Court: Do Not Enforce Immigration Laws

There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to begin.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's kid brother, San Francisco U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, issued an order Wednesday blocking the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration from sending letters telling employers who have illegally hired illegal immigrants that they have 90 days to end the illegals' employment before facing punishment.

Breyer declared that the government's plans to mail 140,000 such notices would cause "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers." But what of the irreparable harm the country is suffering because of the almost complete lack of a rule of law regarding illegal immigration?

Any member of a sleeper cell within our borders planning a future 9/11 knows not to fear being caught in a general roundup of illegals by immigration authorities.

There are scarcely any such roundups, because illegal entry and employment are so out of control — at least 12 million people are here in defiance of our laws — that we have no intention of even beginning to detain and deport that vast population.

Since the ruling is from a San Francisco court, of course it is far out of sync with the rest of the nation, but this is a symptom of a larger unwillingness to tackle what is both a law enforcement and a national security issue. And underneath it all is crass politics.

Many politicians--mostly Democrat, but a fair number of Republicans as well--are attempting to pander to the Hispanic vote, and thus don't want to be seen as tough on illegals, the vast majority of which are Hispanic. And that pandering is leading to porous borders that any one can essentially walk across--even those who would do America harm.

It's high time, I think, for politicians to stop pandering and start enforcing our laws and keeping the nation safe, else they might find themselves asked tough questions some time in the future, for which they will have no easy answer.

English is the Language of The United States

This is a great video. I first heard the song on the J.D. Hayworth Radio Show a couple of weeks ago, but didn't realize it was a video. Then tonight I heard it on the Mike Gallagher Show and he mentioned it was a video on You Tube.

It's a musical video by a husband and wife team, Rivoli Revue, that's been viewed more than 4.8 million times on You Tube. The song decries the diminishment of the English language in our multi-cultural society, making the point of why we native English speakers are the ones required to press one to hear it.

Press One for English



Recently I read some snarky commentary about Tom Tancredo and his supporters complaining about this very matter. The commentary went on to ask if pressing one on the phone was just beyond Tancredo's ability.

Of course, the commentary missed the point of Tancredo's complaint and will likely miss the point of this video. When you call Joe Schmoe's Customer Service Hotline, after the recording introduces itself, it should say in Spanish, presione uno para el español, then continue on with explaining the directions in English.

Oh, I know, there will be those out there who will claim this song is racist. They'll just have to say it, because I'm going to post the video anyway and say loud and clear that I support it's message. After all, what can I possibly know about racism? I don't belong to a Mexican immigrant advocacy group whose name, La Raza, translates to The Race.

Besides, the music has a good beat and you can dance to it.

Press One for English

Hey, I can't read that sign out there
Please tell me what's it say
We have to have subtitles
In five languages these days
Now we don't ask too much
To share this land of liberties
But if it's not too much to ask
Could you please speak English

(Chorus)

English is my language
It's the language of this land
And every sign that's posted here
I should understand
I do not live in China, Mexico
No foreign place
And English is the language
Of the United States

Now I'll speak very clear for you
So there'll be no mistake
My family fought and died
Protecting freedoms in these states
Now we all welcome those who come
But when you reach our shores
Folks you should speak our language
Not the one you spoke before

(Repeat chorus)

Now I'm proud of this country
And this great Democracy
And I believe an open door
Should be our policy
But for these opportunities
We'd simply ask you this
Hey you're the one who chose to come
Now choose to speak English
Now here's one thing I question
And try to understand
Hey why must I press one for English
When it's the language of this land

(Repeat chorus)

I do not live in China, Mexico,
No foreign place
And English is the language
Of these United States

Immigration, Amnesty, and Terrorists

Once again, we have a link between people trying to get into the US and a terror plot. Thank God, this time they were not successful in getting in, so they did the next best thing. They tried their terror where they were, in Britain.

Two of the seven doctors arrested in Britain after last week's failed bomb attacks had explored the possibility of coming to the United States, making inquiries to a Philadelphia-based organization, sources said.

The two took preliminary steps to apply for graduate medical-education programs in this country, sources familiar with the FBI investigation told The Inquirer.

