the demo party is why. I don't like the front runner for the repubs either unless Thompson gets in. Maybe I'll vote independant this year!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I agree. A country that allows 12 million illegal aliens to live and work with no regard for the law is not much of a country. Secure the borders and then take a page from Eisenhower's book; round them up send them back. Then, we can implement a guest worker program, but no citizen ship. The US does not need the Mexican government to reverse colonize us.

As I said before - add $10 to every single tax return in the US, and use the $3 billion anually to round up and ship back these people to whereever they came. Give them 10 years and over $30 Billion, and I think the job could easily be done by then. Rounding them up and sending them home is not a case of we can't do it, it is actually a financial issue.

-S

[Heibges]

Well, there are more than two political positions that a candidate can take, so this argument is more than a little silly.
If you understood American politics properly, then this would make sense to you. So no, it is not silly.

-S I have a fairly good understanding of American politics for a hapless Canuck. I think the whole two party system where candidates are encouraged to not show individual political slants is just... silly.

You know for a nation that lives and breathes the ideological foundation for Capitalism it sure seems funny that there isn't much fair competition in the political scene. Where are the rogue left wing communist parties that drive the Dems to actually be left wing and where are the progressive conservatives that force the hard right to migrate just a bit closer to the centre?

Democracy is about diversity of opinion. Two parties just ain't enough.

But don't let me go on and derail things.

That pretty much sums it up, but let me add a couple of things.

We look for the voters to do both things. It works for the year preceding the election, but generally results in no meaningful regulations.

The Republicans act like Democrats. Pat Buccanan and Phyllis Schafly are persona non grata at Conventions, and abortion is not mentioned. They think up cutesy idiotic phrases like Thousand Points of Light.

The Democrats act like Republicans. They climb around on tanks like Michael Dukkakis, and talk about the number of Purple Hearts they received in Vietnam although they may have been the worst officer in the history of the US Navy. (Republicans avoid the topic of Vietnam altogether, unless it is a Bush bashing McCain about being a collaborator or being crazy.)

The role of the American voter is to focus on the least important or even a totally irrelvent issue, and generally believe the biggest lie told to them.

They thought JFK was young and handsome. :|\\

Richard Nixon said he would get us out of Vietnam, and he did.....just 7 years later.:hmm:

Jimmy Carter wasn't Richard Nixon.:lurk:

Ronald Reagan said he was going to put America back to work, then smashed the Unions and moved our jobs to Mexico, India and Southeast Asia. :-j

George Bush said he was not going to raise taxes, and........he raised taxes.:rotfl:

Bill Clinton reminded everybody of JFK. A dopesmoking draftdodging JFK.:damn:

GW Bush was not Bill Clinton and reminded people of his father. A cokesnorting draftdodging version of his father.:huh:

They thought there would be gay marriage if they voted for John Kerry.:/\\k:

[Heibges]

I agree. A country that allows 12 million illegal aliens to live and work with no regard for the law is not much of a country. Secure the borders and then take a page from Eisenhower's book; round them up send them back. Then, we can implement a guest worker program, but no citizen ship. The US does not need the Mexican government to reverse colonize us.

As I said before - add $10 to every single tax return in the US, and use the $3 billion anually to round up and ship back these people to whereever they came. Give them 10 years and over $30 Billion, and I think the job could easily be done by then. Rounding them up and sending them home is not a case of we can't do it, it is actually a financial issue.

-S

I think it actually might be an issue of logistics, rather than a financial issue. Also it is a matter of political will. I think few would have the stomach for it, once they saw what it would really entail.

My Uncle was a GS-16 in INS. His assistant, a GS-12 worked for me years later as an office manager, which goes to show you how small a state Vermont really is.

First you have to send the folks to a holding facility. Often this was in Puerto Rico. You have to pay to feed and house not only the immigrants, but also extra pay and per diem for the INS. They would deport dozens of people at a time.

You are talking about moving 12 Million people. Probably against their will. The last time something on that scale was attempted, the US Army Aircorps ended up dropping 1,360,000 tons of high explosive on the people who tried it. The size of the bureacracy you would need to create to plan and administer this is crazy. Think KGB 2nd Chief Directorate.

