The Cassandra Crossing

Good blog friend, I hope, Cassandra writes in comments here:

Dan:

I am really perplexed.

I have a question for you, and Michelle Malkin, and all the other folks who want to hold a hard line on this issue.

Have you given up on representative government? Last time I checked (and I have been checking for at least ten years) no one else has had the guts to take on this issue. I have watched this President try to take on this, and Social Security, and a host of other issues.

We do not live in a dictatorship. We live in a country with a 2 party system. That means if you want a snowball's chance in hell of seeing a bill pass, you have to do a little thing called COMPROMISE.

I very much doubt this is the bill Bush would put up if he had his druthers. It isn't the bill I'd like to see. But it is the bill that has a chance of passing. And once again, I am watching my own party shoot itself in the foot. It's enough to make me want to renounce my party membership and become an f-ing Libertarian.

We certainly have no more sense. I am thoroughly disgusted with conservatives and their salt the earth mentality.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Cass. First off, Michelle and I have huge differences on this issue. I'm not opposed to amnesty for otherwise law abiding illegal immigrants. I've always maintained America is complicit in their coming here up until now. And if you mean by "giving up on representative government" I should be silent while a class of professional politicians would allow basically a third world country to bleed its poor into ours as a form of social welfare, then I guess I have.

Since when does a Mexican president represent me? I see our President has often been more quick to seriously calm the concerns of Vincente Fox, than he has been the American people's on this issue, would you disagree?

And, honestly, Cass, have I given up on representative government? You mean by the same representatives, D and R, who have taken gerrymandering to a new height to ensure their own political careers at the expense of democracy? You mean the same representatives who say one thing to the hometown crowd, yet do another when off in DC? The same representatives more likely to show up on one of the world's best golf courses with a moneyed lobbyist, than at a backyard barbecue, except for the photo op, of course. The same representatives who are starting to regularly use eminent domain to steal private property, not for public use, but to give to private developers and such?

The founders didn't appoint anyone to government for life, except judges, perhaps. Yet our democratic representatives have used the tools of government to all but ensure that election result. And if they aren't millionaires when they get there, most certainly are by the time they leave. Doesn't that seem just a wee bit strange?

I haven't given up on representative government, Cass. Unfortunately, these days, it often seems as though it's given up on you and me.

For readers, Cass has plenty of good bloginess up today, check it out. And be sure to scroll down the page.

Comments

[Cassandra]

Dan darlin'

You know I love you :)

But you can't put up a bill in Congress that won't pass. The only way to get a bill to pass is *bipartisan agreement*, and that means compromise and consensus. Even the Rethug "leadership" (and there is a reason for those quotation marks - when on earth have we seen anything approaching leadership from either the Senate or House?) don't work together. It's not as though we can count on Republicans to vote as a bloc.

I didn't see the President's proposal last night as amnesty. There are dramatic differences between making people who have been here for years wait in line and learn English first and waiving a pen and granting immediate citizenship as Reagan (the reigning God of the National Review contingent) did in 1986. How soon we forget. Glossing over the very real differences between the two proposals just because we don't like them doesn't change the reality.

A pyhrric victory is no victory at all. If we do nothing, we lose: both on this issue and quite possibly control of both houses of Congress as well as the White House in 2008. We had a chance to save Social Security, but the RNC couldn't even get behind their own President. Pitiful, short-sighted people who can't see that having two-thirds of a cookie is a helluva lot better than no cookie at all.

And now history is repeating itself. Does anyone really believe a Democrat President is going to take on immigration reform? Even if he did, would it be a proposal you would back? Yeah, I thought so.

Does anyone believe a Rethug President, having watched the shameful way Bush has been treated by his own party, will ever try this again? If so, would it be a proposal the Dems would vote for? Yeah, I thought so.

So what are you waiting for?

Oh. That miracle :) Except we got a miracle in 2004. The first President in ages with enough balls to take on major social problems. And his own party is so busy letting the perfect be the enemy of the good that they've managed to sabotage every single thing he's tried.

[Dan]

"Pitiful, short-sighted people who can't see that having two-thirds of a cookie is a helluva lot better than no cookie at all."

We'll just have to disagree I guess. I don't see the President's proposal as two thirds of anything, simply some empty gestures to appease the right while removing the illegal status of most illegals already here and laying the groundwork for more to come in.

Interjecting his Soc. Sec. efforts isn't relevant here. I have applauded this President as much as anyone in the past. That doesn't mean when I think he's playing games I can't speak my mind. Few if any Americans elected him to be the caretaker for Mexico's poor. Not once have I heard him seriously challenge Vincente Fox or his corrupt government. Mexico is at the heart of this problem if one wants to be honest.

If you buy the rhetoric, all the great hard working, fledgling capitalists from Mexico are leaving for America. That still leaves a failed third world socialist state on our southern border, no matter how many you let come in. And they remit money and finance the corrupt government, too boot.

