The Need To Call Out The Lunatics Has Never Been Stronger…
…and that’s a bipartisan statement. In the wake of the second and probably final defeat of the immigration bill, it’s worth reflecting on the shameful tactics used, mostly by opponents of the bill, including ludicrous assertions that Bush was trying to give up sovereignty of this country to Mexico, and the tried and true “I know where you live” threats of physical harm directed at the bill’s supporters:
The threat came in the weekend mail.
The recipient was Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, who has been a leading advocate of the proposed legislation for changing the immigration system. His offices in Washington and across Florida have received thousands of angry messages in recent weeks, but nothing as alarming as that letter he received at his home.
“I’ll turn it over to Capitol police, and we’ll go from there,” said Mr. Martinez, who declined to elaborate on the nature of the threat.
On the eve of a crucial vote on the immigration bill, the Capitol Hill switchboard was deluged again Wednesday as thousands of citizens called their members of Congress — and, perhaps, someone else’s — to weigh in. Not since the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, several Senate aides said, have the lines been so jammed by a single issue.
Republicans who support the immigration bill are facing unusually intense opposition from conservative groups fighting it. This is among the first times, several of them said, that they have felt the full brunt of an advocacy machine built around conservative talk radio and cable television programs that have long buttressed Republican efforts to defeat Democrats and their policies.
While the majority of the telephone calls and faxes, letters and e-mail messages have been civil, aides to several senators said, the correspondence has taken a menacing tone in several cases.
Senator Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican who is undecided on the final immigration bill, said his office received a telephone call recently that “made a threat about knowing where I lived.” Mr. Burr passed it along to the authorities. “There were enough specifics to raise some alarm bells,” he said.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is one of the architects of the immigration overhaul, said he also had received threats in telephone calls and letters to his office. Mr. Graham said several other senators had told him privately that they also received similar messages.
“There’s racism in this debate,” Mr. Graham said. “Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally.”
Note that I’m not talking about whether the bill was the right or wrong solution to immigration – I’m talking about behavior that is in many instances criminal and in most every instance disgustingly devoid of any content save the most baseless, tasteless, race-based pandering.
I’m sad to say that much of this behavior has come from the right-wing, including the blogosphere, We seem to have very little to distinguish us from the Kossacks and their ilk these days.
Again, I’m not for a minute denying anyone’s right to oppose the bill – just the shameful way much of that opposition was expressed.
And while I’m expressing my disappointment (and don’t think I’m getting on my high horse here – I have a million regrets and disappointments about my own life, but that’s personal and not the business of this blog), I am becoming increasingly ashamed of the political leanings of my own beloved Austin. Not that Austin is liberal – everyone knows that. Nor that it’s (cringe) ‘progressive’, that most empty and meaningless of phrases (as an example, the local progressive weekly recently ran an item decrying the lack of democracy in Texas employment because Texas defeated yet another attempt by unions to strip it’s ‘right-to-work’ status – anyone’s irony meter going off yet?). No, I’m ashamed because Austin is apparently the home base of the lunatic fringe.
How else to explain the fact that the aforementioned progressive weekly has become so inundated by 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’ kooks that the editor has been forced to address the topic endlessly and prominently? Now, I have my quarrels with the Austin Chronicle’s politics, and I have addressed them in more than one letter to the editor, with usually snide replies. But it is a fine paper for the price (naturally, it’s free) and it’s worth reading, even for conservatives, because it offers in-depth coverage of local government that you simply cannot find anywhere else in print…but a rational person can barely stand to read the letters and editorials anymore, so mired have they become in this worthless ‘controversy’ that is in fact the largest possible proof of the deep penetration of ignorance and paranoia in our society.
The lunatics may not have taken over the asylum, but they’re very near to it. So I say to the voices on the right who expressed so much venom regarding this immingration bill: enjoy your Pyrrhic victory, you’ve hurt your party with your extremism. And I say to the 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’ neanderthals (particularly the idiots at the Thundercloud at 290 and I-35 who forced me to quit eating there with their ‘9/11 was an inside job’ propaganda on the refrigerator): get bent. You’re complete and utter fools, to the last one of you. The ‘truth’ about 9/11 is abundantly clear to anyone with the capacity to reason…and you’re hurting your party and your progressive causes with your idiotic fairy tales.
