Third Party & Independents: Archives

Homeland security is a joke with 2 million illegal aliens flowing across the borders every year, 29% of all persons incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, and a GAO-5646 Report shows an average arrest rate of 13 times per illegal alien.

Does anyone really expect Congress to change anything?

Republican politicians are now pretending to care about border security and illegal immigration, but don’t forget that they had 6 years to do something about it and did nothing until late 2006 when their poll numbers were sagging. Therefore, even though many believe Republicans are the party to do something about border security and illegal immigration, they are likely to be tricked again. Most Republican politicians still want profits from cheap labor more than border security or enforcement of immigration laws.

Democrat politicians want both; more loyal Democrat votes and more profits from cheap labor. No mystery there. No mystery why they are trying to get another amnesty passed like the 1986 amnesty that more than quadrupled the problem.

And voters do what? They reward BOTH with 95%-to-99% re-election rates (95.4% on average since 1855).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2007 06:26 PM

David,

I see national security as just another “scare the voter to death so they will vote for you” tactic.

I guess scaring the crap out of senior citizens about Social Security wasn’t a broad enough “scare” to get you to vote for or against someone.

National security hits all demographics (18 to 80, crippled, crazy, slides on their belly, crawls on their back), so it just has to be a better “scare” than Social Security.

We’ll just have to see which party tries to “scare” us the most…the Democrats screaming that we are NOT safe and the Republicans are just a bunch of incompetent boobs…and the Republicans screaming that the Democrats are so soft on security that we’ll have terrorists crawling out of every crack and crevice of America.

Posted by: Jim T at October 11, 2007 07:11 PM

The border fence is a joke. It’s wasted effort without added border patrols and internal pursuit of immigration law violators, and it’s unnecessary if you’ve got your act together.

Politicians propose these things, having appealled to people’s fears, to make themselves look like saviors. Meanwhile, they play their political games, making those who don’t support added powers and ever more radical measures into villains, collaborators who just want to see the country overrun by illegal immigrants, terrorists, or whatever.

It makes people feel real proud of themselves to back these kinds of things to the hilt. Problem is, when these things don’t work, these people don’t quit on the ideas, can’t quit even.

The time has come to consider these things from a standpoint of getting results from what we already got, improving the system we have before we start re-inventing the wheel. Far too much of the government is left dysfunctional as the showboats and the demagogues hype the virtues of new, tougher approaches, approaches which fail because they’re either not well though out enough, or have to rely on the same failing institutions as before.

Getting back to practical brass tacks is often painful, expensive, and politically thankless, but it’s important to the integrity of the system. Before we build walls as our ultimate solution to the problem, we’re best off improving the general state of our security on non-gimmicky grounds.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2007 09:29 PM

Stephen, nice to have you back with your biased perspective and misleading rehtoric.

You said: “It’s wasted effort without added border patrols and internal pursuit of immigration law violators,”

Who, pray tell is calling for a border fence WITHOUT border patrols and internal pursuit of law violators? No one I have ever heard of. You really should be careful with flames around strawmen of your own erection.

Your arguments on this issue remind me clearly of Republicans arguments on Iraq, full of misleading diversions away from the truth and facts, and full of defense for your party’s failures on the issue. Democrat politicians won’t stop the flow because the flow promises to keep them in power. And you apologetically argue in their defense with straw man arguments and diversions from the topic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2007 09:51 PM

I’d forget the fence (i.e. take it off the table) if federal and/or state and/or city governments would simply secure the borders (with or without a fence) and enforce existing laws.

I’d take the fence off the table so that it can no longer be used as an excuse for NO border security.

But Democrat politicians want votes and profits from cheap labor.
And Republican politicians want profits from cheap labor.
Neither are serious about it.

And many voters whine and complain about it, but then they go and do a very strange thing:

most voters then go and reward Do-Nothing Congress with 95%-to-99% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2007 09:56 PM

Question of the day: Should the Governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer be recalled for issuing drivers licences to illegal immigrants?

YES: 97 percent

NO: 3 percent.

Posted by: jlw at October 11, 2007 10:29 PM

Irving, Tx. is taking everyone whether it be a broken tail light or murder to jail, calling ICE and having ICE determine resident legal status. This process has alarmed some in the community, but, it has deported 4 murderers, and about 1300 DWI’s who turned out to be illegal aliens.

Tulsa, Ok. local law enforcement has also passed a program that will be implemented in November, the details of which I can’t remember, but, since its announcement thousands of illegal immigrants have left community and it is estimated many more will before the November commencement of the program to detect and deport illegal immigrants.

It is the politicians in federal government who failed to follow through on the law passed with the 1980’s Amnesty which proposed securing our borders immediately following. But, while this growing problem is a failure of federal congressional incumbents, it is up to the people of America to deal with the problem since the Federal politicians won’t.

Kind of like Colonial America when their grievances to the King went unheeded and ignored. Power always rests with the people if they want to wield it. Our federal government is giving them motivation to pick it up and wield it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2007 11:08 PM

David R: The government will probably pass a law making it illegal For local government to enforce the law or make it illegal for INS to accept illegals from local governments.

When many Cubans were fleeing the Island, Castro opened the prisons and sent the worst of the worst here. I wonder if there is any evidence of that happening in Mexico?

Posted by: jlw at October 11, 2007 11:44 PM

That’s right.

The federal government is despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other (for votes and profits from cheap labor).

Now there will be painful consequences.

Local governments have no choice. But then, I’ve always felt the city, state, and federal government should be working together on this.

I see South Carolina is now submitting an amendment application for an an Article V Convention. I would think a lot more states would want to follow suit.

• Press Release


• Petition to Congress


• Letter to Senator Jim Ritchie

Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2007 11:45 PM

We need two thirds (34) states to join in this.
I would think many border states would be interested in this. And if not, interior states might want to think about it before they essentially become like a border state.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2007 11:51 PM

The blue states will not accommodate the red states and the opposite is true as well.

Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 01:17 AM

David R. Remer-
You’re arguing against me, not the subject.

Currently, we’re dealing with a broken down system. I’d rather we focus on getting that system back together, rather than dump the administration of this fence on top of the broken system as some sort of panacea.

As for my party’s failures? No doubt it has some, but I’m afraid we haven’t had majority power in Congress since the earlier part of the last decade. What’s more, our record on enforcing the immigration laws were much better than Bush’s.

As far as this notion that the illegal aliens promise to keep them in power? Sounds kind of nasty, but it’s based on a premise I think you should be very careful about making: the generalization of a sense of sympathy with illegal immigrants. It really doesn’t work that way.

Now, if the whole point was to gain the sympathies of the Hispanic population, then the smarter move would be not to indulge the illegal aliens, but instead toughen border security without all the Xenophobia.

People want better enforcement AND a way for those within the country, who we all know are pretty much going nowhere for the most part, to get documented and start on the path to citizenship.

I might seem like I’m arguing against a strawman, but I’m not. I’m talking priorities here. The Border Fence, by the nature of the politics involved, is a symbolic distraction. It will get priority over any number of mundane concerns. The technology for the current version is proving to be a major hurdle, so this is looking to have all the earmarks of a taxpayer boondoggle as well. And who’s going to get in the way of that? I mean, it’s like “You sir, what do you have against protecting America from illegal immigrants!”

You assume you have this solution in this fence. I make no such assumption. You assume that opposition to it represents opposition to border security and sensible immigration reform. I have no such position as you assume. You assume I’m lying and covering for my party. I’m sure I’ve said before that there were things that I was unhappy about in the earlier legislation; I’m also sure that I have not presented evidence that shows that Democrats and Hispanics are not quite the big supporters of illegal immigration you imagined.

There is already vast agreement for immigration reform. There is also majority support for a path to citizenship, all sides saying it’s conditional on it being part of intensive enforcement.

To put it plainly, though, I think the border fence will suck up a mountain of funds from the thorough reform our system needs. Supporting elements will suffer for the sake of the fence. If somebody understaffs an office in some city, nobody will notice. If the agents are quietly discouraged from being too aggressive, or given too little of a budget, the Minutemen probably wouldn’t know.

I’m sick of macho posturing. I want the system to work. I want the management of the office professional and top-notch. I want all these ducks in a row, and the results examined then.

Tell me: what results would cause you to admit either that a wall was not necessary, or that one already constructed wasn’t working? Is there a way for you to be convinced that the Border Fence was a bad idea? Unless you have some idea of that, there’s no getting out of the kind of feedback loop the administration finds itself in with Iraq, where even continued failure cannot justify giving up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2007 02:14 AM

To put it plainly, though, I think the border fence will suck up a mountain of funds from the thorough reform our system needs.

$8 to $10 Billion initially. $10 Billion annually thereafter. $10 Billion is 9 days of interest on the National Debt. If that saved tax payers the current $70 Billion in net losses per year, then the tax payers come out ahead $60 Billion per year.

But I’d forgo the fence for just some law enforcement.
But Democrat politicians want votes and both Democrat politicains and Republican politicians want profits from cheap labor. So nothing is the result. What’s new with Do-Nothing Congress?

