Does anyone on the “build the fence” first understand that Hunter’s fence took 10 whole years (and is STILL being fought in the courts by environmentalist) and that fence is only 14 miles?

Funny how they think our government is incompetent, yet expects this same government to build a fence in a year or two.

By that time, we’ll have a lot more than 12 million to “decide what to do with”.

And really ironic is that they have zero faith in Congress to “enforce the law in the bill” but COMPLETE faith that Congress will give “amnesty” to illegals.

I’d hope not. Those up for re-election in ‘08 have more than a year to mend fences; the rest have even longer. That won’t help with the single-issue voters – the ones who will still be ranting a year from now about ‘El Presidente Jorge’ – but for most, I suspect the rancor will subside as other issues come to the forefront (the WOT, fairness doctrine, making tax cuts permanent, confirming good judges, etc.) and they demonstrate their credentials.

My attitude toward the pro-bill conservative legislators is “OK, this one’s over. Put it behind us and let’s work together on the other important issues.”

But maybe next year after the elections when Democrats have a more comfortable lead in the Senate (after all, any Republican Senator in favor of “shamnesty” is “history!”) and we have a Democrat in the WH, we’ll really get a bill we hate shoved down our throats, and there won’t be much of anything we can do about it.

Quick Question, What is stopping the Dems from doing this in this eventuality anyway?? Even if you pass this today, if the Dems gain power like they lust to do, there would be absolutely nothing stopping them from “revisiting” this law and adjusting it as they desire. – Lorica

I fear that also.

Hopefully the % of Americans who do vote will clean house and Senate after that to fix things. Right now the % of Americans who vote either a) have common sense or b) are deranged and the deranged percentage is winning.

True, ST. But I’m thinking that the vast majority of the illegals would prefer to stay undocumented rather than pay the fines. Compliance is basically voluntary, unless there’s some major plan I’ve not heard of to find all the illegals now in the country and bring them to registration locations.

Good point about the quick background checks. I hope it’s as efficient as you’ve heard.

What is amnesty, however, is putting off doing something about who we have here now because we’d rather have a longer border built first. That’s de facto amnesty.

If there are no plans to ever address the problem of the illegals now in the country, then I’d agree. That isn’t how I’d approach it. As I’ve said before, first put effective border enforcement in place. Then we can decide, in a calmer atmosphere, what to do with the illegals already here. Who knows…perhaps some of the guest worker and other provisions of this year’s bill might evoke less emotion and pass once the border is less porous.

But next term, I would say no, it’s not dead.
Yes, that’s true. I was speaking of this term, but this will not go away permanently.

No matter now, though. The bill is dead – for the foreseeable future. But maybe next year after the elections when Democrats have a more comfortable lead in the Senate (after all, any Republican Senator in favor of “shamnesty” is “history!”) and we have a Democrat in the WH, we’ll really get a bill we hate shoved down our throats, and there won’t be much of anything we can do about it.

Fact check was fact checked on this Newt Gingrich fact check issue.

I’m not up enough to say who wins this debate because I’ve been busy. But neither fact check or the fact check fact check articles changed my mind as I live and breathe government bureacrocy (sp) every day and “feel” the arguments concerning the paperwork and the z visa’s are valid.

To me I’m shooting for the moon I guess but I think the actions should be split. I think the border for national security reasons should’ve been sealed the day after 9/11. I think all congressmen/women have been negligent in doing that. I think to let illegal immigration continue to run rampant and have token enforcement here and there but mostly no enforcement is reason enough to put a lot of people behind bars for negligence. I’m that strong on the issue.

After that has been accomplished we can work on fixing the “legal” immigrant backlog or rule change issue. We allow more “legal” immigrants than all other nations combined and it is because we are generous and we need to always continue being generous.

This problem is from years and years of neglect. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and this problem isn’t going to be solved by this bill or by the end of the month. It is going to take time to solve this problem, and this bill, from what I can see, is only going to make the problem worse. – Lorica

UPDATE: Cloture fails on round 2.

