What Compromise?
Bush Urges Compromise on Immigration Bill
President Bush pressed Congress on Thursday to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.
Bush’s speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was intended to build momentum for Senate and House negotiators to resolve passionate disputes and produce a compromise. The two houses passed sharply different versions of the legislation.
The House bill generally is limited to border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. The Senate version would tighten border security, offer a guest worker program to bring in new foreign workers and provide a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.
“The United States Congress needs to pass a comprehensive bill,” the president said. Bush said any legislation must include a temporary worker program and the opportunity for citizenship.
Bush said illegal immigration has put pressure on U.S. schools and hospitals, spawned more crime and caused other problems.
So here we have two sides.
One side is for border enforcement first. The other side is for amnesty and then (maybe) border enforcement.
The disAssociated Press is saying that giving the amnesty side everything they want is a compromise. I always thought that a compromise was finding some middle ground that everyone can agree with; not one side giving up their principles, which is how I see rewarding lawbreakers by giving them amnesty plus citizenship just because so many of them broke the law.
I would think that a compromise would be more like doing something in-between. For example I could see border security, comprehensive internal enforcement, and increased legal immigration being something both sides could walk away with and feel good about.
President Bush is dead wrong on this issue. If he prevails the Republican Party majority is finished in November.
On the other hand they can win by making themselves the legal immigration party.
We’ve covered the meaning of the word amnesty before, so this isn’t exactly news:
Is reducing the penalty then amnesty? Of course not.
You are right on this:
This is completely fucked up, and yes is amnesty.
Check the word definition again. How does this fit in?
No, that’s just incompetence.
Because word choice really does matter. Amnesty has become a loaded word, and is used inappropriately in order to get a desired “gut punch” reaction.
The words you use affect how the debate gets framed. Or in some cases, word choice can be used to stop any debate, “chickenhawk” is a good choice of that, “amnesty” is quickly becoming another.
I’ve been harping over the misuse of the word “amnesty” because it has become such a loaded word, that it prevents any further dialog. Stopping dialog is not in your interest, unless your views represent those of the overwhelming majority.
As to the rest…I happen to have grave reservations with reducing penalties (technically “clemency,” but that sounds so damned boring doesn’t it?) because of exactly the same problem that you mentioned with encouraging more aliens.
I’ve laid out “my plan” before which is:
1) deny the borders using a defense in depth strategy
2) deny employment to illegals by improving the verification process, eliminate loop holes in existing law that makes it easy for them to work without valid social security numbers,
3) enforce existing laws regarding employers who are blatantly violating the law, while making it easier to catch illegals.
My prediction for the plan that will be settled on:
1) do nothing.
2) see #1.
President Bush’s Press Secretary did much the same thing when he was on the Rush Limbaugh show. (Of course even Rush makes that claim)
Rush talks about the time when some midwest meatpackers were targeted by immigration enforcement. They apparently got their Congresscritters to intervene.
I don’t think this is as nefarious as it sounds. As the law is interpreted these meat packers have to hire those with reasonable looking documents. When the government shows up and starts accusing them they’re stuck in a bad place.
1. They followed the rules. And now the government’s enforcing different rules.
2. They are losing a large chunk of their workforce that they hired in good faith by the rules.
3. They must wonder why out of millions of employers they are being singled out.
If the government gave employers the tools to enforce their responsibility it’d be a different thing. However blaming them for something they can’t do differently is wrong.
Carrick: The authorities are taking action; the tax cheats still have to pay, but with a lower interest rate. Some amnesty!
“Throughout this special Amnesty period, which began in October and ends January 31, individuals and businesses have been paying overdue taxes at a reduced interest rate.”
Are you saying the politicians are being honest?
Tony Snow said on Rush last week that there was no penalty for illegals in the 1986 amnesty. Umm what punishment works except for deportation! It’s not like we want to pay for their room and board.
The President said that the illegals weren’t jumping in front of the line during his address to the nation. Let’s see, there’s people living in Third World Countries waiting to come here and the illegals get to stay here….
Good title. Your choice of the unfair and politically loaded word “amnesty” makes it completely clear you have absolutely no interest in compromising.
Nor any interest in any real back-and-forth on this issue.
Why then, bother with the posts on this subject?
It’s a discount program.
Carrick: You are technically right, but the “do nothing” part of what I wrote is the reality. That is my point. While we dither about semantics, the illegals are pouring across the border, while the authorities do nothing. We already have immigration laws; we just have to enforce them. It’s an enforcement problem, not a legislative or semantic one. The illegals, not being very proficient in English, can’t appreciate your nuanced approach, and just come in anyway, even though they are not technically getting amnesty. They come here, they get welfare, jobs, medical care, education, so why should they care about shades of meaning?
and we’re led to believe that legal immigrants don’t have to do anything to become citizens.
