With the immigration reform bill being presented this week, and several talk radio hosts calling it the end of the world. . . if those sneaky gays don’t get us first. . . I thought it would be a good time to discuss a couple issues related to the bill. We don’t know much yet, as no one has seen the bill, but here is what we do know:● The Need For Reform: Let’s start by repeating why this needs to be done. There is a 0% chance of sending these people home again, but leaving these people in this illegal status is bad for average Americans – (1) they pay no taxes, but they use government services, (2) they are a menance because they drive without insurance and cannot report crimes to the police, and (3) letting them get hired illegally lowers wages for everyone else in America. Politically speaking, the Republicans also need to repair the damage done by conservatives on this issue before it becomes impossible to win elections.
● Path to Citizenship: So is this an amnesty bill or not? Yes and no. Obama campaigned on the idea of an immediate “path to citizenship.” Basically, if you were here, you would become a de facto American immediately and then would get legal citizen status automatically thereafter. That idea was DOA in the Senate. Instead, the Rubio bill creates a process that must be completed and, according to Rubio, it’s actually a rather complex process which is harder and more expensive than just going home and coming back legally. Said Rubio:
“It will actually be cheaper if they went back home, waited 10 years, and applied for a green card. . . . we've not awarding anything. All we're giving people the opportunity to eventually do is gain access to the same legal immigration system, the same legal immigration process that will be available to everybody else.”Apparently, what happens is this:
(1) The people already here will need to apply through the normal legal immigration system. If they qualify, they will receive a temporary status and will be allowed to apply for a green card. I haven’t seen how long they must stay in this legal status before they can apply for the green card, but I’ve seen suggestions that it will be ten years.● No Welfare: Rubio also said the new bill will prevent these people from getting federal benefits. According to Rubio, under the new plan, these people cannot get any federal benefits while they are in the legal status nor can they get federal benefits for the first five years after getting green cards.
(2) Each applicant must submit to a “rigorous background check.” They must pay all outstanding fines and back taxes. People who’ve committed “serious” crimes won’t qualify for the legal status and will be deported. Moreover, to be eligible, these people must have been in the country before December 31, 2011. Everyone arriving illegally after that date will be deported.
(3) To keep this legal status, they need to be gainfully employed and must be paying taxes.
(4) To get the green card, they need to prove that they’ve been gainfully employed and that they can support themselves.
(5) It will take at least thirteen years before these people can start to become citizens.
● Border Security: The bill will include border security. Specifically, it will include an entry/exit tracking system, something which is a real problem at the moment. About 40% of current illegal immigrants are here because they’ve overstayed a Visa. And the reason that works is that it turns out that the US is quite good at tracking who gets into the country, but we’re very bad at tracking who leaves again. Congress has tried to fix this several times since the 1990s, but the systems they use don’t really work. The reasons given, however, strike me as excuses for bureaucratic stupidity: (1) they claim lack of resources – as every airport, border crossing and harbor would need to be manned, (2) the system causes unacceptable delays (attempts to test a system in Detroit led to massive delays), and (3) privacy concerns because they claim they would need to track Americans as well, though I don’t see why this would be true. Personally, I doubt any of those are valid, but we’ll see what the bill proposes. Rubio says they will fix this.
Rubio also says the bill requires universal e-verify for employment, which should make it impossible for illegal aliens to find work.
● Guest Workers: The guest worker program will be expanded. Thanks to labor union lobbyists, the number of low-skilled workers allowed in will be capped at 200,000 people annually. The Chamber of Commerce wanted a lot more, and now opposes the bill because they think this number is too small, but I haven’t been able to find out how many more they wanted.
All in all, this will be an interesting bill. It actually sounds rather rational and it’s stronger than I was expecting. Ultimately, it’s a much better solution than I was expecting.