This is the first indication that members of the alleged terror cell in Britain expressed any interest in coming to the United States.

Now, imagine for a moment if the amnesty bill had passed. It's not that far-fetched to believe that these people might actually have been allowed to enter the country.

Lefties and other amnesty supporters will be quick to spin this with, "well, their bombs didn't detonate in Britain, why assume they would have detonated here?" The correct question is, why assume they would not have detonated here?

This story is also bad news for John "The War On Terror Is A Bumpersticker" Edwards and the rest of the Party of the Donkey Presidential hopefuls. It's another reminder that we're not immune to terror attacks, like the attempted Fort Dix or JFK Airport attacks.

So watch for the Dhimmicrats, their willing accomplices at ABCCBSCNNNBCNPRPBS, and those Republicans who supported amnesty to downplay this one.

After Amnesty After Action

Illegal Immigrant Amnesty (formally known as Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 {S. 1348}) died on June 28, 2007. Despite the best efforts of its advocates, it failed. The opponents of the legislation prevailed. The bigots, nativists, loud people, and right wing talk radio hosts, prevailed. Most of all this odious piece of legislation died because of the tens of thousands of citizens contacted their senators and told them it sucked big fat rotten eggs. Or something like that.

Since then there have been many articles and blog posts written, heralding it's demise, chronicling it's death; postmortems written detailing the maneuvering of both sides in the legislation battle and analysis's on the future of immigration reform and the current status of our illegal immigration problem.

We learned we could have an impact. I learned that any major legislation with the names Kennedy or McCain is probably bad legislation. Some GOP Senators stood strong on conservative principles, helping to defeat the bill. Some of them were old reliables like Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Some were less well known like Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA). There were others, including the MLB Hall of Fame pitcher, Jim Bunning (R-KY). And there were others.

If you are so inclined, take a minute or two and send an email to one, or all of those Senators that stood strong and helped defeat this legislation. Thank them for doing a great job.

We breathed a sigh of relief, believing we had dodged a bullet, and celebrated our victory. However, it's no time to rest. There is still work to be done on immigration. We still have a porous border, we still have millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

It is time to demand that the administration enforce our current immigration laws. It's time to build the really big fence, time to enforce work place employment rules, time to find and deport visa over stays. Time do whatever is required to secure our border and let illegal immigrants know they can't blatantly violate our laws and sovereignty.

The President needs to hear that we want the border secured, existing laws enforced. Send the White House an email. I sent one the day after the bill was defeated. If the President receives as many emails or faxes as the Senate received during the debate, maybe he'll get the message.

Contact your Senators and tell them the same thing. You want the existing immigration laws enforced.

Some Senators are already trying to get some movement on this. Senator DeMint sent a letter to the President on this issue:

June 12th, 2007 - Today, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress. The text of the letter is below:

Dear Mr. President:

We respectfully ask that your Administration enforce the border security laws that have already been authorized by Congress regardless of whether the Senate passes the immigration reform bill. The bill assumes that several critical border security benchmarks can be achieved within 18 months. These security triggers are already authorized under current law and can be completed without the immigration bill. We believe these enforcement measures are vital and should not wait until Congress passes additional immigration reforms.

Securing the border is the best way to restore trust with the American people and facilitate future improvements of our immigration policy.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina), Tom Coburn (R – Oklahoma), Mike Enzi (R – Wyoming), David Vitter (R – Louisiana), Jim Inhofe (R – Oklahoma), Jim Bunning (R – Kentucky), Charles Grassley (R – Iowa), John Ensign (R – Nevada) and Jeff Sessions (R – Alabama).

USA Today op-ed piece:

We do not need the Senate immigration bill to secure the border.

Congress has already passed laws authorizing border security, but the Homeland Security Department has failed to fully implement them. The administration already has the authority to build hundreds of miles of border fencing, hire and train 6,000 border patrol agents (bringing the total number of agents to 18,000), end catch and release, and create a national employment verification database. Essentially, all of the security benchmarks in the current Senate bill are already law.

[...]