What does the bill say they’re going to do to those that don’t follow the rules this time either.
Under Bush the borders are wide open. He wants them open. They will remain as open as ever.
The little hillbillies will build their fence by volunteer labor and carry their toy guns and puff out their chests; I wouldn’t doubt if they actually shoot someone (God forbid) and there’d be a big public trial, etc., etc.
Bottomline little Repubs:
There are open borders, there will be open borders.
Bush is a Tier One Globalist of the first degree, his Daddy’s Boy, New World Order, thousand points of light.
Get used to it.
Whistler,…How do they get on welfare when they are illegal? Are fake ID’s that hard to detect? My biggest concern is AlQaeda getting into the US. That is scary.
No apologies are necessary. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.
Woof: If the Dems backed locking down the border and deporting the illegals, they would win in ‘06 and ‘08 in a walk. The President and the liberal Reps have handed them the opportunity on a platter, but they can’t seem to do it. Wonder why?
BTW, I ask you why you support open borders, or at least, don’t want strict border enforcement? What is your answer to that one, since you can’t answer why the Dems want illegal immigrants to be made legal? I know the answer(s), but wanted to see if a leftie has the courage to stand up and be counted for his beliefs, instead of merely sniping from the sidelines, while the big boys take the risk of standing up for their beliefs.
From the Link:
They have no inclination to try very hard unless they want to defend themselves against an EEOC lawsuit.
Blaming the employers is merely window dressing when you look at the facts.
Robert108:
That is about the most accurate description of the Senate bill anyone can give.
Here is a description of what you are trying to call amnesty:
That’s not amnesty. Plain and simple.
Fines like that should be enforced when egregious conduct on the part of the employer is present.
Well, that portion of the legislation, anyway. What a friggin’ crock.
I wouldn’t argue against the word use, even wrong, if it hadn’t become so loaded. It’s not like I argue over FICA versus FICO or any other inconsequential thing like that… 8-/
I would like to see an honest debate, because that is to everybody’s benefit.
True, but what’s his motivation.
Ed Meese on the 1986 Amnesty Plan.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
Business will do whatever they must to maximize profits. While business can complain that they can’t check falsified documents, they have no inclination to try very hard – unless the hiring of illegal aliens becomes politically unpopular and hurts their business.
That would be considered discrimination? So under the law you can be in trouble if you don’t check for illegal alliens? AND, you can get in trouble if you do check?
Which Democrats are calling for open borders?
Woof, where were you when I posted a blog showing that the Democrat senators voted to as a unit to block any amendments that would put immigration enforcement before amnesty? The amnesty bill passed by the senate is a product of the liberal Republicans and the Democrats. So the answer to your question is ALL OF THEM.
allowing them to stay is amnesty.
Of course my quote was over you quibbling about whether or not we should debate the bill. You seem to want to confuse the issue.
Carrick:
I consider the one Senate Bill one issue. If it passes it doesn’t matter about being two issues.
Works quite well for some sectors.
Bush is not pushing a path to citenship cause he likes foreigners.
Quite likely more than you have. I’m not making anything up.
Which Democrats are calling for open borders?
It is the President who wants to declare that the borders, that were closed were actually open , if you snuck through early enough.
Absolutely correct. This issue can make or break the political parties. Neither side wants to pick it up.
The Whistler:
It’s still borrowing and you still pay interest. And you literally are borrowing from [the] People.
I live in a border town. All of the migrants live across the river in Minnesota. Around here most of the jobs are on the North Dakota side…..
I think in the past the new parties arose out of the old parties. Ala the Republicans arose out of the Whig party.
Peggy Noonan (too old for me; but a babe) has an article on this I just read.
Robert108, the shades of meaning, the stifling of debate, etc. have to do with how we US citizens converse about what is a very important issue. It has a bit to do with what an illegal immigrant perceives it as, but only so far as it may encourage them to cross now.
But my comments have more to do with encouraging you guys to frame your comments in a way which increases their persuasiveness, rather than to start it off with what are de facto shock words.
Woof: Absolutely wrong, as usual. Why do the Dems support open borders?
It’s not egregious to take a job from a legal resident?
Frankly you don’t know how things work. The bureaucrats that come around don’t care whether or not you hire illegals. They care about whether or not you have done your paperwork right. It won’t matter one little bit whether or not you ever gave a job to someone that wasn’t eligible.
Are you mad when they talk about tax amnesty?
Michelle Malkin has a webcast on this problem over at Hotair.com.
The one thing that I think she’s a bit off on is that I don’t think most employers are aware of the law so they shouldn’t be blamed for not using it.
Plus do we know you aren’t going to get in trouble if you use it?
TW:
You have to pay an application fee if you are a legal immigrant. They were just requiring that the illegal immigrant also pay this application fee.
