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

I would by the way be interesting in reading your senators’ responses to your inquires.

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:

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.

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.
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?
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?
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.

What has the opposition accomplished? We are stuck with the status quo and the Republican party has been badly damaged.

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?

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…

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.

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.