62 comments:
This actually sounds like a lot for conservatives to love if they would stop knee-jerking and actually consider it. It also sounds like a lot for open-border "no person is illegal" liberals to hate, so you can bet they'll fight it tooth and nail. Unless the right gets its RLS under control, what'll kill this bill is the impression that nobody likes it.
it does sound very .... rational. I will keep tuned in for further developments
tryanmax, This actually does sound like a lot for conservatives to love. This is problem that needs to be fixed and it can't just be wished away. And if I was going to design a conservative solution, this would come pretty close to being it.
Let me caution you, however, that this is all preliminary and I can't swear to any of this yet.
As for conservatives not knee-jerking this, forget it. They are no longer rational. And Jeff Sessions is already denying each of the points above on the basis of him wanting them not to be true. It's the old, "even if it's true, it will never work out that way." So once the HotAir types get done burning that RINO Toomey in effigy, they will turn against the RINO Rubio.
Jed, It does sound rational. But, we need to wait to see how the legislation is actually written and what everyone tries to add to/subtract from the bill.
At this point though, it seems like a nearly ideal solution for what is within the realm of realistic.
Andrew.......Okay, so they pass it. How will it prevent the same situation from occuring that's going on now, vis-a-vis if you re here (or continue to come here) illegsly, you know you're not going to get deported anyway, so why bother going through this charade.
And I love how they are so strong on certain dates...NO ONE AFTER Dec 2011. How will they determine that?! W2's? Right. Utility bills? Right.
Then they will pay ALL BACK TAXES! Yeah....sure. How much was your income for the last 10 years Cesar? $1000?! Oh..okay..you owe $20 based upon this special one-time exemption we passed called the "Welcome to America" bill, which provides for a minimum reported wage if you can't verify employment for up to 10 years. They ARE NOT paying taxes as their wages are not being reported!! So who will determine how much back taxes they owe?
I'm telling you.....this bill is also ripe for abuse if any of the point mentioned above are even close to being accurate. Get prepared for amnesty 2014, just in time for the off year elections.
The only fix here is work visas for all and fines for any employer caught hiring visa-less migrant workers.
No easy fixes.......
The only fix here is work visas for all and fines for any employer caught hiring visa-less migrant workers.
Patriot, did you finish reading the post before you commented? Here is what you might have missed:
"Rubio also says the bill requires universal e-verify for employment, which should make it impossible for illegal aliens to find work."
So your "only fix" is ostensibly included along with a bunch of other stuff.
As to the back taxes, I'm sure the reasoning behind it isn't to actually collect. The actual purpose (I'm guessing) is twofold:
1) To appeal to conservatives by not simply granting a free pass.
2) To corner liberals who always say we need more tax revenue.
I would also say this hardly reads like an easy fix. Thirteen years until citizenship, no welfare, entry/exit tracking. But as long as you're acknowledging that there is no easy fix, you may as well acknowledge there is no perfect fix, as well.
Patriot, Let's look at those concerns logically.
1. First, how does it help to not fix it? The same number of people are here and the same number will come because they will know they get to stay here and they get all the benefits of living here without paying taxes. In fact, doing nothing provides a greater incentive to come here legally because (1) this bill makes it harder for those who came here illegally to stay than those who come legally because of the new requirements (so it's smarter to come legally) and (2) because it will be easier to find and deport 100,000 people who just got here and stayed illegally than it will be to try to deported 11,000,000 people who are now part of the community.
Doing nothing just says, keep on coming and work without paying taxes and who knows, someday you might get an amnesty.
2. As for back taxes, would you rather they paid nothing like they do now? They use government services right now. Why not charge them for it?
3. As for the cut off date, first, 40% of the ones who are here came here legally, so we know when they arrived. Moreover, that percentage is increasing because border crossings are way down-- last year saw a net zero in terms of Hispanics.
4. As for fining employers, that's what this plan does with the e-verify plan.
5. Why would Washington grant a very unpopular amnesty when they have this as an alternative. You'll find that once there is an alternative in place, people lose their sympathy very quickly for people who just want more.
tryanmax, The "perfect fix" has become the conservative shell game on this honestly. At every point, conservatives are deconstructing every suggestion into tiny parts and they argue that part itself won't solve the entire problem -- this is the type of false logic defense attorneys use to trick stupid juries when their client is clearly guilty. And when they can't find a problem to claim, they claim "but it won't work!" And now they're attacking Rubio personally.
