Monday, June 24, 2013

Immigration Bill Update -- 25% Reduction?

By now you’ve probably heard about the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the Rubio bill. Let’s discuss that because it clears up the cost issue and it simultaneously raises a concern... this 25% estimate, though that’s not nearly as bad as you have heard.

Cost Estimate: When Heritage put out their $6 trillion report, I took it apart and showed you why not one single bit of it was legitimate – others have since performed the identical analysis and reached the same conclusions. At the time, I mentioned that CBO would be scoring the bill and that number would come in significantly lower. It has... a lot. CBO found that rather than increasing the deficit by $6 trillion, the Rubio bill will reduce the deficit by $197 billion between 2014 and 2023, and then reduce the deficit by another $700 billion between 2024 and 2033. In other words, rather than costing $6 trillion over 50 years, the Rubio bill will save $897 billion over 20 years, with something similar happening each decade thereafter.

This is no surprise. Texas has 1.4 million illegal immigrants and, in 2006, the Texas State Comptroller examined this issue and found that illegal immigrants paid $427 million more in taxes than they used in services (including things like education). The Comptroller also found that these people contributed an additional $18 billion to the state’s economy.

So is the $897 billion figure accurate? Probably not. But it does provide an order of magnitude which tells us the bill is unlikely to add to the deficit.

Only Stops 25%? The big new issue is buried in the middle of the report. In an odd conclusion, CBO says that the bill is only likely to reduce the rate of illegal immigration by 25% compared to what would happen without the bill.

Opponents jumped on this as proof that the bill does nothing about border security and they are demanding a longer wall with Mexico. Only that doesn’t address what CBO says it found. The CBO says that the bill will restrict the flow of illegal immigrants by making it harder to enter the country illegally and harder to find work once they are here. In other words, the border and employment provisions work. BUT the CBO concludes that a large number of the people in the guest worker program, which will be doubled in size, will overstay their visas and become the new illegal alien population. Hence, improving the fence is meaningless because that’s not how they’re coming here.

This raises a couple issues.

First, this section of the report is only four sentences long and it has no footnotes. None of those four sentences says at all how the CBO reached its conclusion. Where did the 25% figure come from? We don’t know. Are they taking into account that these people can be spotted and deported? Again, we don’t know. Chuck Schumer says they didn’t. He notes that the bill includes provisions to find these people and to send them home and to keep them from working once they are illegal:
“But the bill creates a system to track people who overstay their visas and prevents employers from hiring them, so the number is likely to be much lower than CBO projects.”
Could be. But here’s the thing on this point. IF this is true, then we have discovered a weakness in the bill. In that case, we should fix it. How should we fix it? How about this: add a provision that says that for each guest worker who overstays, one slot will be deleted from future admissions until that person is deported. Simple enough.

Unfortunately, no one is talking about this because the opponents can’t stop talking about building a fence. This has focused the public on that aspect and is making the fence the only political play people will accept. Hence, there’s a new deal to spend $30 billion to hire 21,000 more border patrol agents, expand the fence a few miles more, and add more high tech surveillance like drones... none of which will help this problem at all, yet everyone will act like it will. This is the problem with behaving irrationally: it locks you into fantasies and keeps you from being able to address genuine problems with genuine solutions - it also tends to keep your voice from being heard at the negotiating table because people already count you out.

In any event, this doesn’t actually appear to be that large of a problem. Indeed, while 25% sounds like a lot when you think of 11 million people, that’s not what CBO meant. What CBO has said is that the rate of new arrivals will slow only by 25% and the CBO specifically says this will result in 1.6 million more illegals over ten years than would be here if the bill was perfect (if we do nothing, CBO says another 2.5 million will be here). That means that to get back to the same level of 11 million illegals will take approximately 70 years, assuming none of them get deported. And in that regard, it’s worth noting that we currently deport three times the number each year that CBO says would overstay. So ultimately, Schumer may be right on this.

In the end, this 25% isn’t at all what the opponents are characterizing it as. It’s not an issue we should be ignoring, but it will be because opponents are obsessively focused on building a wall that won’t stop a single one of these people. Personally, I would like to see the provision above added to the bill about reducing future years by the number of over-stays, but no one seems to be suggesting that.

57 comments:

Commander Max said...

I think the whole thing is meaningless dribble. If they were serious about a fence, it would have been built. Calling for it to be built is just as nuts. Saying they are going to save money, yea right. When was the last time congress did that. It always takes decades, then it never happens.

These people are not the least concerned. I heard McCain on Friday state something about have the illegals pay their back taxes. Sure some illegal is going to come out of the shadows to pay his back taxes. Hey Manual how much do you owe? Nothing I was paid under the table. OK, your a citizen now.

