Cheers!
Posted on 05/28/2007 12:50:06 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As the Senate is mulling the details of a compromise immigration bill hammered together by the odd couple of Sens. Edward Kennedy and Jon Kyl, and as members of Congress hear from their constituents over the Memorial Day recess, it may be worthwhile to put the issue in historical context. For most of our history, the United States had no restrictions on immigration at all. I am told that my Canadian-born grandfather was a "nickel immigrant": He took the five-cent ferry from Windsor, Ontario, north to Detroit roundabout 1896. This situation resulted from America's strong demand for labor, coupled with its weakness at managing its borders. The government could screen and register immigrants arriving at large ports but couldn't patrol thousands of miles of border.
World War I enlarged and strengthened the federal government, and Congress voted for severe restrictions on immigration in 1921 and 1924. The labor market (and health inspectors) would no longer determine who came here; quotas were imposed on immigration from specific countries to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation in 1890. The apparatus of state was strong enough to enforce these restrictions, and, in any case, there was no market demand for immigrants during the depression of the 1930s and no way for them to come during World War II.
By the time immigration became an issue again, the political impetus for the immigration act of 1965 -- floor-managed by Edward Kennedy -- came from those who expected an influx from Italy, Greece and, if possible, the "captive nations" of Eastern Europe. Few seem to have expected a surge from Latin America or East Asia, although country quotas were applied to immigration from Latin America for the first time.
Why, then, have we had so many Latin immigrants, many of them illegal? Because the apparatus of state has proved weaker than market forces: The old Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the understaffed Border Patrol have been among our least competent federal bureaucracies. And because the family unification provisions of the 1965 act allowed legal immigrants to bring in not just young children but also other relatives ("chain migration"), and because the Fourteenth Amendment makes anyone born in the United States a citizen.
The Kennedy-Kyl bill is built on the assumption that the federal government can effectively channel the flow of immigration. It has country quotas and would admit fewer relatives and more high-skilled workers. It would set a limit on the number of guest workers and a time limit on their stay -- two years in, one year out. It allows for Z visas that would let current illegals remain if they pay certain fines (but not, astonishingly, back taxes), but provides that heads of household must return to their country of origin to be eligible for a green card and get on the path to citizenship.
Amnesty? The thing that is arousing so much fiery opposition to this bill -- embittered cries of "amnesty" -- is that we have tried something like this before and it didn't work. The immigration act of 1986, signed by Ronald Reagan, purported to strengthen the border and to sanction employers of illegal immigrants; in return it gave an amnesty to illegals already here. The amnesty worked, and the Clinton administration scurried to naturalize tens of thousands of immigrants in time for the 1996 election. But border security has not worked. And it turned out to be easy for illegals to buy forged identification papers and unfeasible to prosecute employers who accepted them in apparent good faith.
The advocates of this new bill must convince voters that their plan will work better. They have a decent case to make, such as their call for an identification card with biometric information. Technology has made this more feasible than it was 20 years ago, and the phobia against a national identification card has been weaker since 9/11. Advocates must now convince the critics that such a card would make sanctions against employers enforceable. They must also show that border security will improve: that the 700-mile fence mandated by Congress last fall will actually be built; that unmanned aerial vehicles will reduce illegal crossings; that the larger Border Patrol will be effective; and that the apparatus of state will prove strong enough to prevail against market forces.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that voters aren't dead set against legalizing current illegals. But they must be convinced first that this time, border security is for real.
Michael Barone is a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. He is also author of Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, the just-released Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Competition for the Nation's Future.
Well, it’s not bad, could be a ‘highlight’ on his baggy eyes, lol.
.
True
I think I got too heavy cutting colors
My TV color balance on reds does not help much there
Lol, most of all I hope it’s not a ‘hole’! He is on white, it could be a green patch or a maroon one!
If I can match the color closely I can probably fix it in one fast click
But I’ll use an alternative URL just in case I do not succeed
Here ya go.
Conversation with a Senator -What does AMNESTY look like?