You will have some straight up Schindler's List type film footage of folks rounded up against their will on the streets of Hometown USA. Women crying, children crying etc etc etc.

It might be $3Billion a year, or it might cost $50 Billion dollars a year, or roughly half what the we are spending now in Iraq.

I fully agree that we need to take decisive immediate action, but I just don't see how a plan to deport 12 million people is remotely practical.

[August]

Border security has to be fixed before we can talk about amnesty programs or mass deportation schemes, because without it they'll just be running back across the border as fast as we put them out.

[Heibges]

Border security has to be fixed before we can talk about amnesty programs or mass deportation schemes, because without it they'll just be running back across the border as fast as we put them out.

That's very true. Plus airports. Plus ports.

[August]

That's very true. Plus airports. Plus ports.

Well air and sea ports are already far more secure than our land borders and coastline.
I think they should concentrate on the Mexican border first as that is where the great majority of the illegal immigrants are coming from.

[SUBMAN1]

I think it actually might be an issue of logistics, rather than a financial issue. Also it is a matter of political will. I think few would have the stomach for it, once they saw what it would really entail.

My Uncle was a GS-16 in INS. His assistant, a GS-12 worked for me years later as an office manager, which goes to show you how small a state Vermont really is.

First you have to send the folks to a holding facility. Often this was in Puerto Rico. You have to pay to feed and house not only the immigrants, but also extra pay and per diem for the INS. They would deport dozens of people at a time.

You are talking about moving 12 Million people. Probably against their will. The last time something on that scale was attempted, the US Army Aircorps ended up dropping 1,360,000 tons of high explosive on the people who tried it. The size of the bureacracy you would need to create to plan and administer this is crazy. Think KGB 2nd Chief Directorate.

You will have some straight up Schindler's List type film footage of folks rounded up against their will on the streets of Hometown USA. Women crying, children crying etc etc etc.

It might be $3Billion a year, or it might cost $50 Billion dollars a year, or roughly half what the we are spending now in Iraq.

I fully agree that we need to take decisive immediate action, but I just don't see how a plan to deport 12 million people is remotely practical.
Lets see, 10 years, $30 billion = $2500 per person. Maybe it costs more, so what? It needs to be done. You can't just let them sit here and thumb their nose! To start doing something is to send a message also to those wanting in.

Basically, what needs to be done needs to be done. We in America are too soft. So soft, I don't think an America is going to be left in 20 years, or at least not it's current form. Probably a shadow of what it once was.

By the way, I am talking the same $$$ as we are spending in Iraq. Also, to accomplish any task, you need funding in place. Once funding is there, the rest will form around it. Its simple economics.

-S

[Yahoshua]

So, is there going to be any change until after the next election?

Probably nothing until '09 on immigration (too hot a topic for the proffessional Politician). Actually securing the border should be the top priority now.

I agree. A country that allows 12 million illegal aliens to live and work with no regard for the law is not much of a country. Secure the borders and then take a page from Eisenhower's book; round them up send them back. Then, we can implement a guest worker program, but no citizen ship. The US does not need the Mexican government to reverse colonize us.

With the way things are now, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Re-Colonization?"

[P_Funk]

Maybe I'll vote independant this year!

-S In America that often seems to be mostly a lost vote. In Canada if you aren't voting for the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, or (and only in Quebec) the Bloc Quebecois, then you're probably voting for the Greens or one of the few REAL partiless fellows. So basically even here independants can be a lost vote. But interestingly enough a few years ago a single independant in the House of Commons saved the Liberal government from an election. One vote. A few years ago there was a discussion of enacting proportional representation. Such a system would give better representation to smaller shares of the vote. Like if you got 5% of the national vote its most likely that that was split up between ridings and you didn't get a single seat. But with proportional representation you could say make it so that every percentage point of the national vote is one seat in parliament. With that the Greens would have something like 3 to 5 seats nationally!