I do think its funny, the NSA can get all of this cell phone data. But they cannot track the illegals. I haven't seen a Mexican yet who doesn't have a cell phone. I'm sure other ethnicity's have them as well.

Patriot said...

Andrew......How will this bill prevent the ongoing influx of illegals and visa over-stayers once the current crop is "legalized?" I missed that when I read the bill.

Oh wait, is this another Obamacare where we have to pass it to see what's in it?

It burns me up to hear idiots like Graham state that we need to do this bill to reach out to Hispanics. What am I missing here?!

K said...

So mamy wasted words, Andrew. If the President doesn't enforce it, true of both Bush and Obama, then the government and you are wasting your time. Get back to me when there's some political penalty involved - like exceeding the immigration quota by 10 percent automatically requires the first born of the President to enter a Madrassa in Pakastan instead of Harvard.

tryanmax said...

I was encouraged by this article until I read the comments before mine. Seriously, guys, it's like you're plugging your ears going, "La-La-La-La!"

Max, didn't you read the bit about Texas illegal immigrants paying taxes--as in, they are already paying taxes. The back-taxes issue is a red herring anyway.

Patriot, you may have read the bill but you aren't paying attention to the process. The border security provisions were left to the amendment process purposely to allow for broader debate. So, of course, the attack is that there is no such provision in the bill. But had it been the other way around, the criticism would have been that the committee designed it "behind closed doors."

K, those illegal immigrants sure are a humongous problem, aren't they? Somebody should do nothing about it.

tryanmax said...

Patriot, BTW, did you happen to notice TITLE I "BORDER SECURITY" when you were reading the bill?

T-Rav said...

Honest question here. If it's true that having more illegal immigrants boosts the economy and lowers the long-term deficit, isn't that an argument for completely open borders, plus quick citizenship for every Tom, Dick, and Harry that makes it to American soil? I'm not trying to be churlish here; I'm just asking, doesn't the argument tend in that direction? And if not, where?

El Gordo said...

T-Rav, I don´t think that follows. To use an example: More CO2 does not equal warmer weather as long as we are talking about parts per million. But fifty percent of CO2 in the athmosphere would be very bad indeed. It´s also not going to happen.

The Texas figures are certainly counterintuitive (usually that´s fancy talk for I don´t buy it) but many true things are. It must be very hard to calculate these effects and the people doing it have to assume and extrapolate. It is not an exact science even if they are acting in good faith. But that goes for both sides of the debate. What I´m taking away is that it is not self-evident that illegal immigrants at the level they have in Texas impose huge costs (and what may be true in one state may not be true in others).

I think totally open borders would be terrible but it is also hypothetical. Whereas the number of illegals already here is a reality. It should never have gotten this far, in my opinion, but there it is. We are not going to deport them all or even most of them - not a chance, not going to happen.

El Gordo said...

I think what worries many opponents is that they fear a bad outcome in purely political terms, in other words, a win for liberalism. And the permanent cultural entrenchment of liberalism. It may feel more noble to talk about cost and legalities but I understand that worry.

They may not like the status quo either, but they don´t believe voters will thank us. They don´t believe the claim that most immigrants (as they are today) are a natural constituency for a small-government party. I don´t believe it either.

There is one good reason for having this bill now and that is: something must be done and it is better the GOP does it, and is seen doing it, than the Dems.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, I heard the argument stated on one of the Sunday shows (can't recall which) as immigrants (no modifier) boost the economy. Unspecified, that could certainly be interpreted as any sort of immigrant, so I can't be sure of the point being made.

Still, I think there enough other matters at stake to justify keeping tabs on immigrants despite the economic benefit (if true). Taken together, that's an argument for figuring out who is here but not necessarily kicking all of them out.

tryanmax said...

El Gordo, you're absolutely right about political outcomes vs. noble debate. And certainly the GOP is fully capable of squandering anything they stand to gain through immigration reform if they don't present meaningful solutions to other issues that Americans are concerned about. I have confidence that if the likes of Rubio, Ryan, Rand Paul and others can become the new leadership of the party, that won't be a problem.

T-Rav said...

El Gordo and tryanmsx, I'm really not sure what the benefit of this legislation is in the first place. Well, take that back--there is some hypothetical benefit, but it all depends on us winning the WH in 2016, which is far from a lock. Otherwise, the border security meant to follow legalization will exist on paper only, like it always has. That will continue as long as Democrats (or even certain Republicans) are in control of the executive.

Likewise, any benefit from attaching this bill to the GOP and to Rubio in particular will be highly contingent on future, unpredictable events.