The fence is just an excuse for Democrats to not enforce border security or existing laws.

Therefore, the states are starting to do it, and they are getting broad support from citizens.

Is there a way for you to be convinced that the Border Fence was a bad idea?

Yes, a fence is a waste if it isn’t patrolled. If you took all the troops in Iraq, it would be enough for one person every 187 feet along BOTH the Canadian and Mexico borders.

Border security can be accomplished.
The problem is Congress simply won’t do it, and now local governments are being forced to do it. But local governemnts should have been doing it all along. The finger pointing between the state/local and federal government simply means (like Congress) nothing gets done.
And I hope the voters remember all this when they go vote.

Immigration/Border Security Report Cards

Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 02:46 AM

Stephen the only place there is a fence patrolled and monitored is South of San Diego, and as I have pointed out to you on several occasions, it has reduced their problems by about 90%. What would it take to get you to accept the evidence and the logic that a barrier fence monitored and patrolled will reduce the illegal flow by 90% or more, by 1) channeling illegal entry attempts to a very small number of places, 2) driving up the cost of Coyote services and thus shrinking demand, and 3) better focusing our border patrol efforts on areas likely to be breached instead of the near impossible job of patrolling thousands of miles of open terrain.

We have evidence that no border barrier is allowing between 1 and 2 million illegals to cross each year. We have evidence that the border barrier near San Diego redirected the flow to open areas away from San Diego and reduced San Diego’s illegal immigrant influx by 90% and crime and drug trafficking went down significantly as well. That is the evidence available.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2007 07:36 AM

When many Cubans were fleeing the Island, Castro opened the prisons and sent the worst of the worst here. I wonder if there is any evidence of that happening in Mexico?

What about the 47% of illegals coming over our southern border who AREN’T Mexican…

Posted by: Rachel at October 12, 2007 08:03 AM

Rachel: I did not mean to insinuate that more than a few illegal immigrants were criminals in their former countries. They became criminals when they crossed our borders illegally. I don’t blame the illegal immigrants, they were invited here.

If all that the illegals were doing was filling jobs that Americans don’t want to do, there would be much less resistance to them. But, they quickly learn that there are contractors who are more than willing to replace their American workers for greatly reduced wages. So the illegals walk off the farms and out of the kitchens and onto the construction sites. Many of our farmers can no longer get enough workers and are begging for more immigrant labor because the immigrants don’t want to work down on the farm.

Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 09:15 AM

David R. Remer-
It’s reduced the number people caught going that way, not necessarily the illegal immigrant problem there.

Show me the numbers of illegal immigrants in San Diego. Hell, even show me the number of people intercepted at the crossing points. Don’t simply assume that the statistics on crossings represent the statistics on illegal immigration as a whole. A wall will obviously impede crossings over open ground, but a significant number of illegal immigrants never try that approach anyways.

Meanwhile, the wall becomes a focus. It becomes the political star of the show, instead of the rehabilitation of the law enforcement. It’s like what’s happened at the Department of Defense: all those wonderful toys, but the basic armed forces suffering for the lack of real funding. Folks label people as weak on defense if they don’t support buying the world’s best technology, yet just look at how our Army and Marines are getting ground to the nub in Iraq, despite all the hundreds of billions spent on the war and on defense. In my view, the wall is just another wonderful toy, a boondoggle that takes up money that could be used to invest in the all the more critical human resources side of Border security.

Dan-
Tell me something: are you proud to use such a fiscally irresponsible argument? Ten billion dollars is a significant portion of the Homeland Security Budget, and if you look at the other budgets for other departments, you’ll find it’s a significant fraction of those department’s budgets.

Why don’t we apply that ten billion, or whatever sum, higher or lower, that we need, to revamping our border security and immigration law enforcement first, and go for the wall only when we’ve done our best on the enforcement side?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2007 09:29 AM

Stephen -

Simple answer - the Federal government has no credibility on enforcing the existing immigration laws and refuses to provide suffcient resources (i.e., “border security and immigration law”). Your arguement that the fence will become a (negative) focus is valid; however, David’s arguement that a fence helps make enforcement easier is also valid, in my opinion. A fence, right or wrong, is a tangible demonstation to our citizens that enforcement is being taken seriously. I am personally ameniable (and I think others would be) to consider some type of accomodation for illegals currently here, but only after enforcement of existing laws has a demonstated period of good results.

Our neighbors who contribute to this problem with their failed political system that does not provide meaningful opportunities to their populace have no issues with enforcing their own immigration laws; frankly, I don’t much care if they won’t like our fence. Apart from the negatives that illegal immigration causes our economy or citizen workers, border enforcement should be a priority from a national defense perspective.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 12, 2007 09:57 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Tell me something: are you proud to use such a fiscally irresponsible argument?

Fiscally Irresponsible is your choice of words.

Not mine.
But you obviously failed to read my comment above that states:

d.a.n wrote: But I’d forgo the fence for just some law enforcement.

However, if spending $10 Billion would save $60 Billion, then it is money well spent.
Intermal law enforcement is needed too.

$10 Billion is equal to 9 Days of interest on the National Debt.
You want to talk about irresponsible spending, pork-barrel, graft, waste, corporate welfare, Congress giving itself its 9th raise in 10 years (while our troops risk life and limb, go without armor, medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4 or more tours in Iraq and Afghanistan)?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Ten billion dollars is a significant portion of the Homeland Security Budget, and if you look at the other budgets for other departments, you’ll find it’s a significant fraction of those department’s budgets.

Departments?

You want to talk about bloated government? About the thousands of departments, agencies, committees, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. ?

Again, here is the simple math:
+ Net losses to U.S. tax payers annually = $70 Billion (as high as $338 Billion by some estimates)
- Cost of border patrol per year = $10 Billion
________________________________________
= $60 Billion savings

So, if it saves $60 Billion per year, it is worth it.
Even if border security cost 5 times that, it is worth it.
In my opinion, with 3.6 to 25 homicides per day by illegal aliens, it’s worth more.
After all, what good is $500 BILLION per year for National Defense if our borders are wide open?

And Internal law enforcement is needed and that is something we all pay for already, but which is not being done.

But, again, I would forgo the fence in turn for some kind of border security.

So, why don’t the Democrats politicians at least secure the borders?
Republican politicians seem to be all for it now.
So, why don’t the Democrats politicians at enforce existing laws internally?
Republican politicians seem to be all for it now.
Why? Because Democrat politicians really don’t want to do either.
Democrat politicians want votes and another amnesty.
And I hope voters are paying attention.
A lot of Republicans stayed home last election.
Perhaps a lot of Democrat voters will be staying home in the next election?

My advice to voters is to give up on the fence (being used for an excuse by Democrats to do nothing) and ask for:

• (1) internal law enforcement


• (2) and/or border security

… and see what still happens: NOTHING.

That’s why they call it Do-Nothing Congress.

But Democrat politicians want votes (a.k.a. amnesty) and both Democrat and Republicans polticians want profits from cheap labor.

So, is this what you call this holding your party’s feet to the fire?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Why don’t we apply that ten billion, or whatever sum, higher or lower, that we need, to revamping our border security and immigration law enforcement first, and go for the wall only when we’ve done our best on the enforcement side?

Exactly.

Never mind I just wrote that above (and more than once in more than one thread):

But I’d forgo the fence for just some law enforcement.

Why? Because removing the fence as any excuse Democrat politicians use as an excuse for not providing any form of internal law enforcement and/or border security will then be all too obvious.

At any rate, as long as voters whine and complain about Congress, and then reward THEIR politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates, the voters have the government they deserve, and irresponsible incumbent politicians will continue to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other. And innocent people are being harmed by it (both Americans and illegal aliens). It’s absolutely despicable, yet it won’t surprise me if most brainwashed voters still pull the party-lever and reward Congress with 95%-to-99% re-election rates and then dumbfoundly say “what the hell happened?”.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 11:19 AM

$10 Billion per year is far less than the $29 Billion of annual pork-barrel, corporate welfare, waste, and other worthless crap.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 11:23 AM

jlw:

Why do you try to maintain that all illegal aliens coming over the Mexican-US border are Mexicans? 47% are NOT…why not speak to that 47% and where they come from and why they are braving death in Mexico to come to the US…

Posted by: Rachel at October 12, 2007 01:33 PM

What difference does it make?
A hundred percent of them are criminals the moment they choose to break our laws.

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2007 01:42 PM

Dan-
My philosophy is that it’s dangerous to work on a drop in the bucket mentality. Seen a certain way, the bucket’s all full of drops. If we are to pay for government efficiently, we must make choices, not merely tack on expense after expense with no sense of the systematic costs and benefits.

Or, put another way, the Total budget authority for the Department of Justice is about twenty-two billion. Seen in that perspective, ten billion is hardly a drop in the bucket. The huge budgets of the DOD, HHS, and the Treasury(because it pays interests and dividents on treasury bonds) distorts our sense of just how expensive most of the other departments are (or rather, aren’t).

If we don’t have to spend ten billion on a wall, let’s not. Before we spend that money, let’s see what good old fashion patrols and immigration enforcement can do.