I hope for everyones sake that the US gravitates towards a more diverse political system. Often my pinko-commie rants make me sound like an America hater. I want America to succeed.:yep:

Democracy FTW.:up:

[bradclark1]

I agree. A country that allows 12 million illegal aliens to live and work with no regard for the law is not much of a country. Secure the borders and then take a page from Eisenhower's book; round them up send them back. Then, we can implement a guest worker program, but no citizen ship. The US does not need the Mexican government to reverse colonize us.
Thats my thinking also.

[Heibges]

Maybe I'll vote independant this year!

-S In America that often seems to be mostly a lost vote. In Canada if you aren't voting for the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, or (and only in Quebec) the Bloc Quebecois, then you're probably voting for the Greens or one of the few REAL partiless fellows. So basically even here independants can be a lost vote. But interestingly enough a few years ago a single independant in the House of Commons saved the Liberal government from an election. One vote. A few years ago there was a discussion of enacting proportional representation. Such a system would give better representation to smaller shares of the vote. Like if you got 5% of the national vote its most likely that that was split up between ridings and you didn't get a single seat. But with proportional representation you could say make it so that every percentage point of the national vote is one seat in parliament. With that the Greens would have something like 3 to 5 seats nationally!

I hope for everyones sake that the US gravitates towards a more diverse political system. Often my pinko-commie rants make me sound like an America hater. I want America to succeed.:yep:

Democracy FTW.:up:

My Votes:
1988 - Alexander Haig (Write In)
1992 - Ross Perot
1996 - Ross Perot
2000 - John McCain (Write In)
2004 - Wesley Clark (Write In)

[Tchocky]

12 million illegal aliens in the country.

Right....deporting all of them will be neither cheap, practicable, or good for the economy. It's like balancing a budget, you don't usually do it because you a) can't, and b) isn't always a good idea

[SUBMAN1]

12 million illegal aliens in the country.

Right....deporting all of them will be neither cheap, practicable, or good for the economy. It's like balancing a budget, you don't usually do it because you a) can't, and b) isn't always a good idea

It will be great for the economy! What are you even talking about? Right now, parts of our economy is messed up by illegals getting paid lower wages under the table with no tax revenue, and putting skilled labor out of jobs! And yes, we can!

[Heibges]

I think it actually might be an issue of logistics, rather than a financial issue. Also it is a matter of political will. I think few would have the stomach for it, once they saw what it would really entail.

My Uncle was a GS-16 in INS. His assistant, a GS-12 worked for me years later as an office manager, which goes to show you how small a state Vermont really is.

First you have to send the folks to a holding facility. Often this was in Puerto Rico. You have to pay to feed and house not only the immigrants, but also extra pay and per diem for the INS. They would deport dozens of people at a time.

You are talking about moving 12 Million people. Probably against their will. The last time something on that scale was attempted, the US Army Aircorps ended up dropping 1,360,000 tons of high explosive on the people who tried it. The size of the bureacracy you would need to create to plan and administer this is crazy. Think KGB 2nd Chief Directorate.

You will have some straight up Schindler's List type film footage of folks rounded up against their will on the streets of Hometown USA. Women crying, children crying etc etc etc.

It might be $3Billion a year, or it might cost $50 Billion dollars a year, or roughly half what the we are spending now in Iraq.

I fully agree that we need to take decisive immediate action, but I just don't see how a plan to deport 12 million people is remotely practical.
Lets see, 10 years, $30 billion = $2500 per person. Maybe it costs more, so what? It needs to be done. You can't just let them sit here and thumb their nose! To start doing something is to send a message also to those wanting in.

Basically, what needs to be done needs to be done. We in America are too soft. So soft, I don't think an America is going to be left in 20 years, or at least not it's current form. Probably a shadow of what it once was.

By the way, I am talking the same $$$ as we are spending in Iraq. Also, to accomplish any task, you need funding in place. Once funding is there, the rest will form around it. Its simple economics.

-S

I agree that quick decisive action is needed, but, as the saying goes, I don't want to go "all in" on a losing hand. I fully believe that a good plan now is better than a great plan tomorrow, but oftentimes it is better to do nothing until a proper course of action is really thought through.

