The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
After the stinging political setback, Bush sounded resigned to defeat.
“Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress’ failure to act on it is a disappointment,” he said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. “A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn’t find common ground. It didn’t work.”
The bill’s Senate supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.
Well I just don’t know what to do with all of this good news in one week. Between a half dozen or so Supreme Court decisions going the right way, the return of the Tridentine Mass, the rejection (though I fear only temporarily) of gay marriage by the Canadians, and now this I may just have to indulge in a small celebratory libation coupled with a good cigar. Now if I could just be sure that the Mets have really snapped out of that nasty little slump they were in…
Ad Orientam, what you said, DITTO.
Make that a triple!
Indeed. This is one the people did not roll over on. The defeat of this legislation was so welcomed by many of us in California who have a state legislature that can’t do enough to make our state a friendly haven for illegals. We could not convince our Democratic senators to see it our way, but, thanks be to God, there were some out there who heard the vox populi. Now let them get busy and start enfocing the laws on the books, finding and returning the illegals that are in our midst. It should not be that difficult a task; after all, are they not “doing the jobs that Americans won’t do?” I have wanted to ask my elected representatives why, if we need these illegals so badly in our country, do we not just increase the legal immigration totals so they do not have to sneak in across the borders?
[i]if we need these illegals so badly in our country, do we not just increase the legal immigration totals so they do not have to sneak in across the borders? [/i]
This is what a number of people have been suggesting. Streamline the process to come here legally, shorten the time, lower the fees, make it easier to bring family members in, etc. and this will take care of much of the problem
I recall my father saying to me, that when we immigrated to the USA, he had to prove satisfactorily that neither he nor us as a family, would become a drain on society. In short, he had to prove that we were coming with resources in pocket sufficient to tide us over for a year. We also had to have chest X-Rays and a clean medical report and present a character background report, at the consulate in London. That process seemed to work just fine.
So, if there is to be an increase in the allowed numbers for Legal immigrants, a posture I support by the way, I see no reason why those same regulations should not be the minimum for the immigrant to present, in order for them to be allowed to comin into the country.
Why should the bar should be lowered to allow ingress by folks with no resources, poor health, infections diseases, etc? In addition, such folk should be made INELLIGIBLE to receive local, state or federal welfare for a declared period of time.
I can’t tell you how often in a market here in Los Angeles, I have seen non-English speaking folk present food stamps, or WIC coupons to pay for their purchases. Some of them may be legal, but here in Los Angeles, I can almost guarantee that most of them, are illegals.
Yes, many illegals are dipping their hands into taxpayer pockets to support their illegal residence here in the US.
I’m about to make some heads explode, but I totally agree that this bill was a nightmare. There need to be immigration standards for a country to function properly. We are also at a heightened risk of attack-that alone should limit the number of people let in. In addition, rewarding illegal behavior by granting some sort of clemency makes as much sense as the parents who say “well they’ll go do things on the street corner so I might as well let them do it in my house.”
And to further blow your minds, I also completely agree with Supreme Court Ruling today on race qualifications for schools. To quote Chief Justice Roberts “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
And if I haven’t blown your mind already, you may want to sit down for this:
I completely agree with the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act!
[blockquote]Streamline the process to come here legally, shorten the time, lower the fees, make it easier to bring family members in, etc. and this will take care of much of the problem[/blockquote]
This implies that “the problem” is not enough legal immigration. What is the current load on your city’s infrastructure and social services? Do you wish to add to it?
Since 1965, the US government has been embarked on an unprecedented social experiment in deliberately changing its demographic. This experiment can only end in the death of the US as an integral nation.
When God judges the nations (St. Matthew 25) one of the sins he will hold against the United States is our immigration laws and procedures. The proposed bill had major problems, but the present system is worse.
I am concerned that the present political structures in state and in church make effective government impossible. In fall 2006 the voters appeared to ask for change and all we have had since is partisanship, blame, and stalemate.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
Tom,
Do you know what the term “nation” meant to Jesus’s contemporaries? I’ll give you a hint: it had nothing to do with modern secular democracies.