I can't say whether illegal immigrants would incur more expenses or revenue for the government over the long term. My gut says the former, but I can't demonstrate that. If the bill passes, I'll be curious to see what happens a generation from now, when all those hard-working, revenue-creating immigrants start filing for Medicare and other benefits.

Patriot said...

tryanmax......La-La-La-La-La.......(Removing plugs from ears) Oh...I see what you're claiming. Because the bill says it will take place IT WILL!! Ohhh.....Sorta like the bill that was passed to build 700 miles of fence. Sorta like the 1986 amnesty bill that was passed that stated NEVER AGAIN. Sorta like O'Care that .......... (I can't list them all)

Seriously, don't assume people like me are blind to the issue. My point is that just because it's in the bill DOES NOT mean it will be followed. I think the biggest issue with this bill, is not a frikkin border fence or not, it's that once we go down the amnesty (oh..sorry...legalization) path, then we will be right back where we were. We will build up a group of illegals from all over the world, no matter what provisions are in the bill...and then we'll be right back where we are needing to "fix" the bill in order to address the problem.

I notice you didn't comment on my statement of Repubs like Lindsey Graham who think the reason why we need to do this bill NOW is that the Repub party will never again be relevant unless we address the "Hispanic" vote (read: illegal Hispanic immigrants). I think he's been talking to the beltway consultants on what it will take to get more Hispanic votes....NOT that we need to do something to address the mess we're in now.

I have NO PROBLEM with putting current illegals on a work visa and then having them go through a legal immigration process. And I don't know if this bill solves the conundrum of how we will prevent not only these new "legalized" folks from taking part in the US entitlement teat, but current and/or future illegal aliens from doing the same. Unless you think we should provide benefits to anyone who is able to make it into the country.

And frankly, all these wonderful economic benefits that are being touted..? I take them as seriously as I do any projection from the government.

All I gotta say, is you are very trusting of the political process and what you believe is going to happen with this bill. Have you read it? The original bill and the amendment? Have you gone through it to see where one clause supersedes another? Heck no! No one has! That's the problem I have.......we are supposed to have them "pass it to see what's in it."

Nope.....I don't trust this process at all, and I would never support something because a politician assured me that it would turn out a certain way.

But....good luck. I'm sure my fears are groundless and I'll just go back to my corner, plug my ears and trill La-La-La-La because I have issues with this bill and trust that the politicians will address the concerns I and many others have.

One more thing.....where is the open debate that bills of this magnitude are supposed to have? Not debates by pundits or politicians with a media megaphone, debates on the floor of Congress where we know what is in the bill and they can debate it. If you say that debate is done in committee, then why hasn't the committee been open door?

AndrewPrice said...

Max, The NSA listening to foreign communications that pass through the US and tracking people on the streets are two completely different things.

The back taxes issues has always been a conservative demand. So the bill includes it. No big deal either way, frankly.

As for the fence, they are authorizing the money for it in the bill, meaning the government's momentum machine will complete it. But it won't change anything because that's not where they are coming from.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, The way this bill is supposed to stop them is through registration of improved computer tracking systems at exit ports. This is what they are talking about when they talk about biometrics verses photo-ID. Right now, we don't have a system that can track biometric data and they are trying to decide if that is worthwhile or not, but there will definitely be a system that is meant to track people visas as they come and go.

From there, it's a lot easier to find and deport 160,000 over-stayers each year when you aren't trying to tackle an eleven million size problem.

AndrewPrice said...

K, If we do nothing then we get even more.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, politically, there is no benefit this bill can bestow that cannot be squandered.

From a practical standpoint, the principle benefit is figuring out who the heck is living within our borders. Will we find 100% of everyone currently hidden? Of course not. There are people with reasons for hiding beyond having merely entering the US illegally. But staying under the radar is hard work, so we can roust a lot of them by taking away any reason for it.

As to the benefit of immigrants, history seems to show they are good for America. However, our history of social welfare programs is one of constant evolution, so how that plays with immigration today is different than a generation ago and so on. Still, I think the implications of that discussion weigh more heavily on the benefits of welfare than on the benefits of immigration.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, There's a huge irony actually in the tax arena. A great many illegal have been paying into Social Security for a decade or more, BUT they've been paying under false names and they won't be able to get credit for that.

I agree about the back taxes being a red herring. I think it was always just meant to placate people who wanted more punishment.

On the border stuff, I've watched the debate very closely and there has been a lot of thought and a lot of input put into this from all sides. I do think there is a genuine attempt to close the border (using high tech instead of a wall) and track those who are here. The question is cost and effectiveness and I'm happy to see that there really is thought being put into it.