As for the Democrat politicans wanting votes? Truth of the matter, If you look, most Democratic candidates supported some kind of immigration reform. Additionally, Hispanics and legal immigrants are not as found of their co-ethnic illegal counterparts as some of the more overheated rhetoric from anti-immigration activists might make it seem.

As for Democrats? They’ve held more roll call votes than any other Congress in history. Please drop the do-nothing label, and start focusing your criticism on the Republicans, who are looking to set their own record in the number of Cloture votes, at a pace of triple the previous record this year.

As for Amnesty? Even Republican voters, who can be said to be some of the most vociferous foes of illegal immigration, have accepted that it just won’t be practical to deport the millions here. If they’re staying, it’d be best to get them documented and in the system. If we have to waste time processing people who’ve been here for several years, it will make it harder to focus on the not-so-entrenched recent arrivals. Carrot and stick: lay down the fines, make their path to citizenship possible but more difficult, increase enforcement to make it less desireable to emigrate illegally, and then on the carrot side of things, lower the costs for legal immigrantz applying for citizenship, make it easier to become an American the right way, the documented way. At the end of the day, it’s as simple as making the good path easier and more desireable, and the bad more difficult.

As for incumbency? I’m surprised you haven’t heard of all the Republicans retiring, and in danger of losing their seats. The name of the game here is turnover rate, not necessarily turnover amount. We’re not looking to have people shifting in and out arbitrarily; rather we’re looking to match performance to the person’s fate. Most people will do what it takes to win. For most Americans, taking back control of their government is about them getting together and determining what the conditions for such a victory would be, and not letting those who fail their tests move forward.

Mike in Tampa-
The fence makes one part of border enforcement easier, and I’m not denying that. However, as one might gather looking at the policy in Iraq, you can win a battle and lose the war. This is why I asked him about what the statistics were for illegal immigrants in San Diego. If they are little better about the problem than most cities in that part of California, then the wall’s won a battle, but lost the war.

As for people not much liking the fence? Good fences don’t necessarily make good neighbors. These are the same people we might be able to convince to do things in their own country to stem the flow of illegals. I know we feel like we’re tougher when we have a take charge attitude, but the truth is, much of our power fades beyond our borders, and our real power there is often limited to what we can convince people to do for us.

In the end, I don’t see the strategic wisdom in putting up the border fence for billions of dollars a year that might be more effectively, even more cheaply spent doing actual good.

I think people have things backwards nowadays. They spend so much money, time, and effort keeping up these appearances, when if they applied their efforts to real things, these appearances could largely take care of themselves. Government works most efficiently when it’s primed and optimized for what it does, rather than for looking like it’s doing something when it’s really not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2007 01:48 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- My philosophy is that it’s dangerous to work on a drop in the bucket mentality. Seen a certain way, the bucket’s all full of drops. If we are to pay for government efficiently, we must make choices, not merely tack on expense after expense with no sense of the systematic costs and benefits.

Again, if spending $10 Billion will save $60 Billion, then it is worth it. The math is not that hard to understand.

And, again, I wrote above (and many times): “Let’s forgo the fence”, because it is just an excuse for Do-Nothing Congress to do NOTHING.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we don’t have to spend ten billion on a wall, let’s not. Before we spend that money, let’s see what good old fashion patrols and immigration enforcement can do.

Is there a echo in here?

Again, didn’t I wrote several times above: “Forgo the fence” ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for the Democrat politicans wanting votes? Truth of the matter, If you look, most Democratic candidates supported some kind of immigration reform.

Yeah … another amnesty like the amnesty of 1986 that quadrupled the problem.

Another amnesty to get more votes. It’s despicable.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Additionally, Hispanics and legal immigrants are not as found of their co-ethnic illegal counterparts as some of the more overheated rhetoric from anti-immigration activists might make it seem.

What does that have to do with anything?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for Democrats? They’ve held more roll call votes than any other Congress in history.

So? What good is it if Do-Nothing Congress can’t accomplish anything?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Please drop the do-nothing label,

Nope. The Do-Nothing Congress label stays because it is true.

Besides, that’s what Jack Cafferty on CNN calls it, and I think he’s pretty much right about it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: and start focusing your criticism on the Republicans, who are looking to set their own record in the number of Cloture votes, at a pace of triple the previous record this year.

What makes you think I’m defending Republicans?

I’m not Republican.
Did you not read anything above?
How many times above did I write:
Democrat politicians want votes (a.k.a. amnesty) and both Democrat and Republicans polticians want profits from cheap labor

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for Amnesty? Even Republican voters, who can be said to be some of the most vociferous foes of illegal immigration, have accepted that it just won’t be practical to deport the millions here.

You don’t have to deport them. That’s a stupid argument. Stop illegal employers and secure the borders, and most will self-deport.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If they’re staying, it’d be best to get them documented and in the system.

They’ll leave. Many are already leaving. Secure the borders and stop illegal employers and then we can discuss a path to citizenship for some adults brought here while young by their parents and spent most of their life here. There are some innocent victims, but a blanket amnesty is not the solution, mass deportation is no the solution. Enforce the laws and secure the borders (fence or no fence). Then start to deal with special cases where on a humanitarian basis there is some valid reason for providing a path to citizenship. But no amnesty for any adults who knowingly came here illegally (nor the minor children that can return with them).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we have to waste time processing people who’ve been here for several years, it will make it harder to focus on the not-so-entrenched recent arrivals.

Being here a long time is not an excuse for amnesty. The valid special cases are much smaller in number.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Carrot and stick: lay down the fines, make their path to citizenship possible but more difficult, increase enforcement to make it less desireable to emigrate illegally, and then on the carrot side of things, lower the costs for legal immigrantz applying for citizenship, make it easier to become an American the right way, the documented way. At the end of the day, it’s as simple as making the good path easier and more desireable, and the bad more difficult.

Make it easier? We already admit 1 Million per year legally. But 2 Million more per year come illegally. So it appears to be easy enough already. To say it is difficult is nonsense when we legally admit 1 Million per year. What is this? A population race? Do we really want to emulate China (population=1.3 billion) and India(population=1.1 billion) ? Ask them about all of the advantages of over-population.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for incumbency? I’m surprised you haven’t heard of all the Republicans retiring, and in danger of losing their seats. The name of the game here is turnover rate, not necessarily turnover amount.

Republicans. Excuse me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a $#!+.

How many? 3 or 4? Big deal.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We’re not looking to have people shifting in and out arbitrarily; rather we’re looking to match performance to the person’s fate.

What’s this “We’re” stuff ?

Performance? Doing nothing is easy to measure. Congress is easy to match up with doing nothing.

Arbitrarily? What might be called arbitrary and foolish is rewarding Do-Nothing Congress with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Most people will do what it takes to win. For most Americans, taking back control of their government is about them getting together and determining what the conditions for such a victory would be, and not letting those who fail their tests move forward.

That’s the problem. Brainwashing and perpetuating the party-lever is their strategy.

It will end when it becomes too painful.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think people have things backwards nowadays.

They sure do and blind partisan loyalties are behind much of it.

Dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings for Do-Nothing Congress and then re-electing 95% to 99% is he proof of it.
Until enough voters get it, they have the government and widening disparity that they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 02:53 PM

Stephen made the obvious comment: “It’s reduced the number people caught going that way, not necessarily the illegal immigrant problem there.”

With 1,800 more miles without a fence, there is no reason to expect the 200 mile fence South of San Diego would curtail our entire illegal immigration problem. But, you are wrong, their illegal immigration population has in fact stopped growing for the most part as evidenced my many other statistics, drop in crime, drop in drugs, drop in new school enrollments by non-English speaking students.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2007 03:58 PM

Stephen, your hyperbole is really over the top. You said: “A wall will obviously impede crossings over open ground, but a significant number of illegal immigrants never try that approach anyways.”

Significant number? What is your evidence? A significant number would be 3 to 6 percent. If the border barrier impeded the flow by the other 90+ percent, our airports, Coast Guard, and Border Patrol could far more effectively deal with the remaining 3 to 6 percent who cross by other means.

No solution will be 100% effective. But, any solution that can become 90% or more effective for the cost of a couple months in Iraq, would be money extremely well spent.

Why would the Border Barrier become the focus if it is effective in reducing the problem by 90 percent or more? Seems obvious to me that if the war on terrorism continues, the focus will turn to the 10 or less percent still coming into this country illegally for very determined reasons and attempts by terrorist moles, drug runners, and Coyote’s employer’s trying to come in legally.

Your bias against an obvious and very effective part of the solution just runs through all of your arguments against the barrier border, and the only logical explanation for that, as far as I can see, is a desire to keep our borders wide open and our country flooded with illegal immigrant potential Democratic voters.

The evidence of the border barrier’s potential effectiveness is there South of San Diego. Your constant attempts to circumvent the evidence and logic of the border barrier speak to some motive other than getting control of the problem. That could not be plainer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2007 04:12 PM

kctim:

Yes, it always makes a difference in knowing why people are doing what they are doing…Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, illegal aliens…if you know their motive, you’re halfway to solving your problem with them…if you fail to truthfully acknowledge the motive, then you’ll never solve your problem…

Posted by: Rachel at October 12, 2007 05:03 PM

I agree Rachel.
I also believe I have truthfully acknowledge their motive: They are coming to America to make money and create a better life for themselves.