That's how children and liars argue.
Andrew - I agree that it is very sensible and rational, so far. The one really smart thing that the Republicans have done is let Marco Rubio front this issue.
It takes the 1986 legislation that gave amnesty to 12 million as I remember it (maybe falsely) and appears to take border security more seriously (though I am not sure how that can be done without a "Berlin Wall"). What will make this a little bit easier to do now is our electronic age. I am surprised that the deadline for entry is Dec 2011.
But most of all, we really need to get out of the mind-set that EVERYTHING is bad before it is even proposed in full.
Bev, "So far" is right, but I'm cautiously optimistic. If this is as advertised, then this really is a nearly ideal solution. It addresses every concern conservatives have raised (except the part about forcibly deporting 11 million people).
The December 2011 deadline, I think is in response to talk radio whining about the "massive numbers of illegals streaming into the country RIGHT NOW to take advantage of Rubio's stupidity." Exact quote.
As for seeing everything as bad, I think we can safely forget that. Conservatism is in a very dark and self-destructive place right now and I doubt that's going to change any time soon. I think the best thing we can hope for is that the Republicans save us from ourselves. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much credit the Republicans will get with the public with conservatives screaming "WITCH!!" every five seconds.
Tryanmax and Andrew.....Of course the assumption you are making is that all the migrant farm workers will submit to e-verify by the "employer."
What about all the migrant farm workers that are paid in cash? With no record of employment in order for the employer to evade taxes and such. How does Rubio's bill address this?
Guys.....I don't believe this is an all or nothing fix. Personally I could give a rats ass about how many "illegals" are working in this country at under the table cash jobs.
I just don't believe his bill, as explained, would solve the problem. I don't think dems want any border enforcement, anywhere, anytime. They have a constant flow of votes as it is without any enforcement protocols in place. Do we know how many "illegals" vote in elections? No....because the dems don't want to know, hence the Voter ID kerfuffle.
As far as back taxes, I don't see any way in this bill, or any other solution discussed, to determine an illegals' tax liability. With no way of knowing how much they made (since many are paid under the table) how, and who, will determine what the correct back-taxes owed will be?
Trust me guys, I believe we need to do something about this, and Rubio's bill addresses some of it. I don't think we need a "comprehensive" bill passed. We need to address the reality of what is going on in the areas where "illegals" are working for the most part.....farmwork and domestic help. We're not talking about the East Indian Electrical Engineer who overstayed his visa. We're talking about the majority of people who came from Latin and South America to work menial paying, tough jobs. These folks can be some of the most hard-working people I've been around. And as long as there is no penalty for the firms/people that hire them (without e-verify) and pay them under the table, then it's a no win bill. And don't say the Rubio bill fines those people. That penalty/regulation is already in place and look at that's working out. "Rubio also says the bill requires universal e-verify for employment, which should make it impossible for illegal aliens to find work."
I just think this is all political posturing because "we have to do something about illegal immigration."
Workers who continue to accept pay under the table would only be making things harder on themselves as they would not be able to demonstrate gainful employment to get and maintain a green card. Despite what you may think of such people, they are being exploited. The only way to end exploitation is to empower the exploited. Rubio's proposal does that in a way that upholds the rights of honest workers and employers.
And as I said before, I don't believe the collecting of back-taxes is the primary issue anyway. That portion is a political tool. As far as taxes go, the real issue is payment going forward.
Not having a lot of time to comment just now, I will only say that if this bill does in fact make leaving the country and then re-entering legally the least costly option for illegals, that's probably a better deal than anything else we're likely to get. Assuming it passes, of course (which it probably won't).
T-Rav, I think it will pass with Democratic support and moderate Republican support. Then the Democrats will claim credit for it.
In terms of this being the best we're likely to get, I don't know what would be better at this point.