There – I feel better already!…
Mark, Don’t you think you are being a little harsh on this issue? There are many law abiding, tax paying citizens that support conservative ideals and the politicians that share them. I’m proud to say that I am one of them. The so called comprehensive immigration reform bill that was defeated has to be at least tied with the worst legislation congress has ever considered. Had they put more thought into preparing the draft bill, maybe they could have done better. Talk radio didn’t cause the defeat. US citizens did when they found out what it contained. Proud to be a Conservative Republican. Your Uncle Steve
I’m with you on this one, Mark. I have been nothing if not amazed by the level of discourse coming out of the Corner of late (I’ve sworn off Redstate, so I have no idea what those nutcases are up to at this point). The idea that the immigration bill would give up US sovereignty is preposterous and ought to be ignored.
Steve (and thanks for commenting – Steve is indeed my uncle!), that’s why I was at such pains to say I’m not criticizing the opposition to the immigration bill, but rather the way that some – not all, by any means – of that opposition was expressed. I realize that many, many principled conservatives like yourself opposed the bill on rational grounds – and I’ve got no qualms with that. I’m also not blaming the straw man of talk radio – talk radio is, at its heart, entertainment, and conservative talk radio is more popular because it is more entertaining.
I’m just ashamed of how apocalyptic some of the rhetoric was on this issue…so rest assured, I’m not attacking anyone for opposing this bill, I’m only attacking the people who used the bill as an occasion for death threats and thinly-disguised racism…
Mark, I’m in agreement with you here.
One has to be seriously out of touch to believe these 911 conspiracy theories. I suppose BDS is responsible for some of it. I have agreed with very few of Bush’s policies since he took office, but to even begin to think that our government knew about 911 or caused it makes me want to physically cry. You wonder what folks like those at Thundercloud are smoking. (I’ll have to check out stickers at the one at the Arboreteum. Hope I don’t see anything too objectional; I really like those California Club sandwiches.)
I haven’t been paying attention to the immigration debate. Listening to talk radio (left or right wing) makes me want to puke. (Which is better, crying or puking?) These two contrasting issues are examples of why I consider myself middle of the road. I don’t want to be a part of either group, even if they will have me (to paraphrase Woody Allen?).
Mark you are right on the money on both counts. First the so-called progressives continue to bang the drum that 9/11 was an inside job even when faced with the reality of the accounts of hundreds of thousands of people who were there in New York and at the Pentagon. To admit that these horrendous acts were carried out by Islamist terrorists would defeat completely their assertion that all cultures and ways of life are morally equal. they are not!
On the immigration debate the lunatics have infused their arguments with more than thinly veiled attacks aimed primarily at the Hispanic community. I wonder who picks their food and cuts their grass, because aside from illegals you can’t get an American young person to even shovel your walk for money any more. We should be looking for ways to mainstream this influx of people coming to America because our primary ad campaign for 200+ years has been that we are a better country where anything is possible if you work hard. With a more educated, productive and aging workforce we should be looking at ways to increase our immigration quota’s. We will simply put be too old to support ourselves in the next 20 years and there will not be enough low end workers entering the system to handle the sheer numbers required to support our economy.
Well, I’m one of those “foaming at the mouth” opponents of the bill.
So, let me explain exactly what caused me to join the lunatics.
First, I want to say that I believe that our “leaders” should lead, not follow. I’m not a fan of politicians who never know what they believe until the polls tell them. If you are a leader, you should have the courage and conviction to stand firm to your beliefs even if the majority of your constituents disagree. This is one of the things that I have always liked about President Bush, and one of the few things that I still like about him.
However, when your opposition is so overwhelming and so united in its opposition, you owe it to the opposition to do two things:
1) Hear them out, and truly listen to their criticisms. Try to understand where they are coming from, and why their opinion is different from yours.
2) Explain why you believe what you believe.
Proponents of the bill did neither of these two things these last few weeks. That’s what infuriated me so much. When confronted, we were told that “we didn’t understand the bill, and that we were misrepresenting what was in it.” Proponents were condescending in their attitudes. There was a lot of “how dare you question me on this. Don’t you realize that I know what’s right for you?”
That kind of attitude is never going to win my vote or my support.
