Nope.
Just want to make sure that, before anybody tries to discuss the fate of the invading barbarians already inside our gates that the border is fortified.
Whether or not we keep any of them is above my pay grade - if it were up to me, they’d all be gone, mostly for reasons similar to yours. I think we’d miss some of them, though. And I’d expect some really nasty civil disorder.
If someone compromises and lets the decent ones stay, I’ll grumble. But I will still be amazed to find that there is enough backbone left in the Federal Government to remove some of the more egregious illegals.
If, as in the last attempt at amnesty, they try to keep them all (including the violent criminals!), then I’m going be truly PO’d. Dunno what I’ll do about it. It will, pretty much, be the end of the Republic.
Unfortunately, I figure the last one scenario is most likely.
But in ANY scenario, it is important to fortify the borders to prevent the illegal aliens expelled from returning, or to prevent the borders from being swamped if there is to be an amnesty of some sort.
You can make sure all you want, but that is exactly what is happening with the Gang of 8 in the Senate and the other secret immigration group in the House. The GOP has bought the premise of linking amnesty to "comprehensive immigration reform." Boehner will bring this up for a vote even if the majority of Reps don't support it. CIR will easily pass the Senate just like it did in 2006 with Hagel-Martinez. The House saved our bacon then, but I don't see that happening this time.
Whether or not we keep any of them is above my pay grade - if it were up to me, they’d all be gone, mostly for reasons similar to yours. I think we’d miss some of them, though. And I’d expect some really nasty civil disorder.
Attrition thru enforcement is the answer. And I really don't understand the urgency of even addressing the status of these lawbreakers now. The Dems want it for obvious reasons.
If someone compromises and lets the decent ones stay, I’ll grumble. But I will still be amazed to find that there is enough backbone left in the Federal Government to remove some of the more egregious illegals.
Decent ones? How do we establish such criteria? It is like trying to distinguish virtue among whores. How many millions of "decent ones" do you think are here? And how many "decent ones" overseas will see this as a signal to come here illegally for the third blanket amnesty? In 1986 the supporters of amnesty assured us that this was a one-time event, never to be repeated again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
But in ANY scenario, it is important to fortify the borders to prevent the illegal aliens expelled from returning, or to prevent the borders from being swamped if there is to be an amnesty of some sort.
40% of the current 12 to 20 million illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed their visa. Unless we can fully implement the 1996 US-VISIT program to track and deport visa overstays, securing the border solves only part of the problem. And once you signal that you will have an amnesty--as happened in 1986--you will get a flood of illegals even if you link amnesty to some sort of security metric. As I have indicated, we have already made the mistake of allowing the Dems and the RINOs to hold enforcement hostage to amnesty. The linkage has been made.
Paul's plan is essentially the same as McCain-Kennedy that included border security metrics to how amnesty would be phased in. McCai-Kennedy also gave immediate probationary status to all the illegals in the country who would be required to be registered and processed fully afterwards. I have read Simpson-Mazolli (1986), Hagel-Martinez (2006), and McCain-Kennedy (2007). They all contain similar language and provisions.
At least under the 1986 bill, you had to live here for at least five years prior to 1986. But the process was so rife with fraud, that the government projection that 1 million would apply turned out to be 2.7 million. The enforcement provisions of the 1986 bill were never fully enforced. Imagine if this amnesty turns out to be much higher than just 11 million. At least, Reagan was honest enough to call his bill an amnesty. The other iterations say it is not, which is a bald-faced lie.
And guess who we must trust to administer any amnesty? Obama!!! What kind of fools are idiots like Paul, Rubio, McCain, Graham, etc.