Still doesn’t change the fact that they are criminals for breaking the law in search of that though. And it still doesn’t change the fact that they should not be rewarded for breaking the law.
Alot of pushers break the law and sell drugs to create a better life for themselves, do we give them amnesty and let them? No.

So, now that I have truthfully acknowledged their motive, will they now truthfully acknowledge my motive for not wanting them here illegally, start obeying the law and stop calling me a racist?

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2007 05:29 PM

David R. Remer-
First, does illegal immigration necessarily mean higher crime rates? Not necessarily.

This is from reason magazine, from about 1994:

Or consider those places in America where the deepest (usually) unspoken concerns have already been realized, and white Americans of European origin (“Anglos”) have already become a minority of the population. San Jose—the third largest city in California and 11th largest in the nation—is one such example. It has a white population of less than 50 percent and contains mostly Asian and Hispanic immigrants—20 percent and 30 percent respectively—including large numbers of impoverished illegal immigrants. San Jose has a flourishing economy, the lowest murder and robbery rates of any major city in America (less than one fifth the rates in Dallas, for example), and no significant ethnic conflict.

Or consider El Paso, Texas, the most heavily Hispanic (70 percent) of any of America’s largest 50 cities. It also has one of the lowest rates of serious crime or murder, with a robbery rate just half that of Seattle, an overwhelmingly white city of similar size. The state with the lowest percentage of whites in the population (about one third) is Hawaii, hardly a boiling cauldron of racial hostility. And despite its heavy urbanization, Hawaii has among the lowest crime rates of any state in the nation, with less violent crime than Idaho and Nebraska.

Which begs the question: if not illegal immigration, then what caused the crime problem? Well, the drug trade is a good candidate, and that was just as strong going through the area. Also of concern was the tunnel they found underneath it. A lack of apprehensions may mean fewer people getting caught, rather than more people being stopped.

Which begs another question: have the escalating efforts to secure the border paid dividends in stopping illegal immigration? Put plainly, no, not at all The article linked makes clear that even with all the escalating budgets and manpower on the border, we’re not seeing illegal immigration go down. But would a fence help?

My numbers were not hyperbole. This was from the article Border security or boondoggle?
A plan for 700 miles of Mexican border wall heads for Senate — its future is not assured

As many as one-third of those 11 million people did not walk across the border illegally, instead entering the country on tourist, student or work visas and simply staying after the visas expired, Passel estimated.

These visa “overstays” are from China, the Philippines, India, South America, Canada, Ireland and many other countries, said Passel, whose estimates are used by the Department of Homeland Security. Passel emphasized that more than 99 percent of the 25 million to 30 million legal foreign visitors to the United States each year follow the law in general and obey the terms of their visas.

All 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the country on legitimate visas and only six had violated them by overstaying, enrolling in school when they entered as tourists, or failing to enroll when they entered as students.

My numbers, in fact, may be an underestimate.

Read this, and let a nice chill run up your back:

Of the $1.95 billion border security request Bush filed last week, only $30 million will go toward tracking down and monitoring those who overstay legally obtained visas, said Michael P. Jackson, deputy secretary of Homeland Security. Administration officials say proposed tamper-proof identification cards will also crack down on those who stay in the country with expired visas by making it harder for them to get work.

Jackson said ”interior enforcement,” going after immigration violators who are now in the nation illegally, is important, but the administration considers it a lesser priority than sealing the border.

”The predominant focus of this emergency supplemental request is on the border,” he said.

But immigration specialists and independent observers have long identified significant shortcomings in the government’s efforts to find and prosecute those who have stayed in the country on expired visas.

A September report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found ”deficiencies” in resources and bureaucracy that ”result in a minimal impact in reducing the number of overstays in the United States.” The agency had only 51 full-time agents assigned to track down the more than 4 million people who overstayed visas and were in the country in 2004, the report said.

Immigration specialists say that a comprehensive crackdown on those who overstay visas would require thousands of additional investigators, as well as an enhanced system to track every visitor who enters and leaves the country.

The report also found that, of the 301,046 leads the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency received in a one-year period on possible visa violations, fewer than half were investigated. Only 4,164 were referred to field agents to pursue, and 671 apprehensions were made.

This is what I mean by distractions, and the need to bolster interior enforcement. The borders, however politically lucrative for candidates who want to hop people up on fear before sending them to the polls, have been addressed most intensely, with no reduction in illegal immigration.

The wall itself faces problems like this, and the problem of undocumented workers procuring false documentation. In fact, there’s a rather amusing story in the NYT, entitled Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions Which details the rather topsy turvy way in which the bogus Social Security numbers being used are actually helping to keep the system solvent!

While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year’s surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration’s projections.

Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide “the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security.”

Not that I support that, I think it’s rather tragic in a way. But it does demonstrate the real complexity of the situation, which gets run over twice then backed over by many of the people involved.

I think the money would be better spent hiring more people to process legal immigrants, go after visa overstayers and illegal immigrants in country, and do other things to bolster the immigration security of the country As the SFGate article says it:

The $2.2 billion Hunter estimates the fence would cost could fund almost 2,500 new Border Patrol agents for five years, a 22 percent increase in the force. Or it could increase 15-fold the U.S. Agency for International Development’s spending on economic development in Mexico over the next five years.

This border insanity is mostly politics. It’s not improved things too much, and we have a major security hole that we could use the money to plug. America doesn’t need a wall on it’s borders, it needs more immigration cops tracking down overstays and those already inside the country. The priority, though, is being set by this wall, and the border which has become a national obsession. While I don’t think we should abandon the border, we should acknowledge that the bigger problem, which needs much more attention than it’s getting, is the internal situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2007 07:23 PM

Pardon my coding, this is how that source should be coded:

Of the $1.95 billion border security request Bush filed last week, only $30 million will go toward tracking down and monitoring those who overstay legally obtained visas, said Michael P. Jackson, deputy secretary of Homeland Security. Administration officials say proposed tamper-proof identification cards will also crack down on those who stay in the country with expired visas by making it harder for them to get work.

Jackson said ”interior enforcement,” going after immigration violators who are now in the nation illegally, is important, but the administration considers it a lesser priority than sealing the border.

”The predominant focus of this emergency supplemental request is on the border,” he said.

But immigration specialists and independent observers have long identified significant shortcomings in the government’s efforts to find and prosecute those who have stayed in the country on expired visas.

A September report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found ”deficiencies” in resources and bureaucracy that ”result in a minimal impact in reducing the number of overstays in the United States.” The agency had only 51 full-time agents assigned to track down the more than 4 million people who overstayed visas and were in the country in 2004, the report said.

Immigration specialists say that a comprehensive crackdown on those who overstay visas would require thousands of additional investigators, as well as an enhanced system to track every visitor who enters and leaves the country.

The report also found that, of the 301,046 leads the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency received in a one-year period on possible visa violations, fewer than half were investigated. Only 4,164 were referred to field agents to pursue, and 671 apprehensions were made.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2007 07:27 PM

Also

Or consider those places in America where the deepest (usually) unspoken concerns have already been realized, and white Americans of European origin (“Anglos”) have already become a minority of the population. San Jose—the third largest city in California and 11th largest in the nation—is one such example. It has a white population of less than 50 percent and contains mostly Asian and Hispanic immigrants—20 percent and 30 percent respectively—including large numbers of impoverished illegal immigrants. San Jose has a flourishing economy, the lowest murder and robbery rates of any major city in America (less than one fifth the rates in Dallas, for example), and no significant ethnic conflict.

Or consider El Paso, Texas, the most heavily Hispanic (70 percent) of any of America’s largest 50 cities. It also has one of the lowest rates of serious crime or murder, with a robbery rate just half that of Seattle, an overwhelmingly white city of similar size. The state with the lowest percentage of whites in the population (about one third) is Hawaii, hardly a boiling cauldron of racial hostility. And despite its heavy urbanization, Hawaii has among the lowest crime rates of any state in the nation, with less violent crime than Idaho and Nebraska.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2007 07:29 PM

First, does illegal immigration necessarily mean higher crime rates?

It depends.

In Los Angeles, 95% of all arrest warrants are for illegal aliens.

According to GAO-5646, 55,322 illegal immigrants averaged 13 arrests per illegal alien.

29% of all persons CURRENTLY incarcerated in our prisons are illegal aliens.

32% of illegal aliens receive Medicaid.

45% or more use false Social Security Numbers.

And the burdens on U.S. tax payers ranges from $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually.

Homicide rates are estimated from 3.6 to 25 per day. Even the lowest estimate is double the norm. But does it matter. One homicide is one too many. Something that should have never happened.

What do the voters do?
Many voters whine and complain, and then do a very predictable thing:

reward incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates

Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 09:00 PM

kctim:

So you would’ve hung the guy during the French Revolution for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family????