There are Congressmen who are working to get our borders secured. They need your support. This democrat Congress seems to want to investigate or have hearings on everything. This would be a legitimate subject for their inquisitiveness. Let them call Secretary Chertoff up to Capitol Hill and explain why our southern border isn't secure.

Whatever the administration does, it has to make the effort to enforce the immigration laws and secure the border.

There is about sixteen months until the 2008 elections. There is time to make great strides on border security, to make this a winning issue for the GOP, and time to make it a winning result for America.

It's Dubya's Fault - Hillary

The democrat presidential candidates had a pander fest June 30th at Walt Disney World, attended by 1,000 delegates of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, from across the United States.

Naturally, they took the opportunity to blame the lack of comprehensive immigration reform on President Bush, Republicans, talk radio hosts and conservatives who have called for the building of the really big fence. Apparently, they didn't charge anyone with being a racist, nativist, xenophobe, bigot or of being really loud.

Edwards used the forum to further his class warfare campaign plank of Two Americas:

...warned that without any legislation, the U.S. teeters on becoming a nation of "first-class citizens and second-class workers."

Obama, when he got called out, flip-flopped on the really big fence:

...who voted last year for a 700-mile border fence, seemed taken aback when asked about it during the candidate forum, quickly suggesting he no longer embraces the approach.

Not to worry. If the really big fence somehow gets built, Bill Richardson promised, if elected, to tear it down:

[...] He drew cheers when he vowed that, if elected, "the first thing that will come down is the wall that Congress wants to build."

Did you know Richardson is the only hispanic in the presidential race? And he speaks Spanish really well?

We're not done yet, oh, no.

The master panderer, Hillary, blamed George Bush for the continued poverty in Mexico that's driving the illegal immigrants into the United States:

... she said Bush has ignored the poverty in Mexico that is spawning the flood of immigrants.

I wonder what she thinks the President is supposed to do about the poverty in Mexico? Expect a proposal from the Clinton camp for a poverty abatement program in Mexico that will be paid for with profits taken from big agriculture.

Maybe Mexican voters should consider not electing corrupt politicians and endorsing corrupt government. Last fall they came close to electing a true socialist as el Presidente. I'm sure he would have solved all their problems, as he promised them everything they wanted.

What else will turn out to be George Bush's fault? Stay tuned.

Immigration Enforcement Shifting to Cities and States

The San Jose Mercury News tries hard to paint this as a negative:

The collapse of congressional efforts to overhaul the nation's immigration laws is expected to dramatically accelerate an effort by state and local governments to take matters into their own hands to deal with the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants.

The result, advocates on both sides of the issue say, could be a patchwork of laws and ordinances with vastly different approaches, ranging from measures that harshly penalize illegal immigrants and their employers to the spread of "sanctuary cities" that prohibit police from questioning suspects about their immigration status.

"There's going to be a barrage of local laws dealing with immigration policy," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a leading sponsor of a White House-backed immigration bill that stalled in the Senate this week. "In some areas of the country, it will be sanctuary. In other areas of the country, if you look at someone who looks illegal, you can lose your business license."

Personally, I think this is what federalism is all about. If a state wants to get tough on illegals, great! If a state wants to be lenient, well, they can handle all the problems and costs of illegals without bothering the other states.

Of course, one can hope that a future administration will start penalizing "sanctuary cities" and states, but for now, just letting them bear the burden is good enough for me.

McCain: Courage or Foolhardiness?

Yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote a piece on NRO praising the "courage" of John McCain (R-AZ) in bringing forward the amnesty immigration travesty bill.

It saddens me that so many commentators will judge Senator McCain’s actions by how his role in this debate will impact the next poll or fundraising report. Survival is not the highest virtue in politics. Sacrifice is the highest virtue. In battle we don’t ask which soldier was a success — the one who charged the hill and lives a long life or his friend beside him who falls and leaves a widow and children behind. Whether this week helps or hurts Senator McCain politically is not the point. What matters is that without courage, we all lose.

I've been doing some ruminating, and I think I must respectfully disagree with Sen. Coburn. I see it not as political courage but political foolhardiness.

Coburn relates McCain's courage in military terms, so I will follow his example.