Well, I’m glad you’re made out of that kind of money.
TW, I’m not from North Dakota, so this is the first time I’ve seen this bill. Why doesn’t it fit under
You still owe the money you would owe, you just don’t pay any penalties.
Carrick: I agree with you that the present conditions of wholesale illegal immigration and looting of our tax money and public institutions is shocking. The language, if it be truthful, will reflect that reality.
I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention “stifling of debate”. What is debatable about the illegal immigrant situation?
The President can take a leadership position by increasing border enforcement and deportation of present-day illegals RIGHT NOW! That’s why they call it the Executive Branch. They execute the laws. If he did that, we wouldn’t have to worry about any elections for a very long time.
Carrick then we’ve misused the word amnesty in nearly every other instance when it’s been used. Most specifically the 1986 “Amnesty” plan.
Every tax “amnesty” plan is mislabeled because you have to pay the tax.
Even Jimmy Carter’s Draft Dodger amnesty had conditions on it if my memory serves correctly.
You can get nitpicky about the word, but I’m using it as it’s be used in the past.
Employer enforcement is part of the solution, but it’s hardly a fix. We’re going to still have a problem with the underground economy, illegals living on welfare. Illegals making a living on crime. Illegals picking up day labor. Off-the-books contractors (lawn maintainence is likely to become illegal-haven).
By the way I don’t know this, but if an employer finds an illegal applying for work under the new law is the government going to remove the illegal? Why is it the employer is subject to a huge fine, and not the illegal alien?
We have to require government employees to do their part. I know that’s tough on them, but it’s got to be done. Didn’t President Bush call it vigilantism when private citizens attempted to enforce our immigration law.
By the way, what are we going to do with illegal aliens that are here but don’t sign up for the bill. How about those that have been here four years and don’t go home. (I’ll bet the Senate Bill Accomplishes nothing.)
One more thing on Amnesty:
So even-technically I can call the Senate bill Amnesty.
2) deny employment to illegals by improving the verification process, eliminate loop holes in existing law that makes it easy for them to work without valid social security numbers,
Check out Malkins latest Hot Air vent on how Dunking Donuts is doing exactly that.
President Bush is not running in Nov.
HE can afford to be “wrong”.
The Whistler:
Quit assuming things that you don’t know. I have people in my employment, and yes I do know how things work.
How many people have you hired?
I’m with you on this one, Whistler.
Why should illegals from Mexico get all the breaks. Increasing legal immigration is the best way to keep the US the great melting pot that it is. Enforcement of our border and our laws should go without saying.
Surrendering to Mexico and giving Mexicans preferential status just because they walked here would be a big mistake. We need engineers from India and China more than we need greenskeepers from Mexico. Who do you think pays more taxes? Who do you think is a bigger burden on government services?
TW: Woof has to blame business; he’s a leftie. Notice how he doesn’t deal with the Dem/leftie reasons for supporting open borders. Not exactly fair and balanced, is he?
BUT THEY CALLED IT AMNESTY!!!!
I think you’d be hard pressed to find an amnesty law that doesn’t have conditions. I’m only using the word the way it’s used. I think the other side doesn’t want anything to remember the 1986 amnesty debacle as they try to fool us again.
Doc the Dems voted against criminalizing immigrants. Reps first went for felony then misdemeanor.
We have strict border enforcement, I get much more grief at US Customs than most anywhere else.
I am for strict employment enforcement.
We will see if the “big boys” back their words with action.
So application fee under the new plan is a “stiff penalty” application fee in 1986 was amnesty. I get it.
Carrick:
The $2000 fine is so light in lieu of the fact that they can pay it with US earned money as a permanent resident. In fact their earning ability is going to skyrocket once they sign up that they will be much better off even while paying off the fine.
The Whistler:
You’re conflating now whether the bill is well written, with whether the quoted provision makes any sense.
Those really are two issues, not one and the same.
TW: Are the tax cheats no streaming across the border into ND? Inquiring minds want to know.
It’s also very misleading when the pro-amnesty crowd claims that ALL illegal aliens work. I heard on the radio that Illegals (in California?) were twice as likely to be on welfare as legal immigrants.
Woof: Still can’t take a personal stand on illegal immigration, eh? You want to make businessmen into unpaid border enforcement agents? How about making the paid border enforcement agents do their jobs? Why don’t you support that?
Lock down the border.
Dry up the welfare.
Dry up the jobs.
Deport the illegals as they are found out.
Encourage as much legal immigration as is beneficial to the US.
See, it’s not hard to stand up for your principles, if you have principles, that is.
The cost/benefit of illegal immigration doesn’t work. The cost far outweighs any possible benefits. All the rest is partisan politics, as Woof so aptly illustrates.
Carrick: By your own definition: “…an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.”
