“cynical and inept”

     Two more well reasoned conservatives have commented on the senate immigration compromise.

     Peggy Noonan addressed the false argument that the only alternative is mass deportation.

Here is the truth: America has never deported millions of people, and America will never deport millions of people. It’s not what we do. It’s not who we are. It’s not who we want to be.

     Mark Steyn discusses what the actually effect of the bill will be (not the fantasy being peddled by its supporters.)

The immigration bill is all reward and no obligations. The only clause that matters is the first one: the mandatory open-ended probationary legal status the bill will confer the moment it’s passed. All the rest — the enforcement provisions on border agents and security fences that will supposedly “trigger” Z-visas and then green cards — is nonsense, most of which will never happen.


Comments

  1. ThinkRight says

    OVD,
    Peggy Noonan is great, be sure to read “Character is King” about Reagan. Noonan said that we can’t ship them back, is that considered Amnesty? I’m open on a solution, my issue has been that the Dems won control of the House, Senate & GWB will sign anything put in front of him. I’m not movable on civil disagreement, those that have been going after Kyl are plain disrespectful to a great Arizonan. They can disagree all they want, but go after the legislation, understand the numbers (we don’t have them in the house or senate) and be “of integrity”.
    Later

  2. Oro Valley Dad says

    “understand the numbers” Good idea. According to the U.S. Senate web site debate of a bill can continue endlessly except by a vote of cloture. Current rules for cloture require three-fifths or 60 votes.

    The democrats have 48 effective votes (one is out for medical reasons.) Assuming the two independents vote with the Democrats they then have 50 votes. For culture they would need 10 out of the 49 Republicans. To stop the bill 40 of the Republican would have to vote against cloture or at least abstain. It is even possible that one or more of the Democrats might also vote against cloture (requiring fewer Republicans.)

    So if Kyl believed that the bill in its current form is flawed, as does most every other conservative, he could work to get senators not to vote for cloture. It is not an easy task but it is within the realm of possibilities (and worth the effort in my opinion.)

    The argument that a bill is inevitable is a weak one. All the evidence points to the fact that the bill in its current form is deeply flawed. Kyl is working to protect the current form of the bill. He is therefore defending a flawed bill when it is possible for him to be working on a filibuster.

    There, I did not use any invectives but simple logic. Please point out any errors in my reasoning.

  3. We have the numbers to stop bad legislation even when we may not have the numbers to pass good legislation. If you can’t pass good legislation, give the American public a break and pass nothing. Allow the states to begin taking care of the problem.

    Work for and get signatures for the LAW and SOLE initiatives that will go a long way to protecting Arizonans and will be a beacon for other states to follow suit.

    Jon Kyl has been a strong advocate for a long time, but this piece of crap is not in the mold of his work in the past and flies in the face of his promises just last year that he would not support any bill that grants amnesty.

    This bill gives Probationary legal status to ALL illegals upon signature and is renewable forever. That is amnesty for the illegal actions of those who have violated our sovereignty.

    Senator Kyl needs to remember that he was reelected by the citizens of Arizona, not the President – and definitely not Ted Kennedy. I assume that at least one Arizonan supports his actions, but who cares what McCain thinks?

  4. ThinkRight says

    The Reps didn’t have 40 to filibuster. So, the numbers were not with him. Later.

  5. ThinkRight says

    One last question, Noonan says that we shouldn’t and won’t deport them…is that amnesty? I honestly don’t have the answers but would like your input…and what is an acceptable solution?

  6. Oro Valley Dad says

    “The Reps didn’t have 40 to filibuster.”

    There has not even been an attempt at a filibuster. There was a cloture vote to begin debate. There were 69 yea votes to begin debate, Kyl was one of them. That means if he and others had worked to kill the bill they only need change 8 votes. Kyl was out there saying that this was an imperfect but good bill. Now that people have read it most thinking conservative disagree that it is a good bill.

