And then there's bullshit.
Frankly, conservatives are lying when they call this amnesty. Let me illustrate this anecdotally. Let’s suppose 2 men rob a bank. One is convicted, serves time in prison, then is paroled. The erstwhile bankrobber stays clean during his parole. The other bankrobber isn’t caught, is convicted in absentia and he’s eventually pardoned by the President. I’d submit to you that one made restitution to the bank, paid his debt to society, met all the stipulations that the judge imposed, then stayed clean during his parole. The other was convicted of a crime, then pardoned.
The end result is that they’re both free men at the end of a certain period of time. We’d be intellectually dishonest, though, if we said that they both were pardoned. We’d be laughed at if we said that.
This has to be posted by someone incredibly mis-informed and also buying the go to the end of the line nonsense, which is intellectually dishonest.
The line for immigration into this country does not begin at our border. It begins at thousands of embassies or consulates scattered throughout the world. There is virtually no end to the line of people waiting for the privilege of becoming an American citizen.
Illegal immigrants jumped that line when they entered the country illegally. And not one proposal under consideration in the Senate proposes that they go to the end of that line. The notion that we are going to collect back taxes from these individuals is an insult to ones intelligence. What records will be furnished to support any taxes owed? Employer records from employers who have been conspiring to employ them illegally?
Great, let's advocate that all sentences and penalties will henceforth be determined by the criminals themselves and call it justice. What a travesty. But it gets worse.
The other thing that intellectually honest conservatives must shoot down is the enforcement only/first peoples’ argument. As Tony Snow pointed out on Sean Hannity’s show this afternoon, the Senate bill gives the border patrol more officers and more fence than the bill that Tom Tancredo supports.
LMAO I heard it on the radio from White House spokesman Tony Snow and Sean Hannity was there, too, it must be true. Why not simply compare them? The Senate went with three rows of fence. That isn't longer, it's just more fence - get it? Do people even research stuff before they start pontificating and calling other people liars and intellectually dishonest? Man, that pisses me off.
House bill passed in December scroll down
Requires building two-layer fences along 700 miles of the 2,000-mile border between Mexico and the United States.
Highlights of the immigration and border security bill before the Senate:
Adds up to 14,000 Border Patrol agents by 2011 to the current force of 11,300 agents, for a potential total of 25,300.
In the first place, the House bill relies less on people because it has a real fence. In addition to that, adding manpower in a bill does not put them on the border. Bush already withheld funding last year for additions to the Border Patrol rendering the legislation moot. And they call it a potential total because it will never be realized.
We do not have 11,300 agents on the Southwestern border, there is no allowance for attrition, or what border assignment they might get by ... 2011, if ever. And adding 1,000 is like adding 333 as they must work in shifts. That's why a fence is the more practical and only serious alternative. And look at this:
Feb 2005: Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.
But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.
Before people start calling conservatives or anyone else debating this issue liars and intellectually dishonest, I'd suggest they get an intellect, instead of a pretentious prose style which betrays their insipid nature and inability to read ... much.
And CQ links to it.
UPDATE II: Gary Gross says that calling Hagel-Martinez an amnesty program isn't intellectually supportable.
No, it's Gross's post which is intellectually unsupportable, just as it is uninformed and inappropriately demeaning to conservatives who might disagree.
Comments