Posted by: Rachel at October 12, 2007 10:36 PM

Careful. And I quote:

Several things should be noted regarding our analysis. First, an arrest
does not necessarily result in a prosecution or a conviction. Second,
our analysis is limited to the aliens that ICE determined to have
entered the United States illegally. Third, since all arrests for an
individual may not be recorded in IAFIS, our data represent the minimum
number of arrests for these illegal aliens. Last, our analysis is not
designed to infer conclusions about the arrest history of other illegal
aliens not in our study population who entered the country illegally
and have been arrested.

The Emphasis is mine. The point is that the study you’re referencing deal with the population they picked up, and that it’s not meant to be an overall representative sample, any more than statistics from a prison population would represent the rest of us that well.

On the subject of your saying “forgo the fence”, nonetheless you assert that by spending ten billion, we could save multiple billions. Could. And that’s only if the fence works as plan, which it probably won’t.

As smart human beings the world over do, these people adapt, and they do so because we are a rich nation, and our money makes a difference for them and their families. These people are motivated, and are willing to take substantial risks to get into the country.

Yeah … another amnesty like the amnesty of 1986 that quadrupled the problem. Another amnesty to get more votes. It’s despicable.

Then how do you propose we deal with the eleven million people already in the country? If we’re not going to be able to deport them all, and we can’t kill them, they will remain living here, undocumented. What’s despicable is continuing to repeat that kind of charge without firm data to back it up. If I had to give a reason why more hispanics are heading for the Democrats, I’d have to say it’s because of the absence of prejudiced, overheated rhetoric about immigration, and about those immigrating. It’s not because the party or the ethnic group in question support illegal immigration. In the majority, neither don’t.

If you’re going to make blanket accusations about people’s character, they are going to resent you, and the Republicans have lead a lot of people to resent them over many issues. Take care you don’t follow their example.

As for the Do-Nothing label? It is an accident of history that more is not being done.

And no, I never said you were defending Republicans. But why, if a Do-Nothing Congress is so Offensive to you, are you not dealing with one of the major reasons that nothing much can be done by those in power now? Is it so you can complain about both sides?

On the subject of self-deportation, the fact of the matter is, the more secure you make the border, the less likely people will risk multiple crossings, for fear of being caught. Nobody wants to get shoved into a detention center, or risk getting shot.

Meanwhile, many of these people have effectively used false papers to make themselves invisible. That news story I mentioned above brings their strange, somewhat unexpected contribution to light. You see, the SSA and other parts of the goverment are getting all these contribution from workers under these false papers, funds most will never claim. It’s a substantial amount.

But the fact that these things are coming into the system indicates something: these people are working legitimate jobs at legal rates. Such incomes, at such a scale indicates that many of these people have assimilated. Which means ripping these people up and throwing them out, or getting them to throw themselves out will be exceedingly difficult. As much as you want to take the righteous route and not reward them for having come into the country illegally, it’s not practical to make them leave.

Securing the borders? That’s a literally one dimensional way of looking at the problem. It’s not the borders that are important, it’s the land area beyond the borders.

So what does that entail? It entails knowing who’s who, having people be part of the system. Ideally, you’d want to control that entirely, but you don’t. So what do you do, just sit and pout? No. You remove as many people from the ranks of the undocumented as you can. You can make Amnesty a dirty word, but can you offer a practical alternative? Make it one-time, make it tough. Send those back who behave like criminals without a second thought. Require working knowledge of English, gainful employment.

In this way, many will cooperate of their own free will in repairing the problem.

Then, to prevent the problem from continuing, you acknowledge the real trouble at hand: people want in, but can’t afford it.

As for overpopulation? Let these people remain unintegrated, and they will contribute more to the problem. As income goes up, the number of children people hav goes down.

As for incumbents? I did have you mistaken for somebody who gives a shit. It’s practically a running joke nowadays. As of October 4th, fifteen Senators and Representatives are Retiring. Hagel, Domenici, Craig, Warner, Allard, Stevens on the Senate Side. Hastert, Pickering, Pryce, Regula are the ones I know of on House side. There will probably be more as the year progresses.

The Democrats are also set to make a number of pick-ups in other races. So why didn’t you know about these things? Change is happening under your nose, and you don’t even realize it.

As for this “we” stuff, kemosabe? We the American people. We’re supposed to want these people to earn their keep, which means they get re-elected if and only if they do as they’re told.

You got my strategy in reverse. The people to be brainwashed, if you want to call it that (whatever makes you feel independent) are the folks in Washington. The point is to set better standards for incumbency and loss of same.

I really don’t don’t have the time, despite my relative youth, to sit around moping about how little control I have over what goes on in the corridors of power, or the wet grey mass between people’s ears. I know I don’t have much direct control of that. What I do know is that ideas have power beyond simple numbers.

If you want to break the power of those who do America disservice, you have to break the framework that they use to support and rationalize their behavior.

As long as I’ve read your posts, my response has been that you’re not telling me much about politicans I don’t already know. That’s what I think. I also think you miss the forest for the trees. People keep these people in office because they don’t feel disgusted enough with them to kick them out. If you can’t give people real reason to feel disgusted about their particular candidate, to the degree that their incumbency can no longer be tolerated, things will remain as they are.

If the person deserves to get kicked out, you’ll find reason to get them kicked out, and you can hand that to people. Keep in mind that these people have logical support in their minds for making that; also try and keep in mind that understanding the structure of that support can be critical to figuring out just what parts to focus on damaging.

Persuasion is an artform, a variant on the storyteller’s methods of giving feeling to the flow of events, bringing sympathy and empathy for a character to the audience, or cutting it off.

You have to keep in mind that the proper way to get rid of the corrupt varies with the person in question.

In short, you cannot kick out irresponsible incumbents facelessly, en masse. You have to engage with people and respect them. Otherwise, you’ll just be a voice in the wilderness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2007 11:15 PM

Stephen, none of your arguments hold up against a border barrier. 2/3 crossing the border equals about 665,000 per year, well over a half million and with a border barrier, a half million would not be crossing. Which in turn would make law enforcement incredibly more focused and effective, not to mention cheaper in the long run for taxpayers. A half million a year to process for illegal entry is carries a whopping enforcement bill once inside the country, as well as other costs to taxpayers which low wage pay tax deductions do not fully compensate for.

As for Jackson’s comments, the logic is inescapable. What good does it do to interdict and return 200,000 a year back across the border (at tax payer expense) when 600,000 more are crossing into this country in the same year? DUH! Border Barrier first, then internal enforcement can have what time and money it needs overtime to deal with illegals already here. But, to leave the border wide open means multiples of illegals entering over the number being deported or otherwise processed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2007 11:42 PM

Stepheph Daugherty wrote:As for the Do-Nothing label? It is an accident of history that more is not being done.

What? That sounds a lot like agreement?

Accident of history?
What sort of NEW excuse is this?
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Yep, that’s really holding the party’s feet to the fire, eh?
Now we have excuses for not securing the borders and enforcing the existing laws?

A path to citizenship for a few illegal aliens (i.e. children brought here by their parent(s) when young and spent half (or more) of their life here) makes sense. But not a blanket amnesty like the one in 1986 that more than quadrupled the problem. This process won’t be easy. It will be painful. And Congress created this mess (among many messes growing in number and severity). Yet, you don’t like the Do-Nothing Congress label? Seem to me it is well deserved.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Then how do you propose we deal with the eleven million people already in the country?

Don’t employ them. Prosecute illegal employers. Deport the criminals. Secure the borders. Provide a path to citizenship only for the truly innocent; i.e. for adult or minor illegal aliens that were children when brought to the U.S. by their parent(s) and have spent half (or more) of their life here). Not a blanket amnesty like the amnesty of 1986 that quadrupled the problem.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we’re not going to be able to deport them all,

Don’t need to. Many will self-deport. It’s already happening.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we’re not going to be able to deport them all, and we can’t kill them,…

Kill them? What a pathetic and asinine statement.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: they will remain living here, undocumented.

Not if they can’t find employment. Most will self-deport and leave the same way they got here.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What’s despicable is continuing to repeat that kind of charge without firm data to back it up.

No, what is despicable are statements like this …

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we’re not going to be able to deport them all, and we can’t kill them

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But why, if a Do-Nothing Congress is so Offensive to you, are you not dealing with one of the major reasons that nothing much can be done by those in power now? Is it so you can complain about both sides?

Major reasons?

Have you not been reading anything?
The major reasons are:

• corrupt, bloated, Do-nothing Congress allowing the nation’s problems to grow in number and severity,


• and too many voters that give them dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings but then reward those same politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Is it so you can complain about both

Both what? Stephen, not everything revolves around YOUR party or the OTHER party. As for complaining about BOTH, BOTH should be criticized if BOTH are irresponsible and allow the nation’s problems to grow in number and severity (which they are). Some in the main stream media are now recommending voters to vote out incumbents too. I thought I’d never live to hear that on a main stream cable news network (CNN).