46 Yes, 53 No.

Is this bill finally dead?

For this term, maybe. But next term, I would say no, it’s not dead. But we’ll wish it were.

46 Yes, 53 No.

Is this bill finally dead?

With or without the quote from the immigration lawyers, it is clearly stated in the bill that illegals would be faced with fines for their coming here illegally in the first place. I posted about this in a prior piece I wrote about the bill.

And as far as the background checks, I forget where I read it but what I read stated that the US government can do up to 100,000 fingerprint background checks a day. The employment verification process sounds find to me, as it just adds another layer of checks to the process. If the gov’t can’t get to it in the 24 hour period, an employer will – I’m involved in background checks at my work, and we usually know within a day-max 2 – if something isn’t right with the background check.

Re: amnesty, that is one of the biggest issues I have with how this debate has been conducted, because this bill is not amnesty, no matter what dictionary you look at. I think Fact Check devoted a significant amount of time to the term because it’s huge in terms of the way both pros and antis frame the debate, so it’s worth a lengthy analysis, I think. Almost everytime I hear the word ‘amnesty’ used now, it’s because the people using it define it as someone being let off the hook for doing something illegal. Having to pay thousands of dollars in fines and wait several years before you can become truly legal in this country is not letting people off the hook. What is amnesty, however, is putting off doing something about who we have here now because we’d rather have a longer border built first. That’s de facto amnesty. This bill is not.

OK. Permit me to approach this a little differently, then. Before posting, I did take the time to skim through S. 1639 (762 mostly mind-numbing pages), and much of what Fact Check says here is valid. Some of it is not.

For example, Fact Check disputes Gingrich’s claim that gang members couldn’t be deported:

the bill grants authority to deport any alien who “at any time has participated in a criminal gang.”

Fact Check is correct, as far as it goes. But what Fact Check doesn’t mention is that the deportation can be waived. That’s on page 122 of the bill, right after the section they cite. And if I can parse the legalese correctly (any attorneys, please correct me if I’m wrong), “granting authority” doesn’t necessarily mean it WILL happen, just that it’s legal to do so. Meaning it’s not likely, but it is entirely possible, that not one gang-banger will be deported.

Fact Check spends a lot of time on the “amnesty” label, which they dispute because of the fines to be assessed:

It would require illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 penalty for having entered the country illegally, plus $2,000 in fees

Not exactly. That $3000 total figure is a maximum. In fact, the bill only mandates $1500 of that (pages 568-569). The rest of the money are fees to cover the paperwork, but in no case MORE than $1500.

In fact, criticism of the ‘amnesty’ terminology takes up about half of their piece. They base their dispute with Gingrich on the literal dictionary definition and claim it’s an emotionally charged term. In that, they’re probably right (although President Bush is also using the term). But it overlooks whether the penalties to the illegals are stiff enough. And most of their figures on the amounts of the fines do come directly from the pro-bill AILA site (in fairness to Fact Check, they do note it when they use those figures).

By the way, Sam in Houston is correct about the 24-hour time limit for the background check (actually, it’s “by the end of the next business day”). You’ll find that on pages 572-573 of the bill. What’s interesting there is that once that waiting period is up and the Z-visa is granted, the person gets employment authorization and “may not be considered an unauthorized alien unless employment authorization is denied”. Fact Check is silent on this point.

In other words, yes, Gingrich stretched the truth some here. But Fact Check is selective and a little bit subjective in its analysis. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

That said, let me toss another log on the fire.

This is the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the original bill (some differences from the current bill, but not substantial). Among other things, CBO says all the enforcement provisions will cut the influx of illegal immigrants by about 25%. In other words, if the report is accurate, three-quarters of the problem will continue to exist. And I doubt whether CBO took into account any plans by criminal elements to accelerate the pace of illegal immigration.