  7. Noonan’s point that we won’t deport works fine, because if the employers won’t hire them because we’re enforcing the law, they will take themselves home. If the border is secure, then more can’t get in in the first place. Neither of these two solutions require deportation. Both are relatively inexpensive and both only require that we follow the laws already on the books. No new Senate bill needed!

  8. From Tony Blankley:

    Consider the current arguments about the immigration bill. For oh so long, the supporters of the bill have been making two points: 1) It is impossible for the U.S. government to actually identify and round up all the illegals in the country; and, 2) a fence on the border is bound to be ineffective as well as immoral. Indeed opponents of the fence have idiotically compared it to the Berlin Wall — although one protects a free country from illegal intrusion while the other kept enslaved people from escaping their slavery.
    Now, suddenly, these same people claim that the same previously nitwit bureaucracy will not only be able to find all 12 million (or 20 million) illegals, but will be able to flawlessly run background checks, and to positively identify each individual as well as monitor all American businesses to make sure no new illegals are being hired and the newly legal are in perfect compliance with their limited status. Oh yes, and they also will be able to test all 12 million to assure us they can all speak the queen’s English at least as well as does William F. Buckley Jr.
    Also, suddenly, they have lost all their moral outrage about the fence: “You want a morally offensive fence, no problem, you got a fence. What, me worry about moral consistency?”

  9. As I understand the reasoning, Kyl is involved in this bill because we (conservatives) don’t have the votes to stop cloture. All you have to do is see how many Republicans voted for the McCain-Kennedy last year (a much worse bill than this one). We can’t get 40 no votes, that’s the reality. And we also know that GWB will sign whatever gets to his desk, ANYTHING including full-on, 1986-style amnesty.

    I still think the best course of action is to let the Democrats pass a terrible bill and then use it to beat them over the head with for the next couple election cycles.

    As to the question of “amnesty” — yes, anything less than enforcing current law is amnesty. Current law says that if you are here illegally, you are deported and unable to try to come back for three years. If this is not your first time here illegally, than you have to wait ten years before trying to come again. Not even Tom Tancredo is prosposing that! So let’s be honest – everyone supports amnesty. Just like Reagan did – the difference is that Reagan’s amnesty was the full-monty – no fines, penalties, waiting time, etc.

    We’d be better off with no bill, and maybe that will happen. In the realm of strange bedfellows, we can hope that Pelosi hates Bush enough to prevent him from getting a chance to sign an immigration bill and preventing an accomplishment. Go Nancy!

  10. Oro Valley Dad says

    Preston,

    Thank you for a very cogent statement. You put forth an extremely plausible scenario – except if the Republicans “let the Democrats pass a terrible bill and then use it to beat them over the head with for the next couple election cycles” do you really want Kyl’s fingerprints all over that same bill? Isn’t Kyl providing the Democrats political cover on this bill?

  11. OVD,
    When I said “let Democrats pass a terrible bill” I was assuming (which I should have made a part of the statement) that the “deal” would fall apart and Kyl would walk away. Obviously, the scenario only plays out if Kyl does, in fact, walk away.

    Part of me wonders if the beating he has been taking has only strengthened his resolve… It would be an interesting exercise to think through the following: The base learns Kyl is negotiating with Kennedy, that give him the benefit of the doubt. We then see the language, throw up (which was my first reaction) but decide to let Kyl work through the legislative process to make it better. Finally, he either makes it better, or walks away – no harm, no foul. I fear that we’ve driven him into a corner in which only bad will result. In that case, yes, Kyl will be providing Dems cover on this piece of (Boehner).

  12. Oro Valley Dad says

    Preston,

    More excellent analysis. Sorry I did not catch your full meaning. We hope and pray that Kyl does end up walking away. But listening to him defend it with a serious tone alerted us to the fact that he might actually believe that it is not amnesty and will help strengthen border security. One bright spot was when he admitted that the current administration has done a poor job of securing the border.

    I have the same concern that Kyl may hunker down and “stay the course.” Still, if S.1348 passes or not I think Sonoran Alliance should be on record as having opposed it at every turn, unless it undergoes major improvement.