What frustrates you most is that you have given you loyalty to a PARTY that isn’t doing much of anything.
So that passed a minimum wage.
Whhoooppeee !
But not after Pelosi tried to omit Guam (where she represented the largest employer, StarKist).
And not after Congress gave itself its 9th raise in 10 years.
Yeah boy … their really doin’ some wonderful things in Congress, eh?
I guess those 11% to 18% approval ratings for Congress are unfair, eh? Especially now that Democrats are now IN-PARTY?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But why, if a Do-Nothing Congress is so Offensive to you,

Do-Nothing Congress should be offensive to anyone. But blind partisan loyalties obviously get in the way, and leads some to keep to do strange things like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, trying to rationalize and make excuses for THEIR party’s behavior, playing the blame game, always blaming the OTHER party, and not holding THEIR own party’s feet to the fire.

I wrote:

d.a.n wrote: Yeah … another amnesty like the amnesty of 1986 that quadrupled the problem. Another amnesty to get more votes. It’s despicable.

That’s the truth.
And it is despicable.
You want proof?
There is all sorts of legislation and pandering by politicians to illegal aliens, and it has been going on for years.

Here are a few examples of it.

And here is a Vote Democrat flyer being passed out at the Illegal Alien protest marches in Dallas, Texas.

Want some more examples of what is despicable?
Politicians are despicable for pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other (for profits from cheap labor and votes).

Stepheph Daugherty wrote: It’s practically a running joke nowadays. As of October 4th, fifteen Senators and Representatives are Retiring. Hagel, Domenici, Craig, Warner, Allard, Stevens on the Senate Side. Hastert, Pickering, Pryce, Regula are the ones I know of on House side. There will probably be more as the year progresses. The Democrats are also set to make a number of pick-ups in other races. So why didn’t you know about these things? Change is happening under your nose, and you don’t even realize it.

I heard of some of them, but unlike you I’m not counting resignations of the OTHER party. People retire. Big deal. Haven’t you got anything better to argue about? This incessant partisan warfare, petty bickering, relishing whose retiring and who isn’t, eyeballing what seats might be won or lost for THE PARTY, and wallowing in the partisan warfare, is a supreme distraction from the nation’s pressing problems.

Stepheph Daugherty wrote: As long as I’ve read your posts, my response has been that you’re not telling me much about politicans I don’t already know.

Sorry, I forgot. I’ll add that to the list.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s what I think. I also think you miss the forest for the trees.

Think so? At least I’m not blindly partisan and trying to twist my philosophical beliefs to fit THE party’s ridiculous and indefensible positions, or looking the other way when it is convenient. So you call all of this holding your party’s feet to the fire?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: People keep these people in office because they don’t feel disgusted enough with them to kick them out.

That’s part of it, but not all of it.

People also keep bad politicians in office because they are programmed to pull the party-lever, a bad habit rooted in laziness. Some voters think THEIR party is doing the hard thinking for them, when in fact, their politicians are screwing them. And they sense it as evidenced by dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings for Congress, but too many voters still do an illogical thing: too many reward those same politicians with re-election. And politicians tap into the voters’ laziness by making it easy to pull the party-lever, rather than do the work to research the candidates, much less their voting records.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you can’t give people real reason to feel disgusted about their particular candidate, to the degree that their incumbency can no longer be tolerated, things will remain as they are.

Not true. You can give lots of sound reasons, and some people never feel disgusted enought to not pull the party-lever. That is due to programming. It exists. It is real. The only thing that can overcome it (if anything) are the painful consequences. And that indeed is what often happens.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: In short, you cannot kick out irresponsible incumbents facelessly, en masse. You have to engage with people and respect them. Otherwise, you’ll just be a voice in the wilderness

Sure you can.

Not just in theory, but in reality.
The question is:

• will it be the smart, responsible, peaceful way?


• or the hard, painful, and perhaps not-so-peaceful way?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You have to engage with people and respect them. Otherwise, you’ll just be a voice in the wilderness

Respect is good.

But indulgence is not.
And the truth is there is a lot of blindly pulling the party lever.
Proof of it is dismal 11% to 18% for Congress, but 95% to 99% re-election rates.
There is obviously a disconnect that doesn’t make sense until you understand how people are controlled and manipulated; and how politicians capitalize on voters’ apathy, complacency, and disinterest.
90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.
Too many voters blindly pull the party-lever without even knowing who they are senators and representatives are, much less their voting records.
And there’s no excuse for that when there are so many resources displaying voting records.
And still, no one can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable.
Yet too many voters reward them with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

While we each have the right to vote any way we like, it is not immunte to criticism.
Anyone that blindly pulls the party-lever without even knowing who they are voting for, much less their voting records, is not doing their civic duty.
If criticism of blindly pulling the party-lever offends anyone, then they might want to wonder why?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2007 08:06 AM

David R. Remer-
Those are hypothetical figures, and unlikely to be realized in real life. People thought that demanding Social Security information and other things would discourage these people. Instead, it has fostered an underground business in false papers, shared SS Number, and ID Theft. The wall might prevent outright transit of the physical borders, but many don’t take that route anymore. Evidence of this can be found in that incident a while back with the people who died of heat in that tractor trailer a while back.

Moreover, some people simply walk over, or have jobs on the other side We’re talking about one of our most active commercial and cultural borders. Those truly committed and motivated have plenty of holes to exploit in this border fence. And once they get in? Internal enforcement is a joke.

This obsession with the border has left internal enforcement a poor orphan by comparison. We could put thousands of agents on the job of tracking down Visa violators, cracking down on employers, and following up on counterintelligence and counterterrorism leads, for the money it will take to build this wall, and it would probably do a lot more to get us back control over immigration.

The wall is a meaningless psychological gesture, meant to play to cultural anxieties. Is that the kind of security sensibility you subscribe to?

Dan-
Are you just writing to hear yourself type?

When I write, I write to be convincing, if not to my counterpart in a debated, then to the audience reading it. You talk about voter education, but it seems like you just want them to follow your program of anti-incumbency without question.

The irony is thick with that. You talk of indulging people. Well, the reality is, you have no control over them. They indulge you, listen to you by their own leave, not yours.

There are forces beyond your control that will push and pull on your audience. Your job is not to treat the audience as dupes. They aren’t, at least they wouldn’t think of themselves that way. Without respect, people have plenty of reason to disregard what you say.

It’s no accident that I consistently appeal to common interests and common realities, because I know that many whom I will have to convince will not share my beliefs. Setting up my structure on more objective ground allows me to mount a stronger campaign of persuasion, one where there is more symmetry of interpretation, that is, closer correspondence between how we each see events.

I also assume something else: most people are too busy to regularly check into events themselves. That’s why we have the press, journalists, reporters, and yes, bloggers. There are any number of people out there who professionally and semi-professionally digest and seek out meaningful information. Having some familiarity with Journalism from my studies for my degree, I like to follow that model of research and scrupulous fact and theory checking.

Moreover, I’ve seen the effect it has. Convincing people of things is a hell of a lot easier when you’ve got facts on your side, and a reasonable, valid, sound interpretation of them. Simply appealing to principles alone may not help, because even if they do share those views, they don’t necessarily have the same picture of the facts within which the expression of principle desired would make sense.

That’s your main problem in the anti-incumbency movement. People might agree in principle with getting rid of irresponsible incumbent (crap, it’d take forever to find somebody who really disagreed with that), but they don’t necessarily see why they have to get rid of their incumbent, who they might be dimly aware of, or in fact like. It’s naive to think that you can just walk up to somebody like that, and get them all passionate about kicking out their incumbents.

Pain and suffering, even, might not jog people out of it, because after all, bad things happen to folks even with good politicians in charge. You’ve got to successfully convince people that there’s a link between their misfortune and those in charge.

This poll indicates that whatever’s happening in Congress, there’s a strong preference for Democrats. This would seem to indicate that whatever’s going on, Democrats aren’t shouldering the majority of the blame for it. A recent poll from ABC News and the Washington post indicates that while people perceive that Congress hasn’t done as much as it should, they blame the Republicans and President Bush by a two to one margin for this. That number also constitutes a bare majority of the respondents in the poll.

Why are people not blaming everybody uniformly? If you look at the different numbers you’ll see that they indicate that they feel that the Democrats have greater potential to lead the country in the right direction, even if they’re not fulfilling that potential right now.

You cite very low numbers for job approval, numbers that don’t seem to reflect the general consensus. They range from 22 to 29 percent. Low, but not as abyssmal as what you cite.

But that’s kind of beside the point, as you’ve missed a crucial distinction here. Job approval, especially when generalized to the body as a whole, indicates whether people think that Congress overall is getting the results they want. It’s not, for whatever reasons. Other polls, like those I cite, though, indicate that most people are not spreading equal blame for the poor Job Congress is doing. Only twenty percent of people, according to that poll in the other paragraph, believe both sides are to blame, like you.

Can you honestly tell me, though, that Americans Don’t have reason to settle most of the blame on the Republicans? They’ve been in charge. It’s their paradigms which have shaped current policy, their initiatives that have seen this country hit low points on multiple levels. What’s more, even as a minority, and even with the President a lame duck, the GOP is doing everything it can to frustrate the things people want. The latest monstrosity with S-CHIPS and the ongoing war in Iraq haven’t exactly changed people’s minds about where the main political problem in this country lies. When people flock to the Democrats, it’s not a blind reaction, but an understandable response to the monstrous screw-ups that their use of power has brought to bear. The Republicans got what they wanted and keep on getting it, and people are rightly blaming them for the results.

