McCain holds town hall meeting at Chick-Fil-A headquarters (re-states Amnesty pledge)

>>These Dorgan types are all against millions of immigrants being non-union non-citizens, but are all for making millions of new union Democrat-voting citizens out of the same group of people.<<

Doesn’t make sense to me. You say he wanted “Dem-voting” workers but the passage of amnesty would have created plenty of them, and Kennedy and Feinstein surely would have tried again for guest workers later. Why didn’t Dorgan vote for the amnesty?

>>If they passed his amendment, he’d vote for the Z visa.<<

I don’t know. I’m not a mind reader. I know the senate voted down Cornyn’s amendment to bar gang members/terrorists/etc the first time, and I believe it never passed. Would Cornyn have voted for amnesty if his amendment had passed? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.

>>Dorgan’s proposal was a huge imposition on business, and the most intrusive wage rules since the New Deal.<<

Do you have a link? I was looking at what I thought was the text of the amendment but couldn’t find the “huge imposition on business.”

You have to distinguish between amnesty (Z visa) and guest worker program. Dorgan didnt want a guest worker program, but that provision is SEPARATE from the Z visa amnesty. So if they passed Dorgan’s amendment and then the bill, they’d have had amnesty but no guest worker program, which leaves the system open for more illegal immigration. It was a deal-killer, but my point is that Dorgan was not specifically against amnesty:
“Shortly after midnight, the Senate voted 49-48 to end a new temporary worker program after five years. The vote reversed the one-vote outcome on the same amendment - offered both times by Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D. - two weeks ago. Six senators switched their votes, reflecting the issue’s political volatility.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960631511&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Cornyn tried to make the Z visa overall less offensive, but failed:
“The Senate voted 51-46 to reject a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, to bar criminals - including those ordered by judges to be deported - from gaining legal status. Democrats siphoned support from Cornyn’s proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization. The Senate backed that amendment 66-32.”

I also not that Obama was key sponsor of continuing ‘chain migration’:
The other, offered by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident “green cards” after five years rather than 14 years.”

Cornyn also went after another offensive anti-law-and-order aspect to the system:
“Cornyn prevailed on another matter opposed by the grand bargainers, however. His amendment, adopted 57 to 39, would make it easier to locate and deport illegal immigrants whose visa applications are rejected.
The bill would have barred law enforcement agencies from seeing applications for so-called Z visas, which can lead to citizenship if granted. Cornyn said legal authorities should know if applicants have criminal records that would warrant their deportation. “

You have to distinguish between amnesty (Z visa) and guest worker program. Dorgan didnt want a guest worker program, but that provision is SEPARATE from the Z visa amnesty. So if they passed Dorgan’s amendment and then the bill, they’d have had amnesty but no guest worker program, which leaves the system open for more illegal immigration. It was a deal-killer, but my point is that Dorgan was not specifically against amnesty:
“Shortly after midnight, the Senate voted 49-48 to end a new temporary worker program after five years. The vote reversed the one-vote outcome on the same amendment - offered both times by Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D. - two weeks ago. Six senators switched their votes, reflecting the issue’s political volatility.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960631511&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Cornyn tried to make the Z visa overall less offensive, but failed:
“The Senate voted 51-46 to reject a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, to bar criminals - including those ordered by judges to be deported - from gaining legal status. Democrats siphoned support from Cornyn’s proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization. The Senate backed that amendment 66-32.”

I also not that Obama was key sponsor of continuing ‘chain migration’:
The other, offered by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident “green cards” after five years rather than 14 years.”

Cornyn also went after another offensive anti-law-and-order aspect to the system:
“Cornyn prevailed on another matter opposed by the grand bargainers, however. His amendment, adopted 57 to 39, would make it easier to locate and deport illegal immigrants whose visa applications are rejected.
The bill would have barred law enforcement agencies from seeing applications for so-called Z visas, which can lead to citizenship if granted. Cornyn said legal authorities should know if applicants have criminal records that would warrant their deportation. “

A few more points:

“>>Dorgan’s proposal was a huge imposition on business, and the most intrusive wage rules since the New Deal.<<

Do you have a link? I was looking at what I thought was the text of the amendment but couldn’t find the “huge imposition on business.””

