Kill Bill

The Politico breaks the news:

The immigration overhaul bill collapsed on the Senate floor Thursday night, the victim of partisan bickering over procedure that reflected a broader national divide over how to deal with millions of illegal immigrants.

The failure to limit debate and move the bill toward final passage was a stunning defeat for President Bush, as well as Democratic and Republican senators, who have invested significant time and political capital into fixing the immigration system.

Whew! The powers-that-be are not happy today. They were unable to ram through the "grand bargain" on immigration. One can read the official MSM obituary in the NYT, or one can have much more fun reading the blow-by-blow account of Michelle Malkin (who also has a great graphic with the Kill Bill motif), or the incomparable Mickey Kaus.

Before pouring the champagne, the opposition needs to realize that the bill, though badly battered, is still not dead. The ideas and forces represented therein are like the villain from a bad horror movie that will not die even when a stake is driven through its heart (for some reason, the grand bargain reminds me of Samara from The Ring). The thirst for cheap labor continues unabated and that alone is enough to keep this issue alive.

Maybe now is a good time to look back and daydream: what could a more competent administration have proposed to get us out of our current mess?

1. Border security. There is no credible way to talk about what to do with the current crop of illegals until it is reasonably assured that we will not have to deal with the next crop.

2. Benign neglect with the current crop of illegals. There's no need to do that much right now. We can revisit the issue of their status in a few years after we have stabilized the size of the illegal population. By that time, most of the illegals who are still in the country will have such deep roots that there may be many ways of making creative uses of existing immigration statutes to regularize their status without the need for a generalized amnesty.

3. Linking immigration policy to economic needs. The idea of a guest worker program is bad for many reasons, but the idea that immigration policy can serve economic needs is not.

The Bush presidency, shall we say, has not distinguished itself through high levels of administrative competence. Combine this with Bush's obvious aversion to taking serious actions to limit the flow of illegals from Mexico throughout much of his term. It seems that all the hard decisions are being passed on to the next administration--and this is probably for the better.

Comments

[MlR]

Passing and enforcing laws against employers is key. You can stop it at the border, but a significant minority also gets in through other means. Attack the supply of jobs and free benefits.

[M.A. George]

This bill was a monster that tried to eat Cleveland--all at once. We need to break it down into manageable pieces and handle the problem incrementally. that way, we have a better chance of seeing what works--and want does not. Right now, this bill is like someone who gained 50 pounds over 10 years and tries to lose it all in 3 months. Won't work.

[Siggy]

1. Stop the flow first. Show us you can do something.

2. Then the problem becomes more manageable. Devise a route to citizenship.

3. Base future immigration on skills and potential contribution to our society.

[Adam]

"It seems that all the hard decisions are being passed on to the next administration--and this is probably for the better."

"Probably?" No, definitely! Our current bozo in chief shouldn't be allowed to touch immigration policy (or any other important policy) with a 10 foot pole!

[jimbino]

First, any immigration policy must be consistent with our notion of basic civil rights, summed up in the 5th and 14th: There can be no discrimination based on age, sex, race, nationality, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, and so on.

Basing immigration on merit, narrowly defined, is OK. I will do my best to oppose any immigration policy that favors couples or families over singles, 30 year-olds over 62 year-olds, and straights over gays.

[BC]

I would use a quick hook concept. Illegal alien? One misdermeanor-deported. Not paying taxes? Deported. Violating housing restrictions? Deported.

Severe-no-prohibitive penalties for employers who hire them, combined with rewards for turning yourself in, say $2,000.

Add to that 1,000 or so rolling deportations per month, these measures in sum should take care of the problem in less than 10 years.

[Duke Martin]

The real bottom line here is that none of us trust Bush for one second to do anything but selectively enforce povisions within it. So the next guy has a different set of selectives and so on. The main objection is to our government; the way it is being mismanaged, and the seemingly endless supply of incompetents that Bush can find to head the various agencies. (Mike Brown is actually one of the almost competent ones) I for one say Bush is a stone cold liar if he says he's for border security first. Period.

[Adam]

"First, any immigration policy must be consistent with our notion of basic civil rights, summed up in the 5th and 14th: There can be no discrimination based on age, sex, race, nationality, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, and so on."

Neither amendment has anything to do with immigration.

Furthermore, why shouldn't we discriminate in visa allocation? Immigration to the USA is a priviledge, not a right.

There's nothing wrong with a policy that, for example, is designed to prevent the ethnic composition of the US from changing.That was our policy before 1965, and it should be our policy again.

[D Flinchum]

"The real bottom line here is that none of us trust Bush for one second to do anything but selectively enforce povisions within it."

Actually, Duke Martin, most of us don't trust the US government to enforce the laws regarding border and interior security period. We have had 20 years of non-enforcement since the 1986 amnesty. During this time, we've had Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 in the White House. It isn't just Bush. It's both parties.