This modern attempt to rebuild the Tower of Babel will fail as the last such attempt did.
Scotsreb #6
Couldn’t agree more with you. When we came it took over 13 MONTHS to get our Visas (and cost plenty, time, travel to London and a lot of paperwork). And this was so my husband could do a job no American could do (by virtue of birth)!!! We also had for some time to register each year by filling out a poctcard at the Post Office (this did eventually change).
Then when we took Citizenship it took almost 15 months from start to finish. Again more paperwork, time and money.
We should try to make it easier for people to get in, this I believe would solve a lot of problems
Woohoo, Brian from T19! When sensible people on both right and left see that the “solution” will only make things worse, we’re headed in the right direction. My husband is the son of immigrants. My favorite sister-in-law is an immigrant. These people came here legally, with means of support, and with the intention of joining the nation whole-heartedly.
Elves, someone has taken over Brian from T19’s moniker.
Even though he is a reappraiser, this should be addressed — he [the original Brian from T19] was here first, and should be allowed to keep his moniker.
And he certainly should not be mocked or have false things written under his name.
Oh, Sarah, can’t we believe in miracles, even for a while?
Sorry to disappoint you, but an infant in the USA young enough to have WIC coupons is almost certainly a young USA citizen, not an alien of any description.
My mother’s people came to the United States when coal mine owners went to Europe to recruit workers. They were needed, they were chosen and got help getting their papers, and they needed to arrive healthy. They received medical checkups when they arrived at Ellis Island and if they weren’t healthy, they were either quarantined or sent back. They also had to prove they had a job or sponsor who would take responsibility for them.
What’s wrong with that system? If the farmers need help, can’t they go to Mexico or elsewhere and interview/handpick their own workers and then sponsor them for work? What we don’t need is millions of undocumented people running across the Border at will!
We have all of the laws we need; we just need the will to enforce them.
#4 and everybody else who asks this question:
[i]if we need these illegals so badly in our country, do we not just increase the legal immigration totals so they do not have to sneak in across the borders? [/i]
The labor market demand is [b]not interested [/b] in legal immigrants because you have to pay them the minimum wage, other benefits, and they are more likely to know their rights. [b]Every American needs to understand that the whole point of hiring illegal immigrants is to evade labor regulations.[/b]
I had begun to skip over Brian from T19’s comments, but here he seems to be thinking in terms of the consequences of the policies he discusses. I will pay more attention in the future.
Three principles:
1. from conservatives: it’s wrong to reward those who break the rules.
2. from liberals: it’s wrong to take economic advantage of needy people in order to produce cheaper goods and services.
3. from Anglo-American constitutional history: a nation has the right to control its borders and the duty to enforce its own laws.
Peggy Noonan has some interesting thoughts on this subject. I wanted to copy over the “money quote”, but there isn’t one. It’s a rather long, integrated whole.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/social_justice/sj0025.htm
BTW, I don’t entirely agree with her comments, but they are set a good, Christian context for debate.
What is the Christian position on immigration? I submit that a Christian could support anything from “no admittance” to completely open borders with no controls whatsoever on immigration. This is a political decision, based on the needs of the country. What a Christian cannot do, however, is to violate and disregard the laws that exist — if I am reading Romans 13 correctly.
This bill was an abomination, but if it had become law, we would be bound to repect it. Similarly, the current immigration scheme is not optimal, but we are bound to respect it. (It is a pity our own government does not respect it enough to enforce it.)
The Christian view must support obeying the legal system of countries, not sidestepping them. There may be exceptions where the life of the person is in danger (the rationale for picketing abortion clinics, etc.), but then, there have always been provisions in immigration law for that type of situation, and the Church should speak out in those cases.
When the Church advocates breaking the law (i.e., sanctuary cities), we should not be surprised when the secular nation comes down in removing religious rights from the church.