Egg Foo Strata

Which is more polite than AJ Strata is being to O'Reilly evidently because O'Reilly opposes the current immigration reform bill.

Bill O’Reilly has become another example of the far right, Immigration Hypochondriacs running into the sewer because they have lost their minds and the argument on the comprehensive immigration bill supported by large majorities since it includes both border protection and a guest worker program.

I think AJ has left the stratosphere and gone into orbit. Anyone with their feet on the ground knows the enforcement nonsense is just that - nonsense.

It's a bad bill that needs to be defeated. If they were serious about enforcement, why not simply pass a clean bil that deals with it first?

Because they are full of ... nonsense, obviously.

Comments

[southdakotaboy]

As I have stated before I am all for legal immigration, I would hire a bunch of Spanish speaking college kids and send them south to sign up as many people who want to come (finger prints and DNA sample manditory). We can handle the legal immigration we just need to punish the business owners and illegals, fine them, throw them in jail, deport them and build two great big fences (one in the north and one in the south) put troops with orders to shoot ( remember by this point the legals are coming easily through the checkpoints after being helped by the college kids). By now most of the illegals can't find work and will go home to get back here the easy way. At a certain point Mexico will make it illegal to move here because they will be lossing so many people to us.

[Purple Avenger]

As a practical matter, no illegal is going to pay any back taxes at all because they won't have the money - that is pure fantasy. They'll all say they arrived on the day before the cutoff date.

The $5,000 fine is fantasy for the same reason.

And anyone who thinks actual border enforcement is going to happen has been hitting the crack pipe way to hard.

[Phoenix]

Will the illegals get to partake of our wonderful new free healthcare for everyone? Even if we give them citizenship, they'll still be too poor to pay the taxes that will be necessary to fund the program. What the hell....they can go to the emergency rooms. Put a few more hospitals out of business.

[chris]

I am worried about Mr. Strata. Usually, like reading analysis on the site but most of what I see is ad hominen attacks on anyone questioning the likelihood of the US government suddenly learning how to protect the borders and track non residents just because we give immediate legal residence to 20 million self identified criminals and their dearest relatives.

[Buzzy]

Looks like AJ has indeed fallen ill with the same illness that is affecting the entire Bush administration over this bill. While I could say they are trying to defend the undefendable I'll just note that they seem to know they're commiting political suicide and are attacking anything that moves.

I do wonder about the Bush administrations agenda in all of this though. I was actually of the opinion that Bush might believe he's backing this bill out of humanitarian reasons until I read where Immigration fees (those pesky fees that honest immigrants have to pay to enter the US) are being raised about 80%. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001864.html

Now honestly I don't know what in the hell he's up to. It obvious he isn't any better than Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi and if I can't trust him on this issue why should I give him benefit of the doubt on any other issue?

[Jackie Worthington]

Agree with you Dan on A J Strata, I love his site and go there often, but on the immigration issue he is wrong, wrong, dead wrong. He is just as stubborn as Dubya on this issue so I just skip those postings. It is time to close/secure our borders and clean out the mess that already exists here first.

[Scrapiron]

Why do we need a new bill from congress and hundreds of new laws dealing with 'criminals'? There are laws on the books to deal with legal immigration and 'criminals' who won't follow those laws. Enforce the law, don't pick and choose, 100% of the lawbreakers go to jail and then back across the river/fence, whatever. Just get them out of the country. Can't do it, put me in charge and give me full authority and six months from now there will be few criminal invaders in the country. No, none, nada, '0', free stuff for non-citizens and they'll go home. Employ one and pay a $50,000 fine, do it again get yourself a year in prison. Quit appeasing the aligators while they eat your children.

[Fred Beloit]

Most people I know are for secure the border first. Deal with guest workers, green cards, temporary workers, path to citizenship, etc. later in a cool, calm, deliberative manner. I agree. Shame on the Congress and Administration for trying to foist the proposed bill on us with speed and little forethought.