I am not against immigration per se and I'm even willing to keep an open mind on guest worker programs. I'm against granting amnesties, uping the number of legal immigrants allowed in, setting up guest worker programs, and THEN finding out that the government has absolutely no intention of enforcing the part of the deal that would actually prevent illegal immigration. Ten years down the road, we are back wringing our hands over what to do with millions more of illegal aliens. And at that point we can do nothing about the people whom we legalized in return for the non-existing enforcement - and their families. You can't repeal people once they are legally here.

BTW, don't believe that 12 million figure. We were told 1.2 million in 1986 and it turned out to be about 3 million and there are STILL court cases on this amnesty. This doesn't include their immediate and extended families.I will be stunned if less than 25 million come forward and request provisional Z visas.

Family reunification should also be limited to spouses and minor children. It is beyond stupid to "reunite" adult siblings.

[Richard A.]

Speaking of Michelle Malkin -- she has some fun with the editorial board of the WSJ.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/07/new-vent-gorilla-warfare-against-the-open-borders-wsj/

[jimbino]

"Furthermore, why shouldn't we discriminate in visa allocation? Immigration to the USA is a priviledge [sic], not a right."

But Amerikan citizens have (theoretical) rights to fair and equal treatment. So why is it so hard for a gay single Amerikan to get a simple Tourist Visa for his lover, when a breeding hetero resident furriner can import his spouse, all his kids, his parents and his siblings?

[ricpic]

Why won't they build the #*!X!*# fence?!?!

[andrew]

I wonder if they'd found enough cheap labor to build the fence at a feasible cost.

[David]

Jimbino,
The reason why it is and will continue to remain difficult to get the equivalent of spouse visas for homosexuals is more than I suspect you realize. Marriage among heterosexuals still has a certain mystique to it---something of a feeling of the transcendent, to the point where people will abuse it to a lower degree than would be rational. For instance, you might see the occasional sham marriage for the purpose of rational gain (e.g., a marriage to get a foreign student citizenship, or to export one party's health care benefits or avoid estate taxes, or the like), but you don't see these abuses anywhere near as often as you'd see in a population largely composed of homo economicus. The reason is that it simply feels wrong at a visceral level for most of the population, enough so that there's no incredible outcry to close the loopholes. There neither exists, nor will there ever exist such a visceral feeling protecting civil unions or any marriage that's not of the archetypical type. If we decided to allow this, we'd best be prepared for the full consequences of the predictable choices of rational economic man, who isn't some sort of superhero, despite what economic textbooks might have you believe :->

[pc]

"Speaking of Michelle Malkin -- she has some fun with the editorial board of the WSJ."

The clip that begins with Mexican demonstrators and ends with 9/11 is simply outrageous. Shame on her! And that gorilla mask; is that supposed to be clever?

Her only valid point is the white-male-bias of the WSJ editorial board. But that has nothing to do with immigration!!

[Freedom's Truth]

"This bill was a monster that tried to eat Cleveland--all at once. We need to break it down into manageable pieces and handle the problem incrementally. that way, we have a better chance of seeing what works--and want does not. Right now, this bill is like someone who gained 50 pounds over 10 years and tries to lose it all in 3 months. Won't work."

If this was a diet bill, it was diet bill based on the theory that eating 12 million bags of buttered popcorn would help you lose weight.

Simple solution: 1) Build the fence, stopping border crossings. 2) Enforce the laws we have. In particular, deport all criminal aliens in our custody. Investigate all cases of ID fraud. 3) Wait for #1 and #2 to work before passing any other law.

"This doesn't include their immediate and extended families.I will be stunned if less than 25 million come forward and request provisional Z visas."

Stunned is an understatement to how it will be for Americans when they realize this.

Last thought: This problem was created by Kennedy's 1965 bill, then by the 1986 amnesty where kennedy worked to gut employment sanctions, and to let him write the next bill is like letting a doctor convicted of malpractice do the surgery that corrects his own mistakes.

[Freedom's Truth]

"The real bottom line here is that none of us trust Bush for one second to do anything but selectively enforce povisions within it."

"Actually, Duke Martin, most of us don't trust the US government to enforce the laws regarding border and interior security period. We have had 20 years of non-enforcement since the 1986 amnesty. During this time, we've had Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 in the White House. It isn't just Bush. It's both parties. "

I agree. Bush has been bad, but Clinton was no better.
Judging the votes of Obama and Clinton, who both voted for amnesty, had amendments to make the worst aspects of our legal immigration worse (namely their support for chain migration), and opposed local law enforcement involvement, we must conclude that any Clinton/Obama type presidency will see more malign neglect on immigration law.

[simon]

Seeking employment is not a crime... lest we forget our heritage.. these are human rights.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Fiancee Visa]

Great article, enjoyed reading about it and look foward to what others have to say and your next article.

[Photographyman]

This blog rocks man its one of a kind i wish i was able to find more blogs like this. i love the skin you used it rocks man. keep up the good work dude i will be checking back for new posts all the time. bookmarked :)

[buy wow gold]

I like the post!