I misspoke on this. There was a separate amendment. It that was put together by - get this - OBAMA ... and it was in the 2006 bill. extending Davis-Bacon to private sector workers is an imposition of wage regulations not seen since the New Deal. It comes from the same union-mindset though:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjIyYmRjMjMxZTViNWFlOWRmZWYyMGVhM2Y3Njk1MWI=

The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.”

A few more points:

“>>Dorgan’s proposal was a huge imposition on business, and the most intrusive wage rules since the New Deal.<<

Do you have a link? I was looking at what I thought was the text of the amendment but couldn’t find the “huge imposition on business.””

I misspoke on this. There was a separate amendment. It that was put together by - get this - OBAMA ... and it was in the 2006 bill. extending Davis-Bacon to private sector workers is an imposition of wage regulations not seen since the New Deal. It comes from the same union-mindset though:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjIyYmRjMjMxZTViNWFlOWRmZWYyMGVhM2Y3Njk1MWI=

The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.”

“Dorgan is a union democrat. He is opposed to guest workers because the union is opposed to guest workers. They want permanent workers because guest workers are hard to organize.”

Correct.

Apologies for the double posting, its unintentional.

>>You have to distinguish between amnesty (Z visa) and guest worker program. Dorgan didn’t want a guest worker program, but that provision is SEPARATE from the Z visa amnesty.<<

I know they are different, but you said that Dorgan wanted more Dem voters. Dorgan voted against the main amnesty (Z-visa), which would have resulted in millions of new Dem voters. Maybe Dorgan did submit his amendment to endear himself to unions, but you never convinced me that Dorgan was not trying to protect US jobs.

The amnesty bill never guaranteed a US Visa Exit system, nor does “our” government seem to have any interest in one. Until we do have such a system, I think we should be able to object to new guest worker programs.

I realize that some guest workers are a good thing, but is there a number which is too high? Ben Ficklin once posted to me that our economy would need more foreign workers even after the entire population of Mexico was here.

>>So if they passed Dorgan’s amendment and then the bill, they’d have had amnesty but no guest worker program,<<

Actually we already have lots of guest worker programs. But the WSJ faction always wants more, no matter how many they have.

>>which leaves the system open for more illegal immigration.<<

That’s one of the strange arguments that the amnesty proponents made: That if we passed the amnesty bill, the border would be secure, but only if we had more guest workers. I didn’t buy the promise of a secure border either way.

>>I misspoke on this. There was a separate amendment. It that was put together by - get this - OBAMA ... and it was in the 2006 bill. extending Davis-Bacon to private sector workers is an imposition of wage regulations not seen since the New Deal. It comes from the same union-mindset though:<<

Thanks!

“I know they are different, but you said that Dorgan wanted more Dem voters. Dorgan voted against the main amnesty (Z-visa), which would have resulted in millions of new Dem voters. Maybe Dorgan did submit his amendment to endear himself to unions, but you never convinced me that Dorgan was not trying to protect US jobs”

Most of the Democrat Senators who voted for the Dorgan amendment also were for the Z visa amnesty.

“The amnesty bill never guaranteed a US Visa Exit system, nor does “our” government seem to have any interest in one. Until we do have such a system, I think we should be able to object to new guest worker programs.”

The bill was horribly flawed without immigration law enforcement, but that doesnt take away the fact that guest worker programs are part of legal immigration system and technically separate from amnesty that would give unlimited number of visas to current illegal aliens.

“I realize that some guest workers are a good thing, but is there a number which is too high? Ben Ficklin once posted to me that our economy would need more foreign workers even after the entire population of Mexico was here.”