[wardmd]

What frickin' planet is A.J. on ("supported by large majorities")? Recent Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_26_favor_senate_immigration_plan) shows that a mere 26% favor the Senate bill. This is Bi-Partisan OPPOSITION ("The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party").

What is even MORE telling, is the view that ENFORCEMENT (of our borders) is where exists the majority: "Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for 'the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.' That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters."

Lest you (A.J.) think this is just a "blip" of the opinion scale, "These survey results are consistent with other recent polling data showing that most Americans favor an enforcement-only reform bill. Support drops when a 'path to citizenship' is added to the mix."

Clearly, A.J. doesn't know shit from shinola (or, simply, can't read polls).

Personally, I'm in favor of IMMIGRATION (LEGAL IMMIGRATION).

Hell, I might even support a "pathway to citizenship" if the Government would PROVE (demonstrate) that is CAN and WILL enforce the border (stop the flow of ILLEGAL ALIENS) - FIRST... For YEARS (decades?), we've been PROMISED (by Ted Kennedy himself), that there would be NO MORE amnesty bills (because the previous Amnesties [plural] would "solve the problem" and "include tough border enforcement") - go read Simpson-Mazzoli. The problem, of course, is that there WAS (IS) no "tough border enforcement", and we've got leading members of congress (and the Bush administration) fighting tooth and nail to prevent the fence from being built.

The way I look at it, is if my child has repeatedly disobeyed the rules (say, staying out too late on school nights), I am sure as hell NOT going to give my permission for her to go to a party (without her FIRST having DEMONSTRATED that she understands [and respects] the rules underwhich she must live) - ESPECIALLY with respect to the time she is expected home.

This Government has FAILED to abide by its promise (promises) to enforce our border. Yet ANOTHER promise that THIS time, they really mean it, is like the boy who cried "wolf". I just don't believe it anymore - they have done NOTHING to earn my confidence and trust in their WORDS - only their ACTIONS will regain my trust.

Another thing (regarding this "Comprehensive" immigration reform bill)... WHY is there a RUSH to pass this bill? What makes it so urgent? Are there millions of illegal aliens who have been rounded up, and about to be deported (that NO ONE knows about)?

IF each element of this bill is SO GOOD, why cannot each part be SEPARATE legislation (debated on its own merit, and voted upon [up or down])?

More importantly, if any element of this legislation CANNOT stand up to the scruteny of debate (or is defeated upon its vote), why in the hell would we want it to be included in some bigger "comprehensive" bill? That's how we get all the CRAP (pork) in other bills.

This bill (certainly not in its current form) is NOT "good for America", it's only "good" for the tens of millions of Illegal Aliens in this country (and for the countries from which they come [Mexico]) - and, presumably, for the political parties (machinery) which the aliens (when they have legal status, and can contribute [legally] to parties and candidates) believe were responsible for making them legal. Perhaps THAT explains why so many in Congress are in favor of this hundreds to thousand page pile of crap.

And for those of you who KNOW that we can't "round up, and deport" the tens of millions of illegal aliens... You're RIGHT! But, we don't have to... As Scrapiron (and others) have noted, if you simply STOP the ability of employers to employ illegal aliens, their means of existance will dry up, and they will realize that they were better off (financially) back in their native countries.

If I can go to ANY A.T.M. on the planet, and have THAT A.T.M. know (instantly) that my P.I.N. is valid, and how much money is in my account (for withdrawal), why the hell can't employers be given a similar system, where they swipe the Social Security / Green Card of a potential employee, and get back an "OKAY" or "Information doesn't match" or "Information not on file" message? Hell, maybe we should get back an "authorization number" (like the Credit Cards generate) that Employers can use as legal PROOF that they obtained the authorization from "the feds" to employ that individual (giving them legal protection from fines/sanctions if that information is, later, deemed to be bogus).