Democrats, though, are not immune to a backlash, but people are more likely, I think, to pick a challenger in the primary, rather than go over to the other side.

I was shocked to hear that you didn’t care about the mass wave of retirements among the Republicans. When you said just three or for, I knew right off the bat that you weren’t really paying any attention.

I can’t say I’m not happy that the Republicans are seeing such losses. That would be dishonest of me. I would say, though, that I’m sad about Hagel going. He was one of the few moderates willing to challenge the status quo.

What would I like to see happen? A Republican return to moderation. I’m not the kind of partisan, like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O’Reilly, who would talk of seeing the other party utterly destroyed, not merely defeated.

As long as there is politics in this country, there will be partisanship and tensions. The degree to which we let such tensions rule our behavior, rather than our best interests, our common interests, is the degee to which partisanship can become evil.

And no, partisanship isn’t necessarily evil. The founding father gave people the freedom to speak up for whatever cause they wished, and Constitutional architect James Madison intentionally helped to structure a system that would pit different factions against each other. Party politics might not have been a preference, but rather than surpress people’s urge to contend for what they believe in against others, our constitutional government is built so that these factions could check and balance each other.

The reason more hispanics like Democrats than Republicans is not so simple as you would have it.

First, some anti-illegal immigrant groups are just as hostile to regular immigrants who do things legally. Going to the Democrats is a natural reaction to the prejudice underlying some of the movement.

Second, it’s really offensive for somebody to repeatedly insist that you’re for something when you’re strongly against it. Meet one of the offended. Turns out the majority of Hispanics don’t support illegal immigration. I think we can safely assume that the Democratic leadership knows this, so why would Democrats knowingly alienate these people for such a dubious advantage?

As for the flyer? Find the Democratic party memo that told people to print this out. Find the coordinated recruitment. Don’t show me a flyer and tell me the whole party is involved from such meager evidence.

And while you’re at it, prove that the subject of the flyer wasn’t anything more than better relations between the two cultures.

Meanwhile, let’s address despicable statements. The Congress lead by the Democratic Party has set the record on roll-call votes, while the Republican minority has set the record on cloture votes, essentially using a technicality to derail legislation at a record rate, three times the previous record rate. Congres isn’t doing nothing. What’s happening is that different parts of Congress are working at cross purposes. It’s not the Democrat’s fault. It’s the fault of the Republicans, who for the most part, short of Democrats just caving in and agreeing with them, won’t compromise on anything.

Essentially here, you’re using an ad hominem argument to avoid dealing with the facts. I’m a partisan, so therefore I’m not acknowledging the truth, right? Trouble is, the truth bears out my partisan interpretation, and most Americans agree with that interpretation, and for good reason

As for killing the immigrants? It’s not despicable if you realize my aim was not to accuse you of wanting to do that, but rather to stick you on the horns of a dilemma. If we can’t deport all these people or eliminate them by another method, what’s left to do? You say make them self deport, but these people have proved rather resourceful in keeping themselves here.

I say, admit you’ve lost that battle, increase internal enforcement, and both force and encourage those who come after to move through the system. We can get more control of the system if we admit that we don’t have control right now.

Oh, by the way, you’re now supporting the same kind of policy you opposed when I was arguing for it when the DREAM act was up for a vote.

As for accidents of history? Nobody intended for Democrats to have such a razor thin majority, and nobody would have guessed that the Republicans would have been so willing to beat themselves against the rocks of publica opinion and get this obstructionist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 13, 2007 01:13 PM

Stephen said: “This obsession with the border has left internal enforcement a poor orphan by comparison.”

That is pure cow dung, Stephen. The border barrier hasn’t been an issue at all until the last 2 years, and internal enforcement has been virtually non-existent since the last Amnesty of the 1980’s. So your argument is both false and illogical. Lack of internal enforcement preceded any discussion of a border barrier by almost two decades. The Border Barrier has absolutely NO causal effect on internal enforcement.

It appears to me you make up whatever arguments you possibly can to try to defend your indefensible position on preserving an open border policy. Which always comes back to the question: “Why do folks such as yourself defend an open border argument?”. And the answers are all indefensible: party power enhancement at the polls, cheap labor to undermine American citizen wages, cheap labor to increase domestic employer profitability.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2007 03:38 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Are you just writing to hear yourself type?

No, are you?

After all, you don’t have to read it, much less provide such a lengthy response. So perhaps you should ask yourself that question.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: When I write, I write to be convincing, if not to my counterpart in a debated, then to the audience reading it. You talk about voter education, but it seems like you just want them to follow your program of anti-incumbency without question.

Of course, that’s what any blind loyalist would think.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The irony is thick with that. You talk of indulging people. Well, the reality is, you have no control over them. They indulge you, listen to you by their own leave, not yours.

Who ever said I had control over anyone? Where do you come up with these bizzarre conclusions?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: There are forces beyond your control that will push and pull on your audience. Your job is not to treat the audience as dupes. They aren’t, at least they wouldn’t think of themselves that way. Without respect, people have plenty of reason to disregard what you say.

Whose treating the audience as dupes?

Denigrating pulling-the-party-lever does not equate to treating the audience as dupes.

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
Setting up my structure on more objective ground allows me to mount a stronger campaign of persuasion, one where there is more symmetry of interpretation, that is, closer correspondence between how we each see events.

Well, it’s not working is it? This is what happens when philosophical beliefs collide with PARTY behavior.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I also assume something else: most people are too busy to regularly check into events themselves. That’s why we have the press, journalists, reporters, and yes, bloggers. There are any number of people out there who professionally and semi-professionally digest and seek out meaningful information. Having some familiarity with Journalism from my studies for my degree, I like to follow that model of research and scrupulous fact and theory checking.

Sorry, I forgot. I’ll add that to the list too.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Moreover, I’ve seen the effect it has. Convincing people of things is a hell of a lot easier when you’ve got facts on your side, and a reasonable, valid, sound interpretation of them. Simply appealing to principles alone may not help, because even if they do share those views, they don’t necessarily have the same picture of the facts within which the expression of principle desired would make sense.

I agree. Facts help.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s your main problem in the anti-incumbency movement. People might agree in principle with getting rid of irresponsible incumbent (crap, it’d take forever to find somebody who really disagreed with that), but they don’t necessarily see why they have to get rid of their incumbent, who they might be dimly aware of, or in fact like. It’s naive to think that you can just walk up to somebody like that, and get them all passionate about kicking out their incumbents.

Think so?

First of all, most voters do not even know who there senators and representatives are, much less their voting records.
90% of elections are won by the person that spends the most money.
In the end, ousting incumbents is exactly what will most likely happen.
Voters will do it the smart, peaceful way, or the hard, painful, and maybe not-so-peaceful way.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Pain and suffering, even, might not jog people out of it, because after all, bad things happen to folks even with good politicians in charge. You’ve got to successfully convince people that there’s a link between their misfortune and those in charge.

It depends. In America, pain and suffering will be enough. If not, then the nation may perish. It’s possible. As for convincing people, every journey starts with the first step. Perhaps some just don’t want anyone taking the first step if it might not gain more seats for THEIR party.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: This poll indicates that whatever’s happening in Congress, there’s a strong preference for Democrats. This would seem to indicate that whatever’s going on, Democrats aren’t shouldering the majority of the blame for it. A recent poll from ABC News and the Washington post indicates that while people perceive that Congress hasn’t done as much as it should, they blame the Republicans and President Bush by a two to one margin for this. That number also constitutes a bare majority of the respondents in the poll.

So? Is this all that is important to you; how many seats the party might win?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Why are people not blaming everybody uniformly? If you look at the different numbers you’ll see that they indicate that they feel that the Democrats have greater potential to lead the country in the right direction, even if they’re not fulfilling that potential right now.

Right. That’s why they have 11% to 18% approval ratings.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You cite very low numbers for job approval, numbers that don’t seem to reflect the general consensus. They range from 22 to 29 percent. Low, but not as abyssmal as what you cite.

And you think 22% to 29% is good?

Here’s the polls for the 11% (a Reuters poll)-to-18% (a Gallup poll) approval ratings (the lowest ever).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But that’s kind of beside the point, as you’ve missed a crucial distinction here. Job approval, especially when generalized to the body as a whole, indicates whether people think that Congress overall is getting the results they want.

Of course you want to believe that. So why is it some people in the Main Stream Media are recommending we vote ‘em all out? What’s giving rise to the anti-incumbent voting? It’s not just because people think Democrat politicians are better. Tt’s largely because people think the Republicans are worse. That’s certainly nothing to be proud of.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Other polls, like those I cite, though, indicate that most people are not spreading equal blame for the poor Job Congress is doing. Only twenty percent of people, according to that poll in the other paragraph, believe both sides are to blame, like you.