Patriot, I'll number my response to make it easier to follow:
1. We don't have all the details yet, but it sounds like the e-verify system will be mandatory. That means that it would be illegal for farmers to pay in cash under the table. That would then be a matter for enforcement, not a reason to shoot down the bill. That's like saying, "we shouldn't outlaw murder because people will still kill and we haven't caught them all."
2. As for the number of illegal voting, Florida purged its rolls of people who should not be allowed to vote -- that means illegals and felons. They found fewer than 200 in total. So the "they're stealing our elections" story is simply not true.
Also, keep in mind that if the Democrats thought these people would vote for them, they would never agree to wait 13 years (more than two Senate terms) to allow them to start to become citizens and labor wouldn't have fought to keep the numbers down. It's the supposedly conservative Chamber of Commerce who pimped to open the borders.
3. On the back taxes, first, they will be paying taxes from now on, which is something they won't be doing if we do nothing. Secondly, if they want this temporary status, they need to prove they are employed. That means presenting a work history, so they will need to declare some income. But this issue isn't about back taxes in any event and making it so is only moving the bar rather than raising legitimate concerns.
4. On the last point about us not fining employers, honestly, that's not a valid criticism of the bill. First, what you are saying is "this bill is no good because it doesn't solve all the problems." Again, we can't let the desire for the perfect stop a good bill. Secondly, that's static thinking because it fails to account for the fact that once these people get legal status lot of things change. For example, once they are legal, they can work at Walmart. So why would they take a $1 an hour illegal job when they can get $7.50 and benefits? Third, that argument translates to "it's hopeless to change anything so don't do anything." This is an evasion and it's the same evasion I see over and over from conservatives these days whenever they don't like the issue. It's time to focus on what can be done instead. And in that regard, Rubio has presented an excellent appearing bill. It may not solve 100%, but it will solve a significant portion of the problem, and that makes the rest more manageable.
tryanmax, LOL! That's what I said... only you said it better. I agree.
This actually sounds like a lot for conservatives to love if they would stop knee-jerking and actually consider it.
This is true, if in the past such laws actually were implemented and enforced. Unfortunately, there's a long history of failure in that respect. Do you really think Obama, for example, won't give illegals federal benies by simply refusing to enforce the law? And how's that border fence thing working out?
There's already laws to deal with illegal immigrants, but they are not being enforced. In some cases they are being openly flaunted by cities and states and politicians like Diane Feinstein, who declared San Francisco a "sanctuary city" when she was mayor. So perhaps you can forgive some of the "knee jerk" conservatives for being suspicious.
K, I could forgive the knee-jerk from conservatives if:
1. They weren't knee-jerking every single issue these days.
2. They had a rational alternative or were even being rational at all.
3. They weren't trying to smear Rubio personally for trying to fix this.
How's the border fence thing coming? Don't know because that's always been a placebo for suckers. In terms of how immigration is going generally, the answer is that Hispanics immigrant numbers were net zero last year.
As for flaunting laws, you can forget the idea of deporting eleven million people.
He is my prediction; I hope I am wrong. Rubio will work his ass off and get this bill passed and find a sponser in the house to pass a similar bill. It will go to committee where copious amounts of sausage-making and whore trading will occur. A compromise bill probably similar to this one will come out and Rubio will work his ass off to get it pass...then Obama and the democrats will immediately take credit for it and they will have plenty of sound bites to support their position.
Couple questions, and it is ok if you don't know the answers yet. You mentioned that they wouldn't qualify for federal benefits but many are already receiving some, for example going to public school. Do you know how that might change? Any rumors out there about eliminating the birth law (if you are born here, you are a citizen)?
Koshcat, Sadly, that is my prediction too.
I suspect conservatives will continue their wild tantrum and thereby hand the issue to Obama. Plus, they will destroy Rubio.
Koshcat, I don't know specifics because I haven't seen the bill. But from reading between the lines, they are talking about benefit programs like Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment and Welfare -- those are the names that have been batted around. They aren't talking about "services" like schools, fire, police, medical. At this point, I haven't seen anything mentioned about keeping them out of schools and I think that would be highly unlikely.