I'm not as happy about this 25% issue, and I'm not sure it's solved, but at least it's known and hopefully it will be address or can be fixed if it does prove to be a problem.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I'm personally curious as to what that 25% means at a point in time when the government is reporting a net zero immigration rate from Mexico?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, A fair question. From an economic perspective, that would be true. And that's the argument of the open borders crowd. More people means stronger economy.

But there are costs that the open borders crowd ignores. Those costs are things like depresses wages across the board, cultural distortions, and the social question of whether a country with no borders can effectively continue as a country. Hence, I think the open borders people are flat out wrong because they ignore the costs.

But that's a different issue than what Rubio is doing. Right now, we have a problem in that we have 11 million people living in a shadow economy and shadow society. That is causing all kinds of problems for us -- lack of insurance for drivers, inability to report crimes, inability to get health insurance, inability to move up the income scale and become middle class.

Moreover, we will never have border security because we can't deport the new arrivals because we're awash in 11 million who are already being hunted -- that makes it an impossible task.

So I think the best thing is to do what Rubio is trying: admit that these people are here for good, let them in so they can become like the rest of us, and close the doors behind them to stop the next wave.

Am I happy about this? No. I don't like the idea of legalizing people who came here against our laws. But I think it's very bad for us to do nothing and let this problem fester. As long as these people live in the shadows, they are a menace. And as long as we are hunting 11 million people, we'll never be able to secure our borders. To my mind, it make the most sense to legalize these people and eliminate the problems they are causing and then do out best not to let it happen again.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The 25% is most like Indians and Asians. Most of these work visas are actually for high tech industries. Alternatively, they are Mexican farmer workers, except they have a history of not overstaying their work visas until we closed the border after 9/11.

AndrewPrice said...

El Gordo, I agree. I take all the figures people are putting out with a huge grain of salt. I basically see the CBO study and the Texas study as saying, "We see no evidence of these people draining the system." I don't actually expect more than that. And the only reason I report these numbers is to show how they compare to the Heritage numbers which were truly fraudulent.

As for it getting this far, I totally agree. It should not have gotten this far. But I have sufficient faith to believe the problem won't recur.

For one thing, the demographics have changed and Mexico simply isn't bleeding people like it was in the 1990s. For another, border enforcement has improved dramatically. And I think the bill is serious about improving tracking and the such. So I seriously doubt we would get back to this point. Obviously, I can't say that for certain, but I do believe the circumstances are different now than they were in the 1990s.

AndrewPrice said...

El Gordo, I think the opponents come in several categories:

Some are people who think this won't solve the problem. Basically, "we tried this before and we're going to have 11 million more in ten years and do it again and we'll just have open borders."

Another group is concerned that this will hand the government to liberals, but I think that's backwards.

Another group are simply racists.

Another group are low-income people who know they are likely to lose out when these people become legal. That's why a lot of socialists and black groups are opposing this, because they know it will hurt working class and minority people.

On the political question, I frankly think doing this is necessary to the survival of the Republicans. They've worked so hard to poison their relationship with Hispanics that this is necessary to clean the wound.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, There are clear economic arguments for why immigration (and illegal immigration) are good for an economy, but you need to balance these things and the open borders people don't balance -- they just claim the benefits.

On the political benefits, there are two benefits to consider.

1. Rubio (and Rand and Ryan) seem well prepared to exploit the issue to the maximum benefit. Both Texas and history suggest that means a boost to the GOP to around 35-40% of Hispanic voters instead of 20%.

2. BUT... the real benefit will be a depoliticization of the Hispanic issue. The means a dramatic reduction in the kinds of rhetoric and actions that have just destroyed us with minorities. That's the real benefit.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, The benefits are this:

1. Crime/Safety: After this bill, these people can report crimes and fires and the such. They will be able to buy car insurance, so you won't be left high and dry when they hit you with their cars. They can buy health insurance, reducing the cost of uncompensated care.

2. Economic: If they do as legal immigrants do (and there no reason they shouldn't now that they can actually take real jobs), they will move up the income ladder. Legal immigrants as a group actually out-earn whites as a group. They also contribute way more in taxes than whites.

3. Social: There really isn't going to be a social change because they're already here. Basically nothing changes in that regard, except they will become more likely to integrate, which means they should become more like us rather than the reverse.

4. Border Security: With us no longer trying to catch 11 million people, we can actually concentrate on deporting the people who overstay visas are sneak across the border in the future. We do deport around 400,000 a year, even under Obama.