My one and only point on immigration has been border enforcement going forward. Suddenly it's a miracle to expect a sovereign nation to actually control its borders from being over run? Given the accomplishments of this nation in the past, it's BS to say we can't take that issue on. And the President's address didn't address it, not honestly in my view.

[allen]

Whether the President is satisfied with the immigration bill working its way through Congress I cannot say. I cannot say because he has not said. Some genuine executive input might prove invaluable.

Perhaps he is treating immigration with same care with which he treated the McCain-Feingold; let the Court handle it. That is not leadership; that is not "compromise"; that is cowardice.

[Cassandra]

We are either going to get an immigration bill or more of the same (i.e., nothing).

That spells nothing, or something in my book.

If Bush's bill gets passed, we virtually double the size of the Border Patrol.

Is this "an empty gesture"? Really? When was doubling the size of a federal law enforcement agency and sending the National Guard for one year to build new infrastructure "an empty gesture" directed at "helping Mexico's poor"? My husband is a 25+ veteran of the Marine Corps, an experienced long-range planner, no Bush fan, no fan of illegal immigrants, and about as big a skeptic as you can get, and he (surprisingly enough) had no issues with the plan. But you do.

That's rather bizarre reasoning.

That still leaves a failed third world socialist state on our southern border

What is your solution, Dan? Honestly. Should we nuke Mexico? Pay them welfare? How do we make that particular problem go away?

It's not BS to say we can't take the issue on without BIPARTISAN COOPERATION. And so I say to you AGAIN: SHOW ME THE NAMES OF THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES WHO WILL SIGN YOUR ENFORCEMENT and DEPORTATION-ONLY PLAN. I'm waiting.

[Dan]

DEPORTATION-ONLY PLAN. I'm waiting.

Cass, come on - I said I was against deportation. The President is stalled by his insistence on a "comprhensive" plan destined to turn this into nothing. The "executive" thing to do would have been to say, let's close the border whatever it takes and se up a system to allow for sustained, controlled immigration over time.

That would have accomplished soemthing as so many are behind it, it would have to pass the Congress. By insisting on his "comprehensive" approach, he builds in a poison pill for the right and invited obstruction from the Left as well.

He made his position known. Wonderful. But simply doing that doesn't move this issue forward, particularly in his weakened position. You know I have always been a Bush guy, but like Harriet Miers, like visiting an alternative fuel site a day after lay-offs, this was another bad decision, executively speaking, as well as politically.

[allen]

How much credibility has the Heritage Foundation here?

If the Foundation and Senator Sessions are to be believed, under the current proposed Senate bill, over the next twenty years, 103-200 million immigrants could be allowed. Paraphrasing Roy Scheider (We need a bigger boat), we need a bigger army.

Like the Medicare D legislation, the administration’s numbers are probably much more accurate than those of the Heritage Foundation.

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

Cassandra pointed me to this lively discussion, which I'm glad you're having. Re her question "what's your plan, Dan?" I hesitate to invoke the name of a not-altogether-reliable source like talk jock Michael Savage, but he has long floated the idea of trading illegal aliens for Mexican oil. Were such a scheme to be implemented, it might have the salutary side-effect of diminishing Saudi influence in American circles (although Savage does not seem to have remembered that oil money is fungible-- whatever we don't buy will be bought by others).

[Cassandra]

If I mischaracterized your stance, I'm sorry Dan :) When you said Bush's plan amounted to amnesty (something I still think is wrong) I inferred that if you cut that out, what you have left is deporting whoever is left (after all, if you don't want to give them citizenship, what the heck are you going to DO with them? You are running out of options.)

They are here illegally - they can't stay here without papers - you must either deport them or figure out how to make them into taxpaying citizens.

This really seems like quibbling to me.

Bush is trying to come up with a workable plan.

We have several problems:

1. What do we do with the folks who are already here? Well they fall into two categories: the ones who are new: deport them. The ones who have been here for a long time? Give them a path to citizenship in recognition of the fact that they have been here for a long time provided they have no criminal record.

THIS IS JUST GOOD SENSE: after all, what is the objection to their presence? That they aren't paying taxes and they are straining the system. Their kids are American citizens anyway by virtue of having been born on American soil. Turn their sorry tuckuses into *American, taxpaying tuckusses,* but make them wait in line behind those who follow the rules and make them learn English. We don't lose a bit by this: THEY ARE ALREADY HERE. THEY HAVE BEEN HERE. THEY ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THESE ARE THE SMART ONES.

2. The folks still slipping over the border: double the size of the BPatrol and build new infrastructure to keep them out. Bring in the NGuard to help and get new technology like UAVs and fences.

This is a no brainer, but it costs money. And I'm sorry, but contrary to all the Rethug rhetoric, it's ain't lip service and it ain't nothing. All those folks will need salaries and benefits and education and training.

3. Deportation.

Cha-ching. This also will cost money, in legal fees, travel fees and extra detention facilities.

Bottom line, ANY move forward is more than we've seen in my lifetime Dan.

Baby steps. You have to walk before you can run, but you guys are threatening to tip over the boat if you can't run a marathon the first day out.