And they would be correct.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Can you honestly tell me, though, that Americans Don’t have reason to settle most of the blame on the Republicans? They’ve been in charge.

It varies, but BOTH are increasingly irresponsible, greedy, arrogant, and do-nothing. It’s been getting worse for 30 years.

Can’t you see beyond your blind hatred of Republicans and see there is not that much difference?
The few things Democrats and Republicans differ on doesn’t seem to have made any difference.
If neither can get anything done, what good are they?
They just blame each other while giving themselves a raise every year.
There is so much corruption on BOTH sides, it’s really ridiculous how anyone could rationalize it away.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s their paradigms which have shaped current policy, their initiatives that have seen this country hit low points on multiple levels. What’s more, even as a minority, and even with the President a lame duck, the GOP is doing everything it can to frustrate the things people want.

And guess what? Congress (many Democrats too) gave him the go ahead for that? Congress has the purse strings too, but refuses to do anything to stop it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The latest monstrosity with S-CHIPS and the ongoing war in Iraq haven’t exactly changed people’s minds about where the main political problem in this country lies.

Iraq was based on lies.

And Congress paved the way for it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: When people flock to the Democrats, it’s not a blind reaction, but an understandable response to the monstrous screw-ups that their use of power has brought to bear. The Republicans got what they wanted and keep on getting it, and people are rightly blaming them for the results.

Good. And they should. But 95% to 99% re-election rates ain’t really accomplishing it, is it?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I was shocked to hear that you didn’t care about the mass wave of retirements among the Republicans. When you said just three or for, I knew right off the bat that you weren’t really paying any attention.

That’s right.

I’m not a Republican, and unlike some people, I don’t around relishing and eyeballing ways to get more seats in Congress. I don’t care if it is filled by a Republican or Democrat, because there’s really not much difference … not when seat-retention rates are 97.6% since year 1996, and 97.7% since year 1980.
You think its a big deal, but it’s not. I had heard of several resignations, but I wasn’t counting them since it really makes little difference.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can’t say I’m not happy that the Republicans are seeing such losses.

Me too. I just wish it was in BOTH parties.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What would I like to see happen? A Republican return to moderation. I’m not the kind of partisan, like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O’Reilly, who would talk of seeing the other party utterly destroyed, not merely defeated.

Could of fooled me.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As long as there is politics in this country, there will be partisanship and tensions. The degree to which we let such tensions rule our behavior, rather than our best interests, our common interests, is the degee to which partisanship can become evil.

Maybe that’s what is needed so that people will get thorough sick of it and the do-nothing politicians that fuel it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: And no, partisanship isn’t necessarily evil.

No. But blind partisan loyalties are part of the reason for disaml 11% to 18% approval ratings and 95% to 99% re-election rates. Raising awareness about blindly pulling the party-lever is needed. I’ve asked many people about their voting habits. Many admit to just voting straight-ticket. What they don’t realize is that it results in 95% to 99% re-election rates. Many admit to not even knowing the people they vote for; only that they were in THEIR party. And politicians capitalize on these partisan loyalties. Most voters know it, give Congress dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings, but still pull the party-lever. It’s a very, very hard habit to break. It will continue until it becomes too painful.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The reason more hispanics like Democrats than Republicans is not so simple as you would have it.

I’m not talking about Hispanics.

Not all illegal aliens are Hispanic.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Second, it’s really offensive for somebody to repeatedly insist that you’re for something when you’re strongly against it. Meet one of the offended.

Tough. There’s no doubt that the Democrat party has been pandering to the illegal aliens.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for the flyer? Find the Democratic party memo that told people to print this out. Find the coordinated recruitment. Don’t show me a flyer and tell me the whole party is involved from such meager evidence.

Yeah, right.

There’s no doubt that the Democrat party has been pandering to the illegal aliens for many decades. Pitting Americans against illegal aliens for votes is despicable.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: And while you’re at it, prove that the subject of the flyer wasn’t anything more than better relations between the two cultures.

Yeah, right.

Funny how there weren’t any Republican flyers at the Dallas demonstration.
Those Democrat flyers were all laying over the ground.
They were carring signs too.
It was all over the local news stations in Dallas (where I live).
There is no doubt about. The Democrat party has pandered to illegal aliens for many decades.
It could have been predicted before it even happened.
Illegal aliens know who is trying to get them an amnesty.
What was funny about it is that many illegal aliens did not know Bush was trying to get them amnesty too, because they knew he was a Republican. Little did they know is that a few Republicans were for passing the amnesty. The oartisan bias exists, the Democrat party panders to illegal aliens, has for decades, and to deny it is not helping the credibility of your statements.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Congress lead by the Democratic Party has set the record on roll-call votes, while the Republican minority has set the record on cloture votes, essentially using a technicality to derail legislation at a record rate, three times the previous record rate.

Roll calls don’t mean much if Congress doesn’t accomplish anything.

BOTH are ridiculous. But blind partisan loyalties always see it as the fault of the OTHER party.
More of the blame game and nothing gets done.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Congres isn’t doing nothing.

Oh, that’s right. Congerss gave itself another raise. The 9th raise in 10 years. Yeah boy, they’re doin’ a wonderful job, as evidenced by their dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What’s happening is that different parts of Congress are working at cross purposes. It’s not the Democrat’s fault. It’s the fault of the Republicans, who for the most part, short of Democrats just caving in and agreeing with them, won’t compromise on anything.

More of the blame game and nothing gets done.

Right, it is always the fault of the OTHER party.
Eventually, when the nation’s problems being ignored grow painful enough, voters might finally decide to oust the majority of them. Then perhaps they’ll finally get something done. There’s a reason the MSM calls it the do-nothing Congress and recommends people vote them out.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Essentially here, you’re using an ad hominem argument to avoid dealing with the facts.

Not true. I can discuss anything you like. Whether it is a fact or not is yet to be determined.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m a partisan, so therefore I’m not acknowledging the truth, right?

Yes you are partisan.

Are you not acknowledging the truth?
Yes, on some things, such as the Democrat flyers and the Democrat party pandering to illegal aliens.

But in general, it depends on the individual. People are partisan to varying degrees.

However, there is no doubt that blind partisan loyalties make people do strange things to find ways to rationalize what THEIR party does. And sometimes, people simply believe what THEIR party believes without giving it much thought.

Trouble is, the truth bears out my partisan interpretation, and most Americans agree with that interpretation, and for good reason

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for killing the immigrants? It’s not despicable if you realize my aim was not to accuse you of wanting to do that, but rather to stick you on the horns of a dilemma.

Yes, it is most certainly despicable.

There’s no excuse or way to weasel out that statement, and “stick you on the horns of a dilema” is a pathetically lame excuse.
Stephen, No one but you wrote anything about killing illegal aliens …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
If we’re not going to be able to deport them all, and we can’t kill them,…

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we can’t deport all these people or eliminate them by another method, what’s left to do? You say make them self deport, but these people have proved rather resourceful in keeping themselves here.

Most will self-deport. Many already have. Staying will be difficult if they can’t get a job, welfare (32% of illegal aliens receive welfare), education, drivers licenses, etc.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I say, admit you’ve lost that battle, increase internal enforcement, and both force and encourage those who come after to move through the system.

Wrong. The battle is not lost.

And the Democrat party is losing votes by pushing for a blanket amnesty and pandering to illegal aliens.
Secure the borders, stop illegal employers, deny social services to illegal aliens, and then provide a path to citizenship ONLY for some that were brought here by their parent(s) and have lived here much of their life.
No blanket amnesty.
Especially without first enforcing existing laws and enforcing border security.
If you think the battle is lost, then you are sadly mistaken.
Take a gander at the 60 million page views at www.alipac.us and NumbersUSA.com.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We can get more control of the system if we admit that we don’t have control right now.

Of course we don’t.

That’s why we need to (1)enforce existing laws, (2)secure the borders, and then (3)provide a path to citizenship ONLY for some that were brought here by their parent(s) and have lived here much of their life. Number 3 will be a difficult process, but it will only get worse without doing 1 and 2 first.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Oh, by the way, you’re now supporting the same kind of policy you opposed when I was arguing for it when the DREAM act was up for a vote.

Not true.

I’ve always supported 1, 2, and 3 above. I have always opposed a blanket amnesty and a good deal of nonsense in the SHAMNESTY / DREAM ACT BILL. And I’d forgo a fence if some kind of border security was implemented. That is, if a fence is going to be the excuse for NO border security, then I’d forgo it. But the fence is really just an excuse to do nothing, and forgoing the fence would prove it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for accidents of history? Nobody intended for Democrats to have such a razor thin majority, and nobody would have guessed that the Republicans would have been so willing to beat themselves against the rocks of publica opinion and get this obstructionist.

Excuse, excuses, excuses …

So what’s new?
They BOTH do this crap.
Democrats were obstructionist when Republicans had a small majority from 1996 to 2006.
I’m sick of BOTH, and so are a growing number of people.
Democrats may not get win more (if any) seats in the coming election, because the Republicans are regaining a lot of support from the 80% of Americans that want the borders secured and/or illegal immigration stopped.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2007 04:27 PM