Now, they may have been right that we didn’t understand the bill. I submit to you that no one did. Including the supporters. The bill in its entirety was never made available by Congress to the public. It was quite obvious that our own Senators didn’t know the bill either, and hadn’t read it. Especially since as of Tuesday night they were still printing it.
The entire bill + amendments was over 1,000 pages. And it was rushed through, without committee hearings, without proper deliberation on the Senate floor, without any kind of analysis of whether it actually had a prayer of working and if it would be fiscally responsible.
I generally try to think the best of my political leadership, even those I disagree with. I never could stand Bill Clinton, but I do feel that most of the time, he honestly felt that what he was doing was best for the country. So, I don’t want to believe this, but the way this bill was handled, with all the back room dealings, with the rushing it through the Senate, with not making the text available to the public, it made it seem that the writers of the bill wanted to get this bill passed before the public could see what was in it. It made it seem as if they knew the American people would never support the bill if we got a chance to actually see it, and hear its merits and flaws truly debated.
Like I said, I don’t want to believe that, but it’s hard to believe anything else at this point.
Our government is not supposed to work that way. And that angers me more than anything else.
As for what I do “know” about the bill…I “know” that the security provisions were watered down versions of what was passed last year, so it’s laughable to suggest that the bill would make the border more secure. I also “know” that even though its been described as an amnesty bill, the $5,000 fine would make it impossible for any illegal alien to proceed down that path. So, in short, I “know” that it’s a bad amnesty bill, and a bad security bill.
Now, unfortunately, I only “know” these things, I don’t know them. Why? See above. Perhaps I’m wrong. I would have loved the opportunity to have been proven wrong about the things that I “knew”. I was never given that opportunity. Our Senators told us to take our complaints and shove them.
So, we did. And they realized that they didn’t like where we were shoving them.
Frankly, Mark, I mostly disagree with you on this one. I think that this was a galvanizing moment for the American people, and overwhelmingly a good thing. I think that their were some racist statements made and some epithets being thrown around, and that does sadden me. But, by and large, what we saw this week was a motivated force that I think the original Founding Fathers would have been proud of. We told our leaders that we weren’t going to let them dictate their terms to us and reminded them that this government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Overall, I’m very proud of the behavior of “We the People” on this issue, and I hope that this signifies a renewed enthusiasm by the American public (not just conservatives) in politics and our personal role in it.
I also question whether the party was really hurt by this.
And if it was, frankly, I don’t care. Showing the Republicans that we want true conservatives and we want people who stand up for conservative principles can only help in the long run. If it causes problems in ‘08, and even ‘10, then so be it.
However, back to my main point. The consensus is that this is bad for conservatives, because now there is this gaping split in the party. That may be true, and is definitely a likely scenario.
However, I wonder if the split is really all that gaping. I also notice a couple things that few others have noticed.
The conservative base has been, let’s say “underwhelmed”, with their party for the better part of a year and a half. At least. That was a major contributing factor to the shift of control of Congress in ‘06. And very little that Bush or our other elected officials has done has given the conservative base any reason to be enthusiastic at all about ‘08. I was already worried about a Democrat landslide in ‘08. I doubt that the events of this week make that any more likely.
But, something good happened this week. The conservative base (and make no mistake, while there were liberal opponents to this bill, it was the conservative base that killed it) got enthusiastic again. For the first time in a long time, people I’m talking to and hearing from are excited about their votes again. They want to get out and vote NOW!
Of course, the bad feelings will linger longer than the good feelings unless someone wise knows how to properly fan the flames of enthusiasm. Were I a Republican candidate for President, I would make sure to be somewhere speaking every day for at least the next week. Somewhere I can get on TV. And I would make sure I had a soundbite to the effect of “We showed last week that we’re not going away. That we’re here to stay and that we want representation that respects our values. And I plan on doing that and holding our party to that when I’m in Washington.”
And, if possible, it’d probably be good to have a publicly stated and simple plan on how to do that. Maybe like a 12 commitments or something…
[...] Yeah, and the death threats – that wasn’t a good tactic [...]
I’m not a foaming at the mouth opponent, but I am an opponent, and I have to say that the tone overall opponents took is a marked improvement over what I saw in California in 1994, and I don’t believe it will harm the party long-term.