Inexplicable.

[Dan]

I have no problem with putting those hear on a path to citizenship. But addresing that issue without closing the border is illogical. Wave a magic wand if you like and make them citizens, I don't care. The next day and the next year you will only see more and more, until we are in the same place we are today, only larger in scale.

If you choose to accept we can put a man on the moon but can't keep one in Mexico, or that we cant do what the Chinese did over 2000 years ago, fine. But I dont accept that.

[Cassandra]

I think as a practical matter, having lived in California, that it's not quite that simple. My son is a cop and my husband, father, and most of my family have been in the military or law enforcement.

Do I favor enforcing our existing laws? Sure. Do I think most people are willing to do the things we need to do, to pay the price? Not on your life. It all sounds wunderbar until they see what needs to be done. Until they sit in traffic because there's an immigration check, like I've done. Until they see traffic backed up, literally for miles and hours, because Border Patrol is doing stops. No one likes it.

Until they come into your place of employment and want to see your national ID card.

Personally Dan, I've had to show my ID all my life on demand. I've been subject to unannounced searches of my car, my house, my personal belongings. And I don't think I live in Nazi Germany. I listen to the ACLU and the MSM and I want to puke.

They are little spoiled brats.

But they will NEVER put up with even 1/4 of what I've lived with or my husband has lived with. And neither, quite frankly, will most of what I consider (and this does not apply to you) big mouthed conservatives who are running their yaps on this issue. They really have not thought this through - they haven't thought out the ramifications of real border enforcement. Because not everyone looks like a Mexican, and because of the ACLU you can't just target hispanic looking people. This stuff will have to be evenly applied just like the dumb TSA security stuff, and that means searching EVERYONE. It will get very intrusive and the courts will uphold that.

I truly don't think you all understand what you're advocating. We long ago passed the point of common sense. We can't even have national IDs because the race card gets thrown. It is all just so silly. That is why we need a comprehensive bill, Dan.

[Cassandra]

By the way, it sure is nice to be able to discuss this reasonably without people getting into a lather.

Everyone has different thoughts on this issue, and I don't have the illusion that I have some monopoly on rightness. I'm just expressing what I think and it's great to be able to discuss the issue with someone whose opinion I value.

[Dan]

By the way, it sure is nice to be able to discuss this reasonably without people getting into a lather.

Thanks, Cassandra, though I WAS hoping we could get just a little lathered up!! LOL But seriously, like it or not, the beauty of a fence is that it can not discriminate. Wouldn't a more effectively sealed border make it better on immigrants here and not worse?

See, I feel we have a responsibility to those already here to track them to citizenship, or if they are criminals, deport them. But not by having stops and so forth, but simply by enforcing existing criminal law and verifying citizenship when someone is arrested.

My position has always been to assimilate those already here and allow for further immigration on a controled basis. I'm not anti-immigrant by any means. IMO, it is the open border which is driving current emotions in many, not necessarily immigrants already here, assuming they are law abiding in all other ways.

[Dan]

Oh and BTW:

By the way, it sure is nice to be able to discuss this reasonably without people getting into a lather.

Same here!

[Cassandra]

though I WAS hoping we could get just a little lathered up...

Hah! You bring the soap, I'll bring the beer.

Jeff Percifield can bring the pictures of the breasts. He always seems to have some lying around his site.

*running away*

[hobo]

This is what it boils down to, like it or not: illegal immigration is immigration which has been deemed illegal because the clearly laid out steps to be somewhere legally have been ignored. A law was established somewhere and for whatever reason, has been broken. Now, do we ignore the violation of said law and let bygones be bygones? For those of us who are compassionate and sympathetic to the illegals, we are, nonetheless, ignoring those (with a sound slap in the face)who have dutifully followed the legal process. And what of those who are here illegally to pursue the lucrative drug trade; or those who are here illegally to act as enforcers in the drug trade. What about those here who would usurp our freedom processes to support terrorism? There is a law here with some very bonafide purposes and to think of amnesty as a solution to reward law violators is to take on a mantle of propriety. Your way is best and ignore the ways of others? What if the power were in the hands of the opposition and ignored your position? Simple things first, let's call for amnesty for all red light runners, no matter how long ago or how many lights were run/ran. Then we will call for amnesty for all who have ignored child support payments. Now, on to those who have murdered at least one, but maybe not more than six people. Before you go ballistic over the obvious ridiculous suggestions here, give it a little thought. Why should there be amnesty to resolve a broken law, one broken law, when we could have some here and some there to make other people happy. Really, why just stop with one?

For what it's worth, by the way, I would be the first to hope to see some sort of flexibility on behalf of the Mexicans. I have worked along side of them for many years in the San Joaquin Valley and they work like dogs and on the whole, are really good people. But......................... I don't support amnesty. Thanks for reading.

[hobo]

Cassandra...wish we were neighbors; you sound like a real neat gal; and thank your husband for his military service. Been there, done that.

hobo