5. Political: Conservatives have absolutely poisoned their relationship with LEGAL Hispanics through their words and deeds on this issue. By ending it, we stop the bleeding, remove the repeating wound, and allow their natural political affiliation to return. That means a likely return to 35-40% being Republicans, as compared to 20%. It means we will be competitive again in Virginia, Florida, California and maybe even New York, and it should mean a big boost for the White House.

Those are the likely benefits.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The benefit issue doesn't worry me. Even the estimates by conservatives groups on how many illegal are on public assistance has them lower than the native population and once these people are able to get real jobs, I would expect they will choose that path over welfare.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, I'm not sure how to respond to your point except to say that your wrong.

1. If you assume that nothing will change no matter what we do, then there's no real point in opposing people who try to change things because either way we end up at the same place.

2. As for the Republicans needing to fix this, you're wrong... they do. I can show both tons of anecdotal and statistical evidence to show you the problem.

3. I don't know who told you there's no open debate, but they lied to you. This thing has been debated for months, they offered several hundred amendments in the committee. They've been negotiating with virtually everyone in the House and Senate. There are going to be more amendments offered when it comes to the floor for DEBATE and a vote. Which part of that is unusual for bills like this? Even big bills typically only get a couple hours of official debate before the vote.

Tennessee Jed said...

Nice job on this one, Andrew. I haven't seen anything which caused this much political posturing since health care reform

Patriot said...

Andrew....I guess I'm a victim (finally!) of thinking if this deal as "the law of unintended consequences."

Some thoughts on that: Why did the Repubs sign off on the 86 amnesty law? To secure a greater % of the Hispanic vote? I don't know, but knowing how the current party thinks, it might have been either that or the first tendrils of "compassionate conservatism." So I guess my question is, did the 86 passage accomplish what the Repubs in power expected to happen?

How many of the current "illegals" come from the Middle East/Africa region and are followers of a violent brand of Islam? That would seem to be an issue.

Why the rush right now? Why can't the bill be pdf'd on the Internet for 30 days for public comment and dissection? Unfortunately, right now we are told we MUST pass this quickly. What's a few more months or more for review?

What "real" jobs will these folks do that aren't being filled now? Will migrant picker jobs have to be competitively priced from now on? If so, what will that do to the price of US crops? What will happen to the "jobs" (work) that they are doing now? Will employers suddenly start counting them in the overall labor force?

By stating that "Conservatives have absolutely poisoned their relationship with LEGAL Hispanics through their words and deeds on this issue" I think that it is the misrepresentation of their views by the left that has poisoned the relationship. If you mean do conservs CALL them "illegals" then yes, they have been guilty of being politically incorrect in that regard. Perhaps they should have used "undocumented workers" instead.

And Andrew......unfortunately you are right about me. I assume that nothing will change no matter what we do. It's the cynic in me. Have you researched when the big influx of "undocumented workers" began last century? Serious question. I don't know. My intuition tells me we probably saw an big increase starting in the 60's with the start of the welfare state. I know we've had "migrant workers" for a long time, but has the allure and promise of generous health and welfare benefits been a factor in increased numbers of people either overstaying their visa's or sneaking across the border?

I really want to believe that this "comprehensive" bill will finally address a serious societal issue, but when I "hear" that it has parts in it that are pork, stimulus, Obamacare, etc., then I am forced to believe by historical precedent that this will just be another liberal boondoggle that the Repubs and conservatives will be rick-rolled on by the "one worlders" in Congress, media and education, and we will be no closer to something that addresses the issue and has some conservative solutions built in.

Help me out here.

tryanmax said...

Why the rush right now? Why can't the bill be pdf'd on the Internet for 30 days for public comment and dissection?

I'd hate to see what lollygagging looks like. Rubio's been talking about this bill since early February and the PDF on my computer has a creation date of April 17th.

Patriot said...

tryanmax.....I didn't know that they had placed the bill out there. That helps clarify my concerns. Is it the bill in its current form or an original? My understanding is that there have been modifications to the bill recently.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot,

I am equally cynical. BUT in this case, it's a matter of weighing options. Doing this gives us potential benefits of X, potential harm of Y. Doing nothing guarantees us harm of Y + Y, with no benefit. To me, it makes total sense to take that risk.

Ok, on your points... 1986 was a different time than today. The Republicans were nothing like the current version. They were all like Lindsay Graham. So they let themselves get rolled over and over. The modern Republicans are much more ideological and they don't allow that. Why does that matter? Because with a more ideological party, they will fight to make sure these things happen. And in all honesty, it would help the cause a lot if conservatives like Sessions were helping make sure the bill was air-tight instead of just fighting to stop it.

How many of the current "illegals" come from the Middle East/Africa region and are followers of a violent brand of Islam? That would seem to be an issue.