As an aside, from what I've read, right now there are illegals who have found their way onto welfare, Medicaid and unemployment in one way or another as those programs generally don't investigate citizenship. The numbers aren't very high (less than 2% of illegals), but there are some.
I haven't heard anything about changing the birth law, at least not as part of this bill. And that may require a change to the Constitution to happen.
This will be a good test for Rubio. If he can get the psychos to STFU and if he can get credit for his work, he would probably be a lock for presidency.
Koshcat, I agree with that too. This will be an interesting test. And if he can find a way to isolate the fringe and get this thing passed and stay positive and keep the positive image he's built, then I don't see anyone beating him in 2016.
It's going to be hard though because attacking him will be the easy way for every opportunist on the radio or with a blog to prove their purity.
K, the thing is, it makes no sense to knee-jerk against proposed laws because the existing ones are unenforced. One has to at least consider the possibility that the existing laws are unenforceable, thus necessitating new laws. That is, unless your position is that there should be no immigration laws and borders. Otherwise, it should be perfectly clear that the existing laws are ineffective due to the magnitude of the problem, so simply demanding "enforce the law" makes little sense to average Americans.
The border fence is a prime example of the enforceability problem. Like it or not, a major factor in enforceability of law is palatability. For various reasons, the idea of a border fence is straight-up unattractive to too many people to ever get one on the order its proponents envision. That's why it's working out as it is.
So, Rubio is taking a different approach. Rather than focusing on the border itself, he's focusing on tracking immigrants and taking away opportunities to exploit the system. If Rubio gets what he wants, especially with E-verify, the notion of sanctuary cities will become irrelevant. Essentially, he’s trying to set up a self-enforcing system rather than one that requires men in uniforms running all over the place. That should make conservatives extremely happy. The key word being "
Incidentally, I believe E-verify would prove to be implementable, enforceable, AND effective, if only because of the sheer number of pieces I've already encountered criticizing e-verify through bad-luck anecdotes.
Oops, meant to say The Key word being "should."
Not sure what happened there.
Well, this turned out to be a really crummy day. Freaking terrorists.
tryanmax, You make some good points.
The heart of the problem is that conservatives still want all these people deported and that won't happen -- it's unpalatable and it's impractical. But rather than accept this and look for the next best solution, they've gone into a mode that says, "if I can't get full deportation, then I will oppose everything." The effect of that is that the problem continues to grow as nothing gets solved.
I too suspect the e-verify system will work. It's really the one thing that probably will ultimately work.
T-Rav, What happened exactly? It sounds like a bomb at the Boston Marathon?
Andrew, two bombs went off near the end of the Boston Marathon, a smaller one first and then a larger one 15-20 seconds later. I can't figure out how many casualties there are, but word is there are at least ten amputation cases, maybe two or three dead, and photos show blood all over the street. Police say they're still finding secondary devices nearby.
It's kind of hard to find out exactly what's going on because it just happened and Shepard Smith on Fox is being his usual unhelpful self. Probably I shouldn't have said it was terrorists, but it sounds like it was deliberate.
Terrorist is the right word because what else would it be?
I wish the victims well.
There are some sick people in the world.
Sorry to be so cynical, but start the timer on the number of hours (minutes) it takes for someone in the media to blame right-wing extremists (read: "conservatives!")
Indeed, Andrew. Indeed.
A few people have mentioned that it's possible it was a gas main explosion, which often blows up in such a fashion....and in a very public place with lots of TV cameras around....and on what the city of Boston is honoring as "Patriots' Day." So.
tryanmax, probably not long. This is Tax Day, after all; although if that were the explanation for the bomb, why would the perps set it off in Boston, of all places, and not DC? Anything's possible at this point, but certain groups are more likely than others, and the feared "right-wing extremists" are not high up on the list.
tryanmax and T-Rav, I would be surprised if the first words out of the MSM and at various blogs won't be "it must be the Tea Party people!"
T-Rav and Tryanmax - I tend to agree with Tryanmax that whoever did this will be branded as a "right-wing nut" no matter who or what their political motivation is...