We currently allow 1 million legal immigrants per year. However, most of the immigrants are on family visas and only a portion are on employment visa. Rather than tolerate illegal immigration or have higher immigration flows, we should shift our legal immigration to more employment-based visas. These types are immigrants are most positive for the economy and country, as they are known contributors, whereas with family visas, we may be importing more dependents who use up more social services.

Obama was one of the senators opposed to that shift and had an amendment to continue “chain migration” via family visas.

>>Most of the Democrat Senators who voted for the Dorgan amendment also were for the Z visa amnesty.<<

Fair enough.

>>We currently allow 1 million legal immigrants per year. However, most of the immigrants are on family visas and only a portion are on employment visa. Rather than tolerate illegal immigration or have higher immigration flows, we should shift our legal immigration to more employment-based visas.<<

I think disallowing a spouse and children is not only politically difficult, but may be a bad idea. Disallowing, or reducing quotas for, parents and siblings (in most cases) would also have to overcome political opposition, as we saw in the amnesty debates, but has more real merit IMO. (What is the policy on “domestic partners?” I was surprised they didn’t add that to last year’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” — or maybe it’s hidden in the 1000 pages :)

>>These types are immigrants are most positive for the economy and country, as they are known contributors, whereas with family visas, we may be importing more dependents who use up more social services.<<

Sponsors of relatives have to sign an Affifavit of Support which is supposedly for 10 years, but

1) If the relative has no medical insurance and incurs $1 million in medical bills (not hard to do these days), in most cases the family sponsors can’t pay even if they wanted to. Older parents would be more likely to have serious medical problems. However, if Hillary or Obama get their desired “changes” then that won’t be a problem — unless the USA goes bankrupt, and that would never happen, right?

2) After 10 years, immigrants who cannot support themselves and have not contributed to social security etc., well, you know.

“I think disallowing a spouse and children is not only politically difficult, but may be a bad idea. Disallowing, or reducing quotas for, parents and siblings (in most cases) would also have to overcome political opposition, as we saw in the amnesty debates, but has more real merit IMO. “

I am not talking about spouses, I agree thats not sensible, but the parents, siblings etc. that makes it chain migration. The majority of legal immigration comes from that, and its out of whack. Yes, it has merit to lower it, and yes it is vigorously opposed because so many are invested in it. But then you have a very unbalanced immigration system today unlike what we had before majority of immigrants from a single country, Mexico. We never had that before.

GOP welfare reform got legal immigrants off of welfare and got parents off of soc sec, but then there was enough hard-case whining where it got put back on. no matter the affadavits, when you have no-income people coming here, they end up a net drain on social services one way or another.

BTW, Check this out:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-can-states-do-about-illegal.html

>>what-can-states-do-about-illegal.html<<

17.Elect a governor and lt. gov. who will do their jobs.

I don’t know how to navigate to the Texas Chapter in FR. I assume it is possible, how do you do it?

I'm not confused about US VISIT. It's just not an issue in Congress or for the dems in the negotiations on immigration reform.

The hardliners(including you) have tried to frame the immigration issue as GOP versus GOP and will never understand what is happening in the real world of GOP versus Dems.

We can see specific concessions that were made to the unions to get them support the compromise.

Already mentioned is applying Davis-Bacon wage scale to the guest workers. Also, the United Farm Workers were given the right to go into the fields to organize. Also, the hot debate on the floor of the Senate in 2006 on the issue of prevailing wages versus adverse wages.

Because dems took control of Congress, the unions tried to assert themselves in 2007. In the first vote on the Dorgan amendment, Kennedy forced Acaca to change his vote and Dorgan was defeated by one vote. Kennedy admitted that the guest worker program in the bill was not the guest worker program the he would write, but he was supporting it because it was part of the compromise.

In the the second vote on the Dorgan amendment, those handful of GOP senators changed their vote to pass Dorgan. They all admitted that they supported the guest worker program and voted for Dorgan only because they were trying to kill the bill over the amnesty portion of the bill. That was a major victory for the unions.