How is that an issue? First, they're already here. So whatever evil they are up to, they are already doing it and the bill doesn't change anything. Moreover, why punish 11 million other people because of the possible crimes of a handful of terrorists.

The "real" jobs are things like WalMart... McDonalds... construction -- $10 an hour plus path to management, instead of $10 a week for manual labor found standing on the street corner. Right now, they can't work at those places without phony papers. After this, they can. That means they will get the chance to do what legal immigrants have done, and that is move up the ladder.

As for produce, that's why they're expanding the guest worker program because these people are likely to move on. The guest worker program lets in agriculture workers, some service workers, and high tech/professionals.

On the poisoning of the relationship, I'm not listening to the left... I don't listen to the left. I am listening to the Hispanics I encounter, the moderates I know, the apolitical people I know, and even a great many conservatives. And I can tell that they uniformly see the things a great many conservatives are saying right now as racist and hateful. As for more proof, the statistics bare this out -- the further conservatives have delved into this, the more they've lost the Hispanic vote, except in Texas, where conservatives have embraced the very ideas other conservatives are attacking and where they've maintained their share of the Hispanic vote.

Why the rush? There is no rush. Bush tried this in 2007 and it blew up on him. It's been discussed ever since. It finally gained traction after the 2012 election when the Republicans realized they were doomed if they didn't fix this. And in that regard, this bill has been on the table for six months of intensive discussion, input and negotiation. This has not been rushed. As for being online for 30 days, it's been available for over two months now. And it won't be voted on in the Senate until July and then the House sometime later -- probably end of summer.

Finally, on the comprehensive nature, this bill does not contain pork. It does not add stimulus or Obamacare. It addresses how and when illegals will be eligible for Obamacare, but it doesn't create anything new.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot and tryanmax, I'm not sure if the newest deal to beef up border security is available online yet because that just happened at the end of last week. The bill itself has been available for several months.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jed! Hot button issues always bring out lots of argument and debate from all sides, and this is one of the hottest button issues.

tryanmax said...

Patriot, I'm just referring to the base bill with the April date. The amendments are in process right now and, aside from a handful that interest me, I've not followed which have passed and failed. I've already written my Senators about what I'd like to see, but given the general sentiments in my state, I don't think they'll listen to me.

Patriot said...

Andrew.....They don't listen to you?! Inconceivable! :) Send them your policy proposal.

As far as "pork" goes: The original Gang bill ended with a section designated Title IV, which was headlined REFORMS TO NON-IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAMS. The Hoeven-Corker version of the bill added a Title V, with the headline JOBS FOR YOUTH. The measure would provide $1.5 billion in the next two years to provide jobs for Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. It was originally pushed by Democratic Sen. Bernard Sanders, who wanted to come to the aid of young workers who were “hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession.” Now, Sanders says immigration reform will further damage youth job prospects."

Granted it's not much, but there it is.

Patriot said...

Or is this pork?:

On page 66 of the repackaged bill, the following provision appears:
“CORPORATION FOR TRAVEL PROMOTION.—Sec- 9(d)(2)(B) of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (22 U.S.C. 2131(d)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘For each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015,’’ and inserting ‘‘For each fiscal year after 2012.”

Looks like tax dollars being used for tourism promotion to Las Vegas.

"Current law would fund the government-run program through 2015. But, now Reid and Heller have inserted an indefinite expansion of it into a bill that has nothing to do with tourism, and into a section of the bill that was supposed to be aimed at adding additional Border Patrol and U.S. Customs Border Protection officers to the current staffs of those agencies.
The provision was inserted under “Sec. 1102,” which is titled: “Additional U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers.” That section falls under “Title I: Border Security and Other Provisions,” “Subtitle A--Border Security” in the repackaged bill."

Sure smells like pork to me..

Patriot said...

Ahhh........Found the the real porker!:

"Mrs Clinton remains the safe bet, with Hillary watchers contrasting her star quality with her successor as Secretary of State John Kerry. "She's the Kissinger of the 21st century," one told me today.
But if even Hillary is hedging her bets by grooming her daughter for the role, there's every reason why the rest of us should too."

That's it...I'm done.

Patriot said...

tryanmax.....sorry. Your comment appeared as Andrew's on my pad earlier.

AndrewPrice said...

Hillary is the real porker... LOL!

I'll be back soon, need to run to the airport.

BevfromNYC said...

Yes, Ol' Harry stuck that little bit 'o pork in there at the last minute. I wasn't aware that a) Nevada was "on the border", but then again maybe they want to shut down their own borders to Californian escaping...well...California. or b) that Nevada was hurting for tourists. Isn't it pretty much the US Tourist Mecca?

tryanmax said...