If Congress REALLY wants to pass some bill that will have a POSITIVE effect on controlling the flow of illegal aliens, let them CLARIFY the intent of Congress of the 14th amendment (the so-called "Birth Right Citizenship"). The need NOT "amend" the Constitution, but merely CLARIFY (through statute) that phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", specifically means "whose parent/parents have legal permanent residence status, or citizenship thereof". That is NOT a "change" to the Constitution, but a clarification to the wording, and, thus, instruction to the Courts as to HOW they are to "interpret" that phrase. If they want to go "all out", they can further clarify that "those NOT receiving Citizenship rights by this amendment, are considered citizens of the countries of their parents (or of their father, if their parents are of different citizenships).

This would put an end to the "anchor baby" citizenship rights bestowed upon the children of millions of illegal aliens (conferred upon them by the Courts, not by legislation). THIS is just one (of many) examples of the Courts "legislating from the bench". MOST (if not all) Constitutional scholars agree that the INTENT of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to the children (born in the United States) of slaves. It was NOT their intent to grant citizenship to ALL persons born in the United States (simply by virtue of being on U.S. soil when they were born). If that HAD been their intent, why did they feel it necessary to include the RESTRICTION, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Without that phrase, it would have been clear that ANYONE born in the United States was to be a citizen. The fact that that phrase exists, clearly indicates that Congress did NOT intend for EVERYONE born on U.S. Soil would be an "automatic" citizen (it was the Courts which altered the amendment's intent). THEY altered the Constitution without Amendment (which, one could argue, is in and of itself, UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

What is lacking in the "debate" (the explanations from the President/Congress), is WHAT is to be done with those who either choose NOT to apply for the new visas, or are "rejected"? HOW are they to be deported (assuming, of course that they WOULD be deported)?

HOW does the government intend to ENFORCE their latest (empty) promise to "enforce the border" - especially since they are so opposed to the construction of a REAL fence?

AND, WHY is it that we must have a "comprehensive" immigration reform bill (as opposed to addressing each issue independently)?

The President's assertion that anyone can pick apart the bill and find parts that they oppose, is pure crap. I read the legislation and find PARTS with which I agree (support) - it's the bill (in its entirety) to which I object! No amount of name calling is going to convince ME that "doing SOMETHING" is better than doing "NOTHING" (especially if the "something" is THIS piece of crap legislation).

[templar knight]

What do you mean compromise, LOL? There can be no compromise on this issue. You're the guy who is on here all the time saying we are a nation of laws. Good. Enforce the damn law. That's all we're asking. And it's not just Bush, but just about all the politicians going against the will of the VAST majority of Americans. Including lowlife Demonrats.

[wardmd]

LOL,

We're NOT "just learning it" - we've known all along that President Bush BELIEVES what he believe - unlike SOME Presidents (and candidates) who stick their fingers in the wind (or read the latest polls) to see what they should believe, he actually has CONVICTION in his beliefs...

AND, We Conservatives (or wingnuts, as you like to call us) are EQUALLY firm in OUR convictions. WE (unlike you Clinton Cool-Aid drinkers), do NOT give OUR elected officials "Lewinskis", just 'cause THEY say we should...

When WE disagree with their policies (like, Harriet Meyers), we let them know that they're WRONG...

When WE see that our elected officials are acting like Liberals, then we kick them out of office (ala November, 2006, and the current 40% drop in financial contributions to the GOP)...

OUR battles are based on political idiology (policy), NOT party affiliation.

For the MOST part, President Bush has been RIGHT (like reducing tax rates, and the War on Terrorism) - he is CLEARLY better than John F'ing Kerry would have been (or, God forbid, AlGore).

So, LOL, do YOU support the Amnesty Bill? WHY (or why not)? Or is your entire purpose in life to simply criticise Republicans (offering NOTHING substantial to the debate)?

And as to "compromise", what in the hell makes you think that there is something noble in "compromise"? Giving up what you believe, in order to "get along" is nothing to be proud of.

Hey, I know... Since these illegal aliens are supposed to "get at the end of the line", that's great! Based on our CURRENT quota based immigration limits (approximately 25,620 persons per year from each country)...