[Tchocky]

It will be great for the economy! What are you even talking about? Right now, parts of our economy is messed up by illegals getting paid lower wages under the table with no tax revenue, and putting skilled labor out of jobs! And yes, we can! Work permits, temporary visas will help the problem of under-the-table wages. And they will avoid the expensive deportation process.
I don't see 12 million skilled Americans out of work at the moment. Also, how many illegal immigrants are in skilled occupations? Very few, I imagine.

[SUBMAN1]

I agree that quick decisive action is needed, but, as the saying goes, I don't want to go "all in" on a losing hand. I fully believe that a good plan now is better than a great plan tomorrow, but oftentimes it is better to do nothing until a proper course of action is really thought through.

Well, if you had a good plan to start with, then that is a great idea for me! The problem is, we had a bad plan all around. It gave amnesty to those in country illegally. Yes, you say so what? But we already know the outcome. Spain is the defining country in this regard - they did the same 'exact' thing we were about to do. Everyone thought great - we cleared up the immigration problem! Everyone thought everything is fine and dandy, and so did the illegals because they invited all their friends and family and quadrupled their illegal immigration problems!

Why? Simple! The illegals got a green light in that their brothers and sisters got amnesty, so if I go in there illegally, then I will eventually get amnesty at some point too!

So how to win an election in SPain right now if you are a politician? You run on the fact that you will reverse the new immigration bill.

And guess who's bill is almost a word for word copy of Spains? THe Kennedy McCain bill that is trying to be pushed by Bush.

Its DOA, and good riddence!

-S

[Heibges]

It will be great for the economy! What are you even talking about? Right now, parts of our economy is messed up by illegals getting paid lower wages under the table with no tax revenue, and putting skilled labor out of jobs! And yes, we can! Work permits, temporary visas will help the problem of under-the-table wages. And they will avoid the expensive deportation process.
I don't see 12 million skilled Americans out of work at the moment. Also, how many illegal immigrants are in skilled occupations? Very few, I imagine.

And this is a huge problem in California. The Illegal Immigration issue has become so serious, that it is very hard to get Visas for highly qualified foreigners with important technical skills, and there just aren't enough educated Americans to go around. :doh:

A related article.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109666&org=NSF&from=news

[Onkel Neal]

Lets see, 10 years, $30 billion = $2500 per person. Maybe it costs more, so what? It needs to be done. You can't just let them sit here and thumb their nose! To start doing something is to send a message also to those wanting in.

Basically, what needs to be done needs to be done.

-S

Well said.

[Onkel Neal]

It will be great for the economy! What are you even talking about? Right now, parts of our economy is messed up by illegals getting paid lower wages under the table with no tax revenue, and putting skilled labor out of jobs! And yes, we can! Work permits, temporary visas will help the problem of under-the-table wages. And they will avoid the expensive deportation process.
I don't see 12 million skilled Americans out of work at the moment. Also, how many illegal immigrants are in skilled occupations? Very few, I imagine.

I'm all for temp work permits, but not to those already in the country illegally. All guest worker permits should be applied for in person at the US embassies inside Mexico only. Employers caught hiring illegals in the US should face huge fines and penalties. That would start the illegals moving back across the border without the need for massive deportation by the US govt.

Above all, the US does not need a large demographic shift. If 10-20 million illegals become voters over the next 25 years, judging by the massive protests this year, I would guess they would help open the gates even wider.

[Heibges]

12,000,000
x$2500

$30 Billion

We could just give them all $2500 to just go back where they came from.

Even if you gave them $5000 each that might be the easiest and cheapest way to do it.

[Yahoshua]

And who's to say they won't just pocket the money and stay here?

Send 'em back. Wanting to get into the country legally is one thing, illegally invading and stealing jobs to send money back home is another.

[Heibges]

And who's to say they won't just pocket the money and stay here?

Send 'em back. Wanting to get into the country legally is one thing, illegally invading and stealing jobs to send money back home is another.

They would have to sign for the money at the US Embassy in the capitol of their country of origin.

Here is something interesting from the World Bank.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21391017~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~the SitePK:4607,00.html