Did somebody say "Mecca"? ISLAMIC TERROR STREAMING ACROSS OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!!! I knew it! I just knew it!

Anonymous said...

Oh, boy. This issue is really draining on me. We definitely have to do something or we're done for at the polls. But does anyone reporting on this bill- besides Andrew- get this? So many of those in the conservative media are opposing this bill with the fervor of recently-converted zealots... and for what reason? "Because Obama wants it!" I guess they say. (Despite this NOT being the unconditional amnesty the One was calling for.) Geez...have these people not read the 'Art of War' and Sun Tzu's notes on choosing your battles wisely? Or are they just going in all willy-nilly to see what angers people the most and finally sticks?

I must be a masochist, but I checked Breitbart today and noted the headlines of the usual suspects:

-Susan Berry: "Immigration Bill Will Give Employers' Incentive to Fire Americans and Hire Legalized Immigrants" -The RINO's are taking your jobs away!

-Kerry Picket: "Gang Republicans, Once Critical of Obamacare, Go All-In" -Yep, it's exactly like THAT bill.

-Matthew Boyle: "Bill Kristol: Give people a Chance to Read the Bill" -Again, inferring that the bill is being rushed and no one has been allowed to read or debate it. Oh, yeah. It's also like Obamacare.

-Sarah Palin: "Holes in the Border as Big as the Holes in Their Amnesty Bill" -Translation, those RINO's are giving Obama exactly what he wants! [Insert your remark about Palin here.]

-You know...I haven't seen Mike Flynn repudiate the article he wrote praising the now-debunked $6 trillion Heritage report on the bill not too long ago. Wonder why...

Okay, this was just a rant. I didn't even bother to read the articles, just the headlines. I've read enough about the bill at that site and I'd rather not drive myself to insanity.

Andrew, thank you for being one of the few sane people when it comes to reporting on this thing. (Though, I should note, Dick Morris has also been defending the bill at his site- and gotten nothing but vitriolic hate in the comments sections.)

However, I would say you're wrong on one thing. Hillary the real porker? Hm... You must not have seen the latest pictures of Chelsea.....(clutches stomach)....uh...excuse me. To quote Bill Cosby, I must now put my face in a place that was never meant for my face. (runs to the bathroom)

-Rustbelt

AndrewPrice said...

Bev and Patriot, I didn't know Reid had snuck that in there. What a stupid thing to do -- risking a wave of people making demands and opening a whole new avenue of attack. I'll tell you what, I still think Reid wants this bill to die.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Vegas can't be Mecca because you aren't going to find 72 virgins. ;P

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, You're welcome! :) I call them like I see them and I hope that, through our discussions, that we can figure out what's right and what's not.

Obviously, the Rubio bill isn't perfect and how well it will work is impossible to know until we see it in action -- there are just too many variables -- but everything I've seen tells me (1) that we need to do this or the party is doomed, (2) that this bill is a good faith effort to solve this problem in a way that addresses the concerns conservatives have raised over the years, and (3) that it looks like it should work. And since the alternative is worse, I support it, even as I'm not happy about needing to support it.

And I know what you mean about how frustrating it's been reading about this at other places. I am shocked at how flat out false and conspiratorial so much of the analysis is -- the kind of false that can be disproved by a single web search. It's frustrating because it doesn't help anyone (especially conservatism) for places like Breitbart to go looney tunes over this issue and scaremonger to their readers. It's at moments like this that we more than ever need to sort out our legitimate concerns and have those addressed. And that gets lost when the fantasy elements kick in -- look at the number articles promoting various conspiracy theories about Rubio for example. That's just not helpful because it gets our concerns dismissed as insane.

In any event, I do understand that people don't like this bill/idea at all. And I understand there are many valid objections. And I can't fault anyone who refuses to support it or who disagrees with me. I just hope that people eventually see that this bill is in our interests.

BevfromNYC said...

"Did somebody say "Mecca"? ISLAMIC TERROR STREAMING ACROSS OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!!! I knew it! I just knew it!"

Tryanmax - Worse...Californians! They move all across the country sucking all the life out of every place they go and then move on just like locusts!

tryanmax said...

Andrew, you can so find 72 virgins in Vegas. Assuming they're honest. But why would a virgin lie? :-P

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, They are indeed a locust-like plague of Biblical proportions.


tryanmax, Virgins are notoriously unreliable.

AndrewPrice said...

FYI: 1. I've looked into the Jobs Program and that was added by Reid this weekend to win the vote of Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and others on the left who had opposed the bill. So that's new to the bill. And if this is all the pork there is, then this is an amazingly clean bill by Capitol Hill standards.