  13. Joe Baby says

    Republicans have become defeatists on some issues, none more prominent as immigration. Notice the language: this is the best deal we can get, we can’t deport 12 million people, no one will do these jobs, etc. We are arguing like liberals, rather than standing up purposefully and passionately for America and American principles, and it shows.

    As much as I’d like to believe Sen. Kyl, one only has to read the National Review blog to see the multiple problems with this legislation. The main problem: only the extremely hopeful truly believe that this administration will suddenly develop the heart for enforcement. Throw in the amount of ad hominem attacks by Sen. Martinez, Sec’y Chertoff, et al, and it appears that this “comprehensive” reform is a bag of cats.

  14. Good job Preston! There is a huge difference between supporting a bill and believing Senator Kyl just might have a game plan. There is no harm in not liking this bill; the harm is in making it personal and eroding his position and power at the place where he needs it most. If the Dems think he is a wounded bird, they will take no pity and pounce.

    He has been adamant all along about the very real possibility of “walking away” if the bill underwent changes. The changes to a more conservative side would not stimulate that action; to the contrary I believe that is his goal as has already began. But if you are not in the game you don’t get to play. And if you are a ball carrier, better the chance that you can score points for your team. Kyl is the key to success or failure and the Dems know it, without Kyl’s blessing it has no chance of survival. He has laid down the ground rules and made it very clear from the start. So, we have the case where the bill, in the end after changes, was so terribly written that he could not continue to support it and the Dems get the heat for the failure.

    Give him the chance to do what he has proven himself, time and again, to be so good at. Continue to voice your concerns but keep it about the bill, help him not hurt him. He is there for us; we are only hurting ourselves and our position when efforts undermine his credibility and influence.

  15. Joe Baby,

    You are absolutely right about being defeatist. We really need to take a lesson from the last ten days and implant in our brains that the grass roots – angered enough to take definitive action in a loud and concerted manner – can overcome the money and influence of the Chamber of Commerce, Agri-business, leftist socialists, compassionate do-gooders, and RINOS.

    However, most of the Republicans you are talking about were never on the same wave-length on any issue. Most of them have taken positions because it was politically expedient to do so. Many Republicans are Republicans for one reason only – it is the majority party in their districts and they cannot get elected unless they register and run as Republicans even though they do not have the Republican Party Platform as their guide.

    The VOLUNTEER Republicans like Randy Pullen, Lyle Tuttle, Don GOldwater, Iris Lynch, Jim Ehl, Willa Key, Rob Haney, Ken Going, Tom Ross, Bruce Olsen, Dan Nichols, Carolyn Berta, Sandy Doty, etc. believe in the Platform. They also have their priorities in order – with Party coming after God, Family and Country, which is why they do not demontrate situational ethics.

    The Republican Party is strong and vibrant because, for the first time in decades, those people with the right priorities are running the Party – to the consternation of John McStain, Jon Kyl, John Shadegg, Nathan Sproul, Lisa James, Wes Gullett, Kevin DeMenna, etc.

    This seeming negative can actually be the most positive event to the future of our Party. Call, fax and e-mail the Senators – then support your Party officials. If you are not a Precinct Committeeman, get appointed so you can have even more influence in the everyday efforts of the conservative Reagan Republicans. Leaving the Party only increases the power and influence of people like Nathan Sproul, which is one reason they are doing what they are. Do not be duped by his skullduggery.

    Become more active and counter those who would destroy our state and country with this Amnesty Bill.

  16. Ann,

    He has to do more than just walk away on the final vote if his influence now creates enough votes to pass this abomination without his vote. He needs to work against the bill and help others to understand why they need to vote against it also.

    As far as I’m concerned, political cover should not be given to someone who was instrumental in acquiring the votes for passage.

  17. Joe Baby says

    Agree with GOP PK. If this legislation turns out to be a trojan horse, Sen. Kyl will be the boogeyman, since he was the wheel greaser.

Leave a Reply