Actually, guys, they've gone one better. Some guy with WaPo is already saying that this shows why ATF needs a director, which it unfortunately doesn't have because Republicans are blocking one's appointment. Alrighty then.
T-Rav, That is so insanely stupid that it's amazing anyone would say such a thing. Of course, lots of people will believe it. Ug.
Bev, You're right. They always blame "right-wing extremists" and then when they find out it was a left-winger, they start talking about mental illness and crazed loners spurred on by right-wing rhetoric.
Guys....two words....."Reichstag fire"
Sure seems like the left is searching for some act that they can then blame on crazed anti-government right-wingers.
Sure hope this isn't the beginning of additional attacks and we become like Baghdad or Tel Aviv.
I know it is early but the NY Post is reporting that a Saudi National is being held under guard but who knows right now. Good thing al qaeda is gone.
Andrew, to balance that out, I saw at least one hard-core libertarian (whether left-leaning or right-leaning, I have no idea) "observing" that this happened the same day as the Boston PD were conducting a controlled-explosion drill. Translation: the police caused the blast and are covering it up, because that totally doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory.
Patriot and Koshcat, I can't imagine anything this small and incompetent was done by anything but some jerk off.
T-Rav, The world has gone insane and you can expect to hear all kinds of lunatic asinine theories being batted around.
Just for fun (some fun) I've compiled a list of the best that I've seen so far:
Daily Mail: Feds investigating if Boston bomb attack is linked to Patriots' Day anniversaries of Waco cult siege and Oklahoma City bombing
Infowars: Boston Marathon: Bombing Drill Coincided With Explosions
Daily Kos: So the New York Post is pushing a "report" that a "Saudi national" is in custody as a suspect. But TPM reports Boston PD are saying the New York Post's report is wrong. Obviously there's tons that we don't know, but the Post doesn't have any company so far in their claim, which is reminiscent of what happened immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Esquire: Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.
Wolf Blitzer, CNN: One intriguing notion...It is a state holiday in Massachusetts today called Patriots' Day and, uh, who knows if that had anything at all to do with these explosions.
(One of the persons with whom Wolf was speaking replied, "That's always a possibility." Really? Always?)
Chris Matthews, Hardball: Of course, I knew it was Tax Day because I got them in. But of course, it's Patriots Day. It's also the Boston Marathon. And would you as an expert be thinking domestic at this point? I don't think Tax Day means a whole lot to the Arab world or Islamic world or the, certainly not to al Qaeda in terms of their world. It doesn't have any iconic significance.
Okay, look--I think we've seen enough of these anti-social, obsessive mad bombers to know that if they were going to commemorate the anniversary of something like the Oklahoma City bombing with another bombing attack, they're going to set it off not on a day close to the anniversary but, you know, ON THE DAY ITSELF.
As far as Matthews goes, senility is just a terrible thing, isn't it?
I can't help but think that at this point, Middle Eastern terrorist groups must have taken note of the propensity and eagerness with which our American media seeks to connect acts of terror to our political right and also that just maybe they have given up trying to get credit for their acts, since that doesn't seem to do them any good anyway, so instead they opt to select dates and targets of significance to our right in an effort to turn American interests inward as a possible means to get the US out of the Middle East.
Well, this day sure turned into a downer.
First, I have finish the papers to pay my remaining taxes to Aunt Harrisburg. (Uncle Sam was satisfied with what I sent in last week.)
Second, I had to go to the dentist for my regular cleaning. (Please, no dental jokes. My appointment was delayed due to a death in my dentist's family. Please offer prayers instead.)
Third, I had to send the payment to Aunt Harrisburg after getting the correct postage at the post office. That was REALLY depressing. A quiet, color-free, joyless building filled with plenty of angry, nasty-looking middle-to-old age western Pennsylvanians. (Speaking of which, I don't there's really another common type of western Pennsylvanian.)
Finally, the news news about the bombs. I really don't have anything to add here. I can only hope that after the left has pulled their usual Third Reich and tried to blame the right for everything, the Boston PD and FBI will be able to locate the a****** who did this and find justice for the victims.