2. I also looked at this story which claims that "Illegals face lesser punishment than U.S. citizens for crimes committed..."

Total fraud.

First, it misuses the word waived. It implies that the bill allows illegals to avoid punishment for certain crimes. But that's 100% false. No punishment for any crime except illegally entering the US is being "waived." All it does is provide that legal status will not be disallowed because of minor crimes (like parking tickets, speeding, etc.).

Secondly, to create a list of "crimes" that supposedly will apply to US citizens but not illegals, this group invent crimes they claim are forgiven. Specifically, they wrongly break up the act of illegal immigration into multiple parts. It's like charging a bank robber with breaking into a bank, breaking into a bank's foyer, breaking into a bank's teller area, and breaking into a bank's vault. And then claiming that pardoning someone for breaking into the bank somehow pardoned them of the one crime and mysteriously forgave the three other crimes.

This fundamentally misrepresents how our legal system works.

Individualist said...

El Gordo

You will never get to 50%. An atmospheric concentration of 5 to 10 percent is lethal to animals and plants.

Honestly the main problem with the border security is thinking that a fence will work. It won't. What will work moats.....just ask the medeival Lords and Princes. IF you really want to keep people out you need to dig a deep trench.
:
To me this bill will not reduce immigration for one reason. The only real way to make immigration control to work is to deport people. We actually don't need a new law for that. If we followed the ones we had and deported people this would not be as much as a problem.
:
My feeling is that no matter what the provisions are in the bill regarding that, the politicians will have no will power to actually start deporting people.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, We deport around 400,000 people a year. So there clearly is the will to deport people -- even under Democratic administrations.

The problem is that the system has been told to deport all 11 million illegals and that's practically and politically impossible. Basically, our resources are being squandered bailing out a boat without fixing the hole through which the water is pouring. By legalizing the people who are here, the deportation resources can be used efficiently to get people as they become illegal and it can be done without offending 30 million people.

So it comes down to either admitting we'll never get rid of the 11 million and then use our resources to stop the next 11 million, or hang onto the false hope that we can deport everyone and find ourselves with a 22 million problem in 20 years.

El Gordo said...

I wish Breitbart was still alive. I don´t think he would have been so dead set against this bill. I don´t think he would have approved of the scorched earth rhetoric some of "his" writer now employ. He saved his harshest words for the left. The real left.

El Gordo said...

"What will work moats.....just ask the medeival Lords and Princes. IF you really want to keep people out you need to dig a deep trench."

And when we catch people who overstayed their visa we throw them into the trench! Which is full of piranhas and electric eels and lions.

Now I´m having a vision of Pontius Pilate saying "thwow him into the twench!"

Surely there are places where a fence is necessary (I guess some of these places will already have one) but the fixation of building a fence along the whole border is just unserious. I remember that demand from Bush´s second term. It´s would be a classic example of opportunistic government waste except for once the liberals are not to blame.

AndrewPrice said...

El Gordo, I agree. Fr the past five or six months (and even before the election), the Breitbart site has spent most of their time savaging people on the right who they didn't like. I don't think Andrew would have allowed that. In fact, when I signed up with them, they sent me a list of policies that made it clear that we were not to attack fellow conservatives. That seems to be all they do these days.

I also think Andrew was wise enough to see the need to reach the people conservatives have lost. He led the charge on the gay issue, for example, and on embracing Hollywood. So I don't doubt for a minute that he would have embraced this bill as a way to mend a lot of fences and make new friends.

AndrewPrice said...

On the fence, there is already a fence in the high traffic areas. What is happening now is that opponents are demanding a 100% perfect, impassible fence that runs the whole length of the border. But of course, there's no need to build a fence along the whole border and you can't build a 100% impassible fence anyway -- not to mention the problem is overstays, i.e. people who are already legally beyond the fence, so the fence is just a red herring/delusion.

What the "border surge" deal was about was spending $30 billion to add a few hundred more miles of fence, to hire 21,000 more border patrol agents, and to buy more technology like sensors and drones to monitor the parts without the fence.

El Gordo said...

Yes, a fence is just one tool. The endless talk about a superfence turned the debate into white noise and provided ugly images for liberals. Conservatives of all people should know about "fighting the last war".

AndrewPrice said...

El Gordo, That's the problem. The fence is a single tool for a specific problem only. Yet, it has become THE obsession for conservatives, and they are blind to the fact that the vast majority of the problem lies elsewhere. Moreover, in screaming about the fence (and it is screaming) they say a lot of things that come across as very offensive.

Post a Comment