That is about the most accurate description of the Senate bill anyone can give. Why do you have a problem with calling it amnesty? Passing a bill without an enforcement provision is what “…take no action…” means, isn’t it? Since they do not now enforce the existing law, why should we believe they will enforce anything? If you want to be nuanced, call it “virtual amnesty” then, but the outcome is the same. We have been living with this in the border states for as least a generation, now, and it’s getting really old.
I’m sure a lot of states don’t worry that much about it. In fact suppose an illegal couple had a baby born in the US. I’m sure they’d qualify in a lot of states.
I’ve never detected one so why ask me. It’d be very easy to fake the social security card. I think there’s big money to be made in the fake ID business so they probably do a pretty good job.
Not paying your taxes is not the same as borrowing from a bank.
TW: Yes, it was definitely conditional tax clemency.
Actually Carrick it is very much amnesty. Giving the illegals exactly what they want is amnesty.
A small fine that they can pay with money that they earn here is amnesty.
Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.
Letting them pay 3 out of 5 years of back taxes is amnesty.
Only requiring them to work three out of five years is amnesty.
Having no plan to do anything about the people in this country that don’t take the amnesty plan is also amnesty.
I do have a compromise amnesty plan I would support. If they turn themselves in we won’t hold it against them when they try to come here legally.
I wouldn’t call it a compromise if the President is forced to sign a bill the way I would like it. Why does the AP call it a compromise to give the President and the Senate Cabal what they want?
Why don’t you quit quibbling on the term used and explain why we should reward those that break our laws with exactly what they broke the laws to achieve. While you’re at it you should explain how that won’t encourage more illegal immigration.
TW:
Only if there were no other penalties. You need to check your detective work there.
You made a big deal about a principled stand against “amnesty” in your comment.
Even assuming there was no “amnesty” clause in this bill, you point out that the bill really sucks.
Sounds like two issues to me: 1) should we have an “amnesty” clause, 2) should we support this bill ?
If the bill passes it doesn’t really matter does it?
It just seems too easy. Someone could go State to State ripping the American people off it sounds like.
Under the law if the employee’s documents (drivers license and Social Security card usually) look reasonable you cannot question them.
It’s easier, cheaper and faster to get fake ID than real ID from what I’ve heard.
I think 99% of employers are more than willing to do the right thing. However they cannot enforce our immigration laws the way the governments interpreted it.
Frankly I doubt that if we cracked down on illegals getting legitimate jobs we’d see much improvement. I think illegals would stay here for the welfare benefits and pick up jobs totally off of the books. That’s why we need internal enforcement of our immigration laws.
Carrick, I don’t recall if you were upset that the State of North Dakota called this tax scheme “amnesty.”
She didn’t post a link to the US Government page.
Here it is. Apparently this trial version has only recently been rolled out with next to know employer notification.
I can agree with much of what you say. However quit blaming Business for this problem. As I proved in this post, businesses are not allowed to NOT hire those that have “reasonable” looking identification. It’s quicker, cheaper and easier to get false documents.
The message that needs to be sent is to vote for those Republicans who promise to enforce laws against illegal immigration.
Robert108, when you borrow money from people, you generally have to expect to pay interest fees.
If I owe the feds money, I can get approval to pay late, with interest. That’s different than being slapped with a penalty for not getting prior approval to be late in paying.
Without reading through the fine print, that provision of the ND code looks like what is known as an “inducement”. That is they get a limited discount if they come clean.
We send them to Minnesota, they’re a bit slower over there.
That would be akin to illegals being escorted to the border.
Come to America, promise to pay $2000 and we’ll take you in, no waiting. You can earn your fee while you’re here. While you’re here you get free American health care, welfare and lots of other benefits.
I can’t imagine we’d get much more than a billion people taking us up on that one.
Gotta go meet the family. Catch you all later.
TW:
So much for a principled stand.
This is also amnesty, by the way. You would have to pay an application fee in any case.
Why many people are considering 3rd parties. Unfortunately no 3rd party has come out strong for border control and strict immigration enforcement.
TW, I think you’re losing it. You’re talking to yourself.
Escorting a person to the border, also known as “deportation”, is a form of penalty.
Try again.
Sorry Whistler. I ask way too many questions.
By the way, Bush could take the leadership position, and get congress to split the bill into separate acts.
A Border Security Act.
A Legal Employment Act.
and finally,
An Illegal Immigrant Remediation Act.
And promise to sign them only in that order. Trying to do all three at once probably will produce my Plan B from above.
Bush’s motivation is to satisfy business interests
(large Republican dollar supporters) who want cheap , stable labor.
He also does not want to piss of the Hispanic voter.
The House wants to molify Americans who see an invasion of foreigners threatening the “American way of life”, as diversely as that is interperted.
Any real reform is likely to piss off many people,
so expect little.