Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category


Thursday, June 28th, 2007

Immigration bill fails

Thursday, June 28th, 2007

The immigration reform bill is dead. Again. Probably for good this time. Mickey Kaus says “this seems like a humiliating defeat for Bush and the self-styled, MSM-idolized Grand Bargainers.” All the moreso, in the president’s case, because of his intensive eleventh-hour lobbying efforts:

Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.

High noon for the immigration bill

Tuesday, June 26th, 2007

The Senate will vote today on an effort to revive the stalled immigration-reform bill. 60 votes are needed to bring it back to the floor. National Review Online does the math, and concludes that the bill’s supporters have 59 votes — which means they just need to peel away one of seven fence-sitting senators who claim to oppose the bill, but may vote to revive it in today’s crucial procedural vote: Sens. Bond, Brownback, Burr, Cochran, Coleman, Ensign and Webb.

Says NRO: “If any of these senators votes to revive the bill, his professions of opposition to amnesty should no longer be taken seriously. He will have done his crucial bit, when the amnesty bill was most vulnerable, to help shepherd it to passage. We know how senators who claim to oppose amnesty will try to explain away a vote to revive the bill. They will rely on procedural obfuscation: They didn’t want to obstruct the process, they wanted to get a vote on an amendment, etc. But amnesty is staying in the bill — no amendment to strike the bill’s central features has any chance of passage — and it deserves to be obstructed.”

A poster at Red State outlines what he calls the “top 10 defects of the amnesty bill.” On the other side of the ideological spectrum, a poster at Daily Kos makes the “progressive case against the immigration bill.” Who exactly supports this bill, again?

UPDATE: The bill advanced, 64-35. So now they’ll debate the bill and vote on various amendments, followed by “a second, now-crucial, cloture vote to cut off debate later this week,” says Mickey Kaus. “If a net five Senators switch between today and the second vote, the bill is (again) dead. That’s a much more plausible scenario in this case than it usually is.”

“Grand bargain” collapses

Friday, June 8th, 2007

Ding-dong, the immigration bill is dead.

Well, maybe not dead, but certainly dormant, and on life support. Mickey Kaus gloats.

Whatever one thinks of illegal immigration, you can’t deny the irony and humor inherent in the fact that one of President Bush’s biggest domestic priorities was derailed thanks to a Senate filibuster by those damn obstructionist… Republicans.

Iraq = immigration?

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

In today’s L.A. Times, Mickey Kaus compares Bush’s immigration gambit with his Iraq gambit, and finds a number of discouraging similarities. Hmm.

Hold your nose and vote yes?

Monday, June 4th, 2007

Um, is this a good argument for passing a law?

The bill’s authors, as well as advocates of comprehensive immigration legislation, have been arguing that flawed as it is, the measure must go forward legislatively and eventually it will be fixed.

Yeah, that’s a good idea! Let’s replace a flawed system with another flawed system, and leave it to some other Congress to “fix” it! That way, at least we can claim credit for doing something. Because the appearance of progress is the same thing as progress!

[/not expressing an opinion about the bill, just saying that’s a dumb argument for it]

Ono! Mato! Poeia!

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007

Apparently the Drudge Report has been taken over by comic-book writers:


(The referenced story, of course, is the McCain-Romney war of words over immigration. Not to be confused with the McCain-Cornyn war of words over immigration.)

Immigration reform deal struck

Thursday, May 17th, 2007

The day’s big news is the compromise on illegal immigration:

In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday to reshape the nation’s immigration laws and give millions of illegal immigrants legal status. At the same time, borders would be tightened.

The compromise brought liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans together with top members of President Bush’s team on an issue that carries heavy potential risks and rewards for all involved.

The Senate will wade into an emotional and wide-ranging debate on the issue next week that promises to test the unlikely coalition that produced the deal. Almost instantly, the plan brought vehement criticism from both sides of the immigration issue, including liberals who called it unfair and unworkable and conservatives who branded it an overly permissive “amnesty.”

The proposal constitutes a far-reaching change in the immigration system that would admit future arrivals seeking to put down roots in the U.S. based on their skills, education levels and job experience, limiting the importance of family ties. A new class of guest workers would be allowed in temporarily, but only after borders were fortified and measures were in place to ensure the rules were followed.

I’m too busy packing for our big move to read up on the details of this, so I don’t really have an opinion at this point. But I figured it should be on the blog, so others can comment on it. Snd since CNN didn’t see fit to issue a breaking-news alert about it — apparently believing that Paris Hilton, Don Imus and Anna Nicole Smith are more important than immigration reform — this post was necessary. :)

Showdown at the O’Reilly Corral

Saturday, April 7th, 2007

Bill O’Reilly looked fairly unbalanced during a heated argument with fellow Fox anchor Geraldo Rivera over illegal immigration and drunk driving on The O’Reilly Factor yesterday. The fireworks really begin around the 5:50 mark in the video clip:

Heh. Awesome. (Hat tip: Anonymous.)

P.S. MSNBC’s resident O’Reilly-hater, Keith Olbermann, in an “utterly unprecedented” and “shocking” development, gives a “Best Person in the World” award to Geraldo.

UPDATE: Even more awesome: the Chipmunked version of the Rivera-O’Reilly showdown. LOL!

All the transcribed press releases that are fit to print

Friday, March 30th, 2007

Mickey Kaus: “Do [New York] Times reporters talk only to the interest group that hands them the study?”