Obviously, crackpots are everywhere. The difference is how those cranks are handled by the non-crackpots. Back in 1994, the crackpots seemed to be embraced — then Governor Pete Wilson embraced Tom Prince and his “they keep coming” ad campaign for Prop 187. Contrast that with Rudy Giuliani, who gave Tom Tancredo a well-deserved smackdown during the Presidential debates when Tancredo went off on his anti-immigrant tirade.
And here’s the thing about Prop 187. Until Prince’s ad campaign started flooding the markets, Prop 187 was actually LEADING in public opinion polls of hispanic voters. If the party is respectful of the concerns of Hispanic Americans that the anti illegal immigration debate not turn into an anti-immigration debate, then this should not cause a mass exodous of support.
One thing to keep in mind, Mark, is that the bill was opposed by two groups: those who are anti-amnesty and those who favor an enforcement first approach. True enforcement — not a byzantian legislative scheme that promises “touch backs” or other Rube Goldberg like enforcement mechanisms down the road when our existing laws are ignored — will be enough satisfy the later group if an Amnesty scheme is later passed and it will placate the former group to some extent (they won’t like it, but there will be strikingly less foaming at the mouth).
As flawed as the immigration bill was, I find it regrettable that it was defeated, as it was a marked improvement over the status quo. I am in favor of granting citizenship to those who are here, for lots of reasons: our nation was built by immigrants and continues to be built by them; they contribute an economic and cultural vitality which we need to grow as a nation; an increase of younger workers and their families will offset our demographic time bomb; and if someone is willing to brave unimaginable hardship to come to America to find a better life, that is the guy I want here. Moreover, because of all of the noise generated by the closed border zealots, there are hundreds of thousands of talented and educated foreigners who are unable to get H1-B visas and take their talents elsewhere. I live in Silicon Valley, where the demand for highly skilled technical workers far outstrips the supply, so local companies outsource to India, China, and elsewhere to get the work done. Please ask the Lou Dobbs amen corner how they can argue for closed borders in one breath and wail about outsourcing in the next. Thanks for hurting American companies so foreign companies can defeat us in the global competition for talent.
I also cannot understand why people who presumably go to church every Sunday and talk about forgiveness are unable to forgive someone whose only “crime” was crossing a border in search of hard work to support his family.
However, all of these points were discussed in a previous post, and I doubt anyone’s mind will be changed now. My point here is a partisan one: we have heard continually that Congressional Democrats will do anything to deprive George Bush of a political victory. Here you have an instance where Bush was on the cusp of his first significant achievement as President, and 75% of the Senate Democrats voted in favor of the procedural amendment, which lost because a nearly equal percentage of Republicans voted against it. When Bush does something right, he will get Democratic votes to support it.
Mark, we have some significant agreement on this. I am prone to discount the nuts on the left who claim 9/11 was an inside job because I think they are a very small minority with no influence. If you see them genuinely having an influence, please point this out so that I can reassess my position. It should be enough for me to say that they are complete lunatics who add nothing to the political discourse.
However, the “foam at the mouth” belligerents who crashed the phone lines are a minority who do have an influence. I know that it’s hard for them to actually put things in perspective, but let’s try. The bill was an effort at compromise. Bipartisianship. Nobody voted for or against this bill because it wasn’t finalized yet. Senators had voted to discuss and attempt to write amendments that would make or break the bill. The same people who attacked the compromise of the “gang of 14,” stopped the Senate from considering this potential compromise. My guess is that it was never possible to satisfy 60 different Senators, but I applaud them for trying.
The absolute melt-down of these people who are ready to threaten members of their own party over their consideration of the bill reflects much more about them than it does about the merits of the bill. Again we see fear rearing its ugly head. The concept of allowing these people to receive legal status is so frightening that they can’t think, which of course makes them perfect targets of advocacy/talk radio. These are the same folks who love to drape themselves in the flag and chant “USA, USA.” What a pathetic display of American patriotism to threaten and distort the intent of those who engage in thoughtful consideration in a democratic process.
Arguing that the Senators were rude to them and didn’t listen to them is like when a teenager has a temper tantrum and then berates their parent who has walked away knowing that they can’t be reasoned with. The fact is that the parent still loves them and cares about them, but simply doesn’t agree with the child’s claim that making inquires about whether a party will be supervised means that the parent is trying to embarass and humiliate them. Senators kept saying that you don’t understand the bill and that it wasn’t an Amnesty bill. Then Lou Dobbs makes up statistics about leprocy crossing the boarder. Give me a break.
