>>The aginer’s in this forum have to understand that “deportation only” is not a feasible economic or political alternative at this time.<<
If you include self-deportation by busting employers gradually as "not feasible" then you seem to be claiming there will never be a solution, which is in fact what this bill almost guarantees. If busting employers does not work, why do you present it as a virtue of this bill?
>>This bill combines border enforcement,<<
Rather, a promise of enforcement which has never been kept before. One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing but to expect a different result.
>>a path to legal status for illegal immigrants which includes hefty fines and fees,<<
Wrong, they get legal status in 24 hours. You seem to be intelligent, but have you even read the bill? "Hefty fines and fees," which are for those that apply for "permanent residence" (even though they are not required to), are in fact much less than a coyote would charge for multiple entries during the same period. They can pay these "hefty fees" on installment. and I would not be surprised if future laws exempted them from paying anything at all.
>>a skill based point system to determine the worthiness of future immigrants,<<
Which is not scheduled to do anything for 8 years, and I believe that is plenty of time for the special interests to change the law. Another swindle.
>>and a guest worker program.<<
That part of the bill might be OK, but its implementation will be in the hands of bureaucrats that allowed Mohammed Atta to get an approved visa months after he was dead.
>>As long as the people on the right sound like a broken record yelling “amnesty”, they will be ignored by all just as the lefty’s are being ignored by everyone trying to kill the guest worker program.<<
"Amnesty" is exactly what this bill is about. And it must be an effective label to pin on traitor politicians who are not fulfilling their constitutional duty to the people, because so many of them are denying it. They are supposed to work for us.
>>If you want some input into what occurs, then make some proposals regarding the enforcement provisions (which you seem most concerned about).<<
So we peasants are not allowed any input about the amnesty and despicable unfairness of this bill? The fact is, it will be extremely difficult to evaluate, or even to find agreement on who should really evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Even though I have faithfully supported Bush and his father for so many years, I do not trust anyone in this administration any more. Why is immediate amnesty necessary?
>>If you don’t wish to come to table, then don’t complain when the demo’s roll you on your issue.
Republicans are just as much to blame as the Dems. I almost think it would have been better for them to lose a few more seats in the senate. If this passes they will be punished severely in 2008.
>>I have already spoken to my Congressman to express support in general for this legislation, with a few changes regarding family reunification provisions.<<
So have most of us, but many of them do not care what we think. I think my 2 senators are leaning against, and my House representative is solidly opposed.
>>Myself, I will continue to work for a solution to this vexing problem, rather than tilt at windmills like some here.<<
OK, here is another literary reference: Your solution includes pulling the Trojan Horse inside our walls.
>>Final prediction based on my discussions are that this bill will pass the Senate with minor changes 63-36, and in the house approximately 40-50 Republicans will support it’s passage (30-40 demo’s will oppose it) and send it to the President for his signature.<<
God help us if you are right. I don't know if that would be the end of the Republican party, but it would severely weaken it. I am running for precinct chairman and promise to do my damndest to clean up the corrupt leadership at the top. In my opinion, that might make Bush surpass Carter as the worst president, as bad as Carter was. I guess you missed Pelosi's promise that she would not support it without 70 Republican votes. She does not want to bear the entire blame in 2008. Kay Bailey Hutchison just had a talk with Jorge Bush, and commented afterwards that he had a better understanding of the depth of opposition among her constituents.