Major immigration raid in Mishawaka

Wednesday, March 7th, 2007

Thirty-six alleged illegal immigrants were arrested at a Mishawaka factory yesterday, prompting a candlelight vigil for the arrested workers, who now face deportation.

Coincidentally enough, we received this e-mail from Notre Dame’s president, the Rev. John Jenkins, this morning:

I am pleased to announce that the topic of the third annual Notre Dame Forum will be immigration. A nine-member committee of faculty, administrators and students reviewed many suggested topics, and made proposals to me, from which I selected this topic. The subject is a timely one for our nation, and is certainly relevant to a Catholic university with an immigrant heritage. I have asked Timothy Matovina, Associate Professor of Theology and Director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism, to chair a committee to prepare for the forum. The forum will take place on Wednesday, September 26th, at a time to be announced. Speakers for the forum will be announced at a later time.

Irony, thy name is Golden State Fence

Thursday, December 28th, 2006


A fence-building company in Southern California agrees to pay nearly $5 million in fines for hiring illegal immigrants. Two executives from the company may also serve jail time. The Golden State Fence Company’s work includes some of the border fence between San Diego and Mexico.

(Hat tip: dcl.)

Need a break from football?

Saturday, November 4th, 2006

Check out these Border Cams in Texas and see if you can spot an illegal alien crossing into the US.

Los inmigrantes no necesitan votar

Friday, October 20th, 2006

The Washington Post reported today that the campaign office for the [anti-immigrant] Republican candidate in California’s 47th District sent out thousands of letters to voters with Hispanic surnames stating that it was illegal for them to vote. All the more ironic because the candidate, Tan Nguyen, is an immigrant himself, it makes a number of false claims designed to scare recipients:

Written in Spanish, the letters advise recently registered voters that it is a crime for those in the country illegally to vote in a federal election, which is true. They also say, falsely, that immigrants may not vote and could be jailed or deported for doing so, that the federal government has a new computer system to verify voter names, and that anti-immigration organizations can access the records.

Nguyen claims that the letters were sent by an aide who has since been fired. However, Nguyen has praised the Minutemen, supports the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, and has come out against Bush’s guest worker proposal; he is not exactly a champion of California’s immigrant community.

The district is approximately one third Hispanic and is currently represented by Loretta Sanchez (D).

Personally, I’m willing to believe that it was sent out by an aide without permission — but I’m also inclined to believe that Nguyen wouldn’t mind if Hispanic voters stayed home on election day. This sort of lends credence to the idea that Republicans would rather limit the voting pool and use dirty tactics to keep them away (whereas Democrats try to be so inclusive as to even get dead people to vote!).

Chris Shays, immigration hawk

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

It’s not too unusual for Christopher Shays, the Republican congressman from the ritzy 4th District of deep-blue Connecticut, to be at odds with the GOP leadership. But it’s rarely because his position is more conservative than theirs. On illegal immigration, however, Shays is speaking out against President Bush’s proposed “path to citizenship”:

Shays, one of the few vulnerable House Republicans open to a broad compromise with the Senate, said strong protests from his constituents this month prompted him to speak out for the first time against citizenship for undocumented workers. “It would be a huge mistake to give people a path to citizenship that came here illegally,” he said.

Shays isn’t alone. According to the Washington Post, nearly every vulnerable Republican in the House — regardless of geography, demography and ideology — is taking a hard-line stance on immigration because of constituent pressure. This remarkable trend would seem to indicate a rather broad-based grassroots movement opposed to concessions on illegal immigration. (There aren’t too many Southern racist redneck hicks in Connecticut’s 4th District.) It also tends to make one wonder whether the representatives who support a Bushian compromise are really representing their constituents. If the only congresspeople who support a compromise are the ones in “safe” districs — i.e., the ones who have no fear of the voters — doesn’t that perhaps imply that maybe, just maybe, this is something the voters don’t want? Just asking!

Mind you, I’m not saying that I personally am opposed to a “path to citizenship,” or what Mickey Kaus calls “semi-amnesty.” (I’m not sure quite what I believe, but my gut feeling is that citizenship should be an option once the law-breakers have paid a sufficient penalty. What’s a “sufficient penalty”? I don’t know! As I said, my opinions on this issue are rather uncertain and murky. Although, I don’t think a speeding ticket is a terribly apt analogy.) However, regardless of what I personally feel, this apparent trend really makes me wonder. No matter what the biased-language MSM polls might tell us, if Chris Shays, of all people, is coming out against a “path to citizenship” because he feels he must do so in order to win re-election, that makes me think the political tide is NOT turning toward concession, compromise and semi-amnesty.

P.S. For excellent commentary on (among other things) the media’s blatant bias on the immigration issue, see Kaus’s blog.

P.P.S. As long as we’re on the topic of immigration… I had the misfortune of catching a portion of Fox News’s “Beltway Boys” the other day, and was treated to the sights and sounds of Fred Barnes bloviating about how illegal immigration is a crisis — a CRISIS!! — and voters are so exercised and outraged, this is the single biggest domestic issue of the last decade. To which I could only reply: Huh?!? Yes, the immigration issue is a big deal, but c’mon: if you asked the average voter what he/she cares about more, immigration or health care, what do you think the answer would be? Or for that matter, immigration vs. education? Or immigration vs. economic/pocketbook issues? And if we’re judging not by the “average voter,” but by the passion of the grassroots (on both sides), how about immigration vs. abortion? Or immigration vs. gay rights? Or immigration vs. church/state issues? Illegal immigration is a big deal and a big political issue, absolutely, but it’s hardly the single defining domestic political issue of our age, as Barnes seems to think.