Concessions have been made to the unions. If we look forward to 2009, what additional concessions will have to be made to the unions to get them to support the guest worker program?

Allow me to speculate: If Bill Gates wants his 200,000 H1B Visas, he will have to sit down at the table with the Communication Workers of America and the AFL-CIO to work out a compromise that allows the unions access to the H1B workers.

>>I’m not confused about US VISIT. It’s just not an issue in Congress or for the dems in the negotiations on immigration reform.<<

Not an issue? Have you suppressed the Vitter amendment 1339 from your memory, which failed 48-49 with Dorgan voting FOR, and some of your favorite RINOs voting against it:

Collins (R-ME)
Domenici (R-NM)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

I am not claiming that the only immigration dynamic is Republican vs. Republican. I am not claiming that unions do not, on certain issues, demand outrageous and unfair laws. Making wage scales for guest workers that give them an advantage over US citizens is despicable.

You are usually thoughtful in commenting on complex political issues, but you are oversimplifying with statements like “...will never understand what is happening in the real world of GOP versus Dems.” You may have misunderstood our reaction to what we view as betrayal by Republicans who call themselves “conservatives.” I despise Dems who sell us out in a different way from hypocritical Republicans who sell us out.

>>Allow me to speculate: If Bill Gates wants his 200,000 H1B Visas, he will have to sit down at the table with the Communication Workers of America and the AFL-CIO to work out a compromise that allows the unions access to the H1B workers.<<

Are you suggesting Gates, who wants unlimited visas for himself, is the good guy?

If you push US workers too far (including engineers), you may see the seething anger of the peasants strengthen unions, and if conservatives form an alliance with them, the WSJ/Chamber of Commerce wing may realize it has killed its golden goose. Temp workers are necessary, but there must be limits, and on immigration the WSJ types do not necessarily hold the good of their nation nor its citizens as the highest priority.

I should add, nor do the unions necessarily hold the good of the nation as the highest priority.

Vitter is irrelevant. The south's position on Mexicans is no different than their position on blacks.

Now as for you hardliners not comprehending the real dynamic of immigration reform, that is easily proven.

In 2004, the GOP could have unified behind the Bush Plan, but the hardliners refused. For them, the Bush Plan, which was the traditional GOP position on immigration, was not good enough.

In 2006, the Senate passed Hagel-Martinez. This legislation was far worse than the Bush Plan.

In 2007, the legislation was worse than the 2006 legislation, and far worse than the Bush Plan.

In 2009 there will be more legislation and it will be worse than the legislation of 2007, 2006, and the Bush Plan.

The hardliners have been able to block each of these, but each time the legislation gets handled, it shifts to the left/gets worse.

Immigration reform was/is inevitable. Eventually it will pass. And, as Tancredo said in 2004, the legislation that Congress produces will be far worse than the Bush Plan.

Even tho the dems are soundly beating the GOP on immigration, you hardliners insist on blaming the GOP.

None of the Above 2008!

I'm in.

I'll vote for the other offices, but I'm having a hard time seeing how McCain is going to earn my vote in November.

>>Vitter is irrelevant. The south’s position on Mexicans is no different than their position on blacks.<<

Give me a break!! Time limits on visas are “irrelevant” because you say so? The vote defeating the Vitter amendment was 49 to 48, and you think, therefore, that half the senate is racist for voting for something that any sane nation would have as a policy? You will have to make a better argument than that, or you can debate with yourself.

>>In 2009 there will be more legislation and it will be worse than the legislation of 2007, 2006, and the Bush Plan.<<

If the Bush plan was acceptable to you, and you say that new legislation will be “worse,” then you must think that being shot 120 times will make you more dead than being shot 100 times. But also, if it does get “worse,” that increases the chances that it will not pass, all other things being equal. You did not mention that amnesty passed the senate in 2006 but not in 2007, even though the Dems gained a senate majority in November 2006. It just might be the case that some Dems might not be as willing to sell us out as you think.

I notice you’re not volunteering to pick the lettuce.