And as for your article, Andrew, I can only say that if this is the bill Rubio is working on, I am pretty impressed- even if the pundits are trying to rip him and, whether they know it or not, help Obama and the left. ("Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the purest conservative of them all?") Got my fingers crossed, though I'm dreading Koshcat's prediction.
And Andrew, I know I said I was planning on posting a few clips just to help everyone get through Tax Day, but I'll hold on off unless you think it's not inappropriate.
-Rustbelt
That was supposed to be "hold off." Typo
-Rustbelt
Rustbelt, Go ahead. Humor is always welcome. :)
Speaking of humor, for all of our Florida readers (like ScottDS)... watch yourself. You've been invaded by giant snails: LINK.
These things are rat size now and if Hollywood has taught me anything, it's that they will soon be over 100 ft long and coming for you!
tryanmax, I wish I could say those were insane, but they're par for the course for the MSM. It's utter nonsense and it's frankly offensive.
T-Rav and tryanmax, I really suspect this will turn out to be some idiot with a grudge against a coffee company or something. I can't see this being any legitimate terrorist organization -- it's just too tiny.
As for this being al Qaeda, I don't see that. They want big things. This isn't big.
Rustbelt, I don't there's really another common type of western Pennsylvanian
I know what you mean. I've spent time in Pittsburgh. LOL!
Sorry to hear about your dentist and your tax adventure. That's unpleasant.
On your points, I'm actually really impressed with Rubio too if this bill is as advertised. This is MUCH better than I expected.
Agreed on the bomber.
Okay, Andrew. Here they are.
(Warning: not all posts all Tax Day related.) Enjoy.
All right, I know I posted this one last week, but IT IS Tax Day. So...A Film Not Exactly By Ingmar Bergman
Even pro wrestling knows that tax collectors are evil!
THE TRUTH
Proof that some things NEVER change
And, seriously, what's with the War on Cream? That's the best part!
-Rustbelt
Rust belt I love HERB and Oreo cookie! Thanks!
Rustbelt, That's awesome. I love the things humans get up to. :)
Andrew, Bev, glad you enjoyed it!
Honestly, there are times the guys at CMU can amaze me, or just terrify me.
So, to quote 'Jeopardy!' champ Ken Jennings when he lost to the trivia-answering CMU computer, 'WATSON'...
-Rustbelt
What? What about Oreo cookies? Someone mentioned Oreo cookies.
Rustbelt, I started college at a school like that in upstate New York and I know what you mean. I met some people there who really were on another plane of existence... good and bad.
T-Rav, Click on the link above labelled War on Cream. :)
Andrew
I agree with your analysis but two things about this bother me.
"Moreover, to be eligible, these people must have been in the country before December 31, 2011. Everyone arriving illegally after that date will be deported."
Um ...no... we did not even depart people arriving here under the Bush administration. This will not be enforced. Unless some agreement is made with the countries these people are coming from to control this then we will need another "not really an amnesty bill" amnesty bill again in 15 years.
"Rubio also said the new bill will prevent these people from getting federal benefits"
This will be problematic in areas such as Miami and SanFranscisco that declare themselves sanctuary cities but I guess in no impossible. I think the real problem is not whether they get benefits but who pays for them. Again this takes a realistic treaty with their foreign countries to make arrangements for them to help us pay for their citizens and for us to provide some of the SSN tax money we'd collect from their working here.
I agree with work visas with certain countries being available in even one day such as Mexico becasue then we know who is coming over the border and why. To me this does a lot more for border security than a fence. Again problem is you have to have the agreement of the country they are coming from to help with this.
Indi, Two things to keep in mind. First, we are deporting people in large numbers -- more than 200,000 a year. So it will be possible to keep up with anyone who arrives after this date. Secondly, the demand to come here has slowed because Mexico is running out of people and their economy is improving.
As for sanctuary cities, the key is that no state or federal money would go to support these things. If the fools in San Fran want to blow their money on this, then they are welcome to... just so they can't blow our money on it.
Post a Comment