“What a pathetic display of American patriotism to threaten and distort the intent of those who engage in thoughtful consideration in a democratic process.”
Agreed whole-heartedly. And what a pathetic display of American stinginess in what has traditionally been a generous country to those who want to come here.
Scott, my post had links to back up my assertion that the 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’ has damn neared hijacked Austin progressivism.
Big deal, you may say…well, Austin is now the 16th most populous city in the country, so this isn’t some backwater hayseed thing…and when it comes to centers of ‘progressive’ politics, Austin is probably in the top five with Seattle, Berkeley, San Fran, and Boulder.
It’s not a dominant movement yet, but it’s a growing one, and it’s spreading fast and quite viral in its multiplication…the young and disaffected are prime targets for both progressivism and conspiracy…
Any group composed of millions of people must contain a few dozen lunatics. But what I found much more disturbing then some crank e-mails was the conduct of the Grand Bargainers themselves. In what is supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world, 15 Senators attempted nothing less than to change how our laws are written.
Remember, this bill’s backers were pushing a secret deal, affecting the entire country, through the Senate in a matter of days and with a minimum of public discussion. (The final version of the ever changing 400 + page bill was actually printed only hours before the last cloture vote, so Senators voted on the bill without having read it.) There was to be no committee vetting. Many of the Grand Bargainers themselves were even unaware of its contents. (Senator McCain was under the impression that after its passage formerly illegal immigrants would have to pay back-taxes – that section having been dropped without his knowledge). The Senate closed down its phone system near the end and Senators were being told (by Senator Feinstein) not to be swayed by the public! Arcane Senate rules were used in novel ways to limit amendments and the few amendments offered had to be pre-approved by the majority leader. Unsupported accretions were being made about the bill’s impact – for example, 24 hour background checks would magically filter out undesirables. And Ad Hominem attacks were apparently going to be its backers’ only response to criticism – opponents being labeled en masse nativists, restrictionist, racists and mindless robots.
Is this what we’ve come to expect from the Senate of the United States of America?
From now on, will all our laws be created on a similar “trust me, it will be good for you” basis?
And Senator Martinez was upset about an e-mail?
Hm. And I thought I was disappointed by those booing Graham at our state convention- because make no mistake, while I don’t agree with the bill, I found that immensely disrespectful. Not to mention unSouthern. I can guess who some of our lunatics might be, but I doubt this will be covered in the SC blogosphere.
I have found myself ashamed to be associated with some of the vicious and paranoid raving I have heard in relation to this bill.
What has the opposition accomplished? We are stuck with the status quo and the Republican party has been badly damaged.
I think the damage which the Republican Party will sustain as a result of the defeat of the bill will be substantial and long-lasting. Not only has the GOP alienated the majority of voters who want some sensible middle-of-the-road solution to the problem, but they have probably lost Hispanic voters — the fastest growing bloc of voters — for a generation or more. Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. This dwindled to 25% of the Hispanic vote for Republicans overall in 2006. It’s anyone’s guess how low this will go in 2008, but given the close margins of the last two Presidential elections, the loss of the Hispanic vote could well be decisive.
peter
You misunderstand my position completely.
I just want Congress to do two things
1) Secure the border
2) Deport illegal aliens that have committed violent crimes.
Once Congress and the President have demonstrated the willingness and ability to do those two things, if you want to talk about some sort of path to citizenship for those who are already here, I’m all ears.
And frankly, I saw nothing in that bill that made me think that it would be better than the status quo. As I’ve indicated before, it did less along my points 1 and 2 than laws that have already been passed. In my mind, everything about that bill was not just a small step backward, but a gigantic one.
Fred, I agree wholeheartedly with you.
Scott, I still couldn’t disagree more. I think that the people that called in and crashed the phone system are an example of what’s right with America, not what’s wrong with it.
And this quote I find condescending and insulting:
I didn’t throw a temper tantrum. I called and e-mailed my Senators several times to ask them for an explanation of their support. I was respectful and patient. The response I got was like bad parenting, not good parenting. At best, I got no response at all. At worst, I got indignation and condescension. I got Senators aides who knew less about the bill than I did, spouting things that were at best, naive, and at worst, outright lies.