That means that if you believe the (LOW) estimate of 12 MILLION illegal aliens are here (and that MOST of them are from Mexico), AND we're only processing 25,620 per year, then it will be about 468 YEARS before anyone who applies AFTER the 12 Million illegals get processed, will be considered for a "green card". Is THAT what you mean by "compromise"?

[templar knight]

wardmd,

You just identified another very serious problem with this legislation. Right now, it is taking 12-14 weeks just to get a passport, think about the problems 12-20 million people hitting the Immigration Service at one time will create. It would literally take thousands of new hires, and millions of hours of training to get the employees of these agencies ready to process 20 million people. The logistics will be a nightmare, or green cards will be printed and passed out like "confetti at a New York parade", with no serious attempt to identify criminals or terrorists. My guess is that the latter scenario is the most likely, and this is another reason this bill must be stopped. There can be no compromise.

[wardmd]

Templar,

It's worse than that...

It's my understanding of the current legislation that the Immigration Service (I.C.E.) has something like 24 hours from the submission of the application to perform their "background check". After that period (24 hours), the applicant has some "probationary" status, which, amoung other things, PROHIBITS taking any actions against the applicant (including deportation proceedings).

In other words, if I.C.E. can't find reason to deny the application (in 24 hours), then there's almost NOTHING that can be LEGALLY done to remove that person from the United States...

As you so correctly pointed out - the chances of our "oh so efficient" Government doing ANYTHING with the applications in 24 hours is a joke. But remember, this isn't an "amnesty" - it simply makes everyone who applies "untouchable" if the government can't find something wrong in the first 24 hours.

Let's adopt that same philosophy in EVERY Government department: If the I.R.S. can't find something wrong with my tax return within the first 24 hours after I submit it, then they have to accept it... If a jury can't decide a case within 24 hours of "closing arguments", then the defendent is declared "innocent".

But John McCain doesn't even want to allow 24 hours of DEBATE on this legislation... Again, what's the rush?

Personally, I hope the Republicans in the House have the balls to "blue slip" this UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about... ANY legislation which "generates revenue" (like the penalty or paying of "back taxes") MUST originate in the House of Representatives (sorry, Senator McCain, but that's the LAW). Members of the House CAN (and SHOULD) use a procedural move to BLOCK the legislation because it violates Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."

I wonder what Constitution President McCain would "preserve, protect and defend" were he to become President, when he obviously doesn't give a rat's ass about the one that exists NOW?

[tk]

The best part of the illegal alien debate is we never talk of the Mexican government's responsibility for the behavior of their own citizens. Listening to pro-illegal group you would think it is some kind of game. Once they cross the border they win the prize and our job it to take care of them. We should bill the Mexican government for all the cost we incur for taking care of their people.

[Purple Avenger]

"Bush has been this stubborn and unwilling to compromise since day 1"

Which of course is how he managed to get Teddy onboard right?

[templar knight]

Good point, PA. Bush's compromise with the Leftist fringe of the Democratic Party, the nutroots, if you will, just makes no sense to me. Here in the real world, many of us have been asking for border enforcement, yet all we see is more of the same, with no support of the Border Patrol or law enforcement in general. So we are to believe that border enforcement will now be a centerpiece of this legislation, when that should have happened years ago. No, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I'm not falling for this bull again.

[wardmd]

P.A./Templar,

President Bush got Teddy "onboard" because his "compromise' was EXACTLY in line with the Liberals' definition of "comprimise": Republicans going along with what Democrats want.

[wardmd]

P.A./Templar,

President Bush got Teddy "onboard" because his "compromise' was EXACTLY in line with the Liberals' definition of "comprimise": Republicans going along with what Democrats want.

[wardmd]

P.A./Templar,

President Bush got Teddy "onboard" because his "compromise' was EXACTLY in line with the Liberals' definition of "comprimise": Republicans going along with what Democrats want.