FreeRepublic.com ^ | May 27, 2007 | KimberlyGG
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1840655/posts
My NEXT phone call to Senators Voinovich and Brown:
Hello, My name is Kimberly ..... and I would like to leave a message for Senator......
“Oh, its you, again” (I’m just waiting for THAT response!)
Yes, it’s me...I’d like to know if Senator Voinovich is aware that there are far more than 12 million illegal aliens in this country already and it is clear that our government’s use of that number is entirely meant to mislead the public.
“Is that your message?”.
Yes, I resent continuing to be treated as if I’m stupid. Apparently our Senators aren’t aware that Homeland Security has reported that 10 million illegal aliens entered the country just last year alone?
“That it?”
No. Actually, it isn’t...I’d also like you to give this message to Senator V. as well, so please take this down....Senator V., are you aware that according to the 2000 census, 18,785,867 was the total populations combined of Wyoming, Dist of Columbia, Vermont,...are you writing this down?
“Yes ma’am”
Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware.
“Is there more”
Yes. Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and New Hampshire. Are you still writing this down?
“Yes mam”
Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virgina, New Mexico AND AND Nevada.
Now, can you read that message back to me, I’d like to make certain that before Senator Voinovich passes AMNESTY for illegal aliens, that he knows EXACTLY the extent to which he is destroying this country.
Go ahead, I’m listening....
__________________________________________
Do you realize if this AMNESTY happens we are in effect creating the equivilent of adding over 17 more states to this country? And that’s not even considering the chain migration that is in the Senate bill.
Please look at what giving amnesty to as many as 20,000,000 illegal alien foreign nationals actually represents. More than the population of 16 states and DC!
According to the 2000 census, 18,785,867 is the total populations combined of Wyoming, Dist. of Columbia, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada.
THINK about that.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
____________
Basically what we’re talking about is building infrastructure on demand for the population of at LEAST 17 STATES!
You know all those jobs everyone keeps saying only aliens will do? We wouldn’t need to supply the JOBS if we didn’t have the ALIENS! It’s them we’re building schools, houses, clinics, Mosques, MEXICAN consulates on and on for. And there is about enough of them working agriculture to produce some of the food they eat.
Any one who says 20 plus million people is not a drain on your resources is hopelessly corrupt! But it won’t be only 20 million, it will result in 80 million if other amnesties show us anything.
Yes, I know how you use your little colored ‘patches’!
“Kill the bill and enforce current laws.”
The bill is DOA. This is the next political third rail. Neither Democrats or Republicans want this to pass. They are posturing and this will go away for another three years.
Actually that describes me quite well. I know that due to the extended period of non-enforcement of our immigration laws that there are a large number of people who will probably need to be legalized. For these people legalization is the simplist and quickest way to straighten out their status. My off the cuff estimate with little to know data is 1-3 million.
On to point two, exactly how does this bill and/or the conduct of our government persuade me that there will be enforcement of immigrations laws? Factoids like the number of companies fined for no match Social Security numbers only convince me that there will be no enforcement.
To start convincing me that they are serious about enforcement: complete the border fence; repeated, frequent raids on employers with no-match Social Security numbers for their employees; no catch and release; etc.
Cheers!
Cheers!
.
No go!
I forgot the 1st frame covers his face
I might slow the delay to attempt to paint the 2nd frame - then try paint it - then swap delay back to 125 again
I can paint him for you, not too many pixels involved there. I’ll get to it.
Lol, looks great. What are they hiding?
Lol, I’ll refrain from comments.
Sometimes I feel as though political disaster is just around the corner: immigration, war against “global warming,” timetables, Law of the Sea (LOST) treaty, etc. We live in interesting times.
.
I thought of a college sweater for McRat from one of his common quotes
Not sure it would be prudent
[Not sure it would be prudent]
Awww, you wouldn’t let a little thing like that stop you!!
Really? Outside of western Canada, they appear to be foreign douchebags who share our language but are "different."
That’s funny, coming from one of our northeastern states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.