If the Senate had made any attempt to properly analyze and debate the bill, I would’ve been quiet. If they’d given any clear rationale for it other than “it’s a compromise and it’s the best we’re going to get”, I would’ve listened. This bill was politics at its worst and most disgusting. As Senator DeMint stated, “the Senate has declared war on the American people”. The American people didn’t declare war on the Senate.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with amnesty, as I’ve said earlier.
Here are the things I have a problem with. I’ll put them out as questions.
1) Why is it necessary to have a “comprehensive bill”? Wouldn’t a series of smaller bills each designed to attack one part of the problem be better? I didn’t hear a single Senator once claim to be against securing the border. Why not have a bill that does just that? It should pass 99-0.
Why should we believe this bill will “solve the problem”? Weren’t we told that in 1986? Actually, weren’t we told that in the 60s?
2) Were the security portions of the bill watered down versions of things that had already passed? If so, why? If not, how are they better?
3) Is it realistic to think that we can do 24 hour background checks when in 2006, we couldn’t get them done in 30 days? If so, how? If not, what does it mean when the background check isn’t finished in 24 hours? Does that count as a pass? A failure? What are the consequences?
4) Do you really think its likely that someone who’s here illegally will be willing to leave, pay $5,000 and come back, all just so they can pay taxes?
5) We keep hearing “these people do the jobs Americans won’t do”. Frankly that’s insulting, and a little bit of a frightening attitude. Didn’t slaves do the jobs that Americans wouldn’t do? I’m not suggesting that illegal aliens are slave labor, but they’re close. They’re very low paid labor. Are we deliberately trying to create a near slave underclass?
6) The AFL-CIO thinks that this bill would result in lower average wages for blue-collar workers. Is the AFL-CIO correct? If not, why not? If so, what (if anything) should we do about that?
7) Has anyone analyzed the cost and benefits to the American taxpayers? Certainly we lose out now in tax revenue because many of these illegals are just paid in cash under the counter. So, if they were legal, we might actually get some income tax revenue. But, what are the actual costs?
9) Is it true that this bill would offer a path to citizenship even for people who have committed violent crimes?
10) Why was it so important that this bill be rushed through? Given that we haven’t done anything about the issue since 1986, it seems like we could wait a few more weeks (or even months) and do it right, and answer the above questions.
11) Speaking of cost analysis, has any analysis been done on the economy? Not only analysis of continuing the status quo, but also analysis of the bill’s effect on the economy?
Now, I guarantee you that if you called the offices of all 100 Senators, and posed these questions, you would not find a single Senator that could give good answers to all 11 questions. If the bill is really worth passage, you should be able to find at least some Senators that know the answers to all these (actually, in a perfect world, you should be able to find at least 51, but I’m not that naive).
Mark, I can’t say it any clearer. You’re wrong.
Chris,
Those are all very good questions which deserve debate/responses. However, my point is that it’s hard to have a conversation with someone who’s starting position is that “the Senate has declared war on the American people”. I applaud you for being open to the idea of a path to citzenship. Many, many, many people are not, which I believe is the majority reason for opposing even the idea of considering this bill. The cry of “Amnesty” was so loud that it probably drowned out a lot of legitimate questions.
I would by the way be interesting in reading your senators’ responses to your inquires.
Chris:
Your questions are well-taken and regrettably I don’t have time at work to give them the time which they deserve. However a very quick response would be:
1) I think we have to live with the reality that our borders are simply too vast to be fenced, at least any time in the short or intermediate term future. If closing the borders is a prerequisite for trying to solve the immigration problem, then nothing will ever get done.
2) Nothing wrong with a series of smaller bills – however I think both sides were so dug in that nobody wanted to be the first to cave.
3) I do think someone who is here will leave, come back, and pay the $5K to become a citizen. Sure beats wondering if you’ll be deported.
4) “Certainly we lose out now in tax revenue because many of these illegals are just paid in cash under the counter:” not so – you’re ignoring the Social Security and other tax revenue which comes from illegals who use phony Social Security numbers – they pay into the system but never collect
5) We should not believe that the bill will solve the problem – I don’t think that even its authors claim that
6) There was an analysis done on the effect of immigration on the economy – it was counter-intuitive (more skilled labor than one might guess, more tax revenues, less effect on existing wage structure) – I posted the url in an earlier thread but don’t have the time to find it now