First off, McCain was fighting for the wrong objective. If we go with a military parallel, he was attacking the third house on the block when the objective was the fourth house. He was pushing a de facto amnesty, regardless of how the supporters spin it, and that has been shown by past experience (see 1986 Amnesty bill) to be of little help and probably much harm. As has been pointed out by many others, at the time of the '86 amnesty, we had an estimated 6 million illegals. Now the number is estimated to be two to over three times as many, 12 to 20 million. I don't call a 200-300% increase in the number of illegals a "success." By pushing a bill that would effectively grant all of these people amnesty, McCain showed that he was fighting for the wrong objective.

Secondly, McCain was using the wrong tactics. He was using sneaky closed-door bill-writing, playing fast and loose with the rules of the Senate, bypassing key steps (i.e. committees), and even stooping to tossing around insults about opponents of his bill that are reminiscent of the farthest left wing of the Party of the Donkey (i.e. racist). In military terms, this one is hard to find a parallel for, but we could say that he was relying on a plan that wasn't really kosher and above board, if you see what I mean.

Third, McCain's timing was way off. Doing something this controversial while running for President is ill-advised at best, and the factors above make it an almost sure-fire guarantee of political suicide. In military terms, he's hitting the house at high noon instead of in the dead of night when the US Armed Forces' advantage in night-vision systems would have given a great advantage (yes, this metaphor breaks down a bit when you consider that much of his political maneuvering was "in the dark"--work with me, here). If he could have waited until he was no longer a candidate, for whatever reason, he might have had more success, both with the bill and with his campaign.

Fourth, and finally, he's assaulting an objective that didn't need to be taken. There are laws already on the books that cover everything except his desired amnesty. The proposed bill would have authorized 370 miles of border fence... last year they passed, and Bush signed, a bill authorizing 700 miles of border fence (note that the proposed bill would not have added another 370 miles to the fence). The proposed bill offered another guest worker program... there are already five guest-worker programs in operation. So we really didn't need this bill. Continuing the military metaphor, McCain is assaulting a building that has nothing we need or really want at this time.

Wrong objective, wrong tactics, bad timing, and an unnecessary fight at that. That's not political courage, Senator Coburn. That's political foolhardiness.

Making an American

In the aftermath of the immigration debacle debate, a naturalized American (that is to say, a legal immigrant) writes on what it means to be an American. One short excerpt, then ya gotta read the whole thing.

We cannot forget who we are. We are Americans. This is a great nation. We Americans insist on holding to the connection between freedom and justice, courage and moderation. We think that equality and liberty have ethical and political implications, and, as we have shown time-and-again throughout our history, we are willing to fight and to die to make men free. We need to impart these principles to succeeding generations.

Amen. Now, please, go read the whole thing. And if you aren't moved by it, you're not human.

Fred Slips Up

Looks like Fred committed a Bushism today, and it may come back to bite him.

In his speech, Thompson assailed "unbearable tax burdens," called for restrained spending, and argued for a smaller federal government. He expressed his opposition to the immigration bill in Congress and decried the flow of illegal immigrants from Cuba, saying: "I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb."

Fred's office later contacted NRO with the following clarification:

"I am concerned that Castro might be sending agents into the United States through Mexico. Our porous border is unable to distinguish btween friend and foe. My feeling is that Cuban Americans share this concern."

Now, there is something to that concern, however, it seems Fred could have stated it clearer. As it is, it looked for a while like Fred was attacking the one group of Hispanics that reliably vote Republican.

I just hope the Cuban-Americans forgive him for his slip-up.

Update and bump: Fred has posted a somewhat longer clarification at the Fred File. I think he does a good job of explaining what he meant. I still wish he'd been clearer the first time around, tho.

McCain Camp Lashing Out

I know it's not straight from the candidate's mouth, but an anonymous source in the McCain camp had this to say to the WaPo:

A top fundraiser for the Arizonan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk for the campaign, was more blunt: "It's hurting with the main money guys. Overall, it's definitely a negative."

He added that the constant barrage of criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh is making it difficult to raise money from the conservative wing of the party.

"Like it or not, our base listens to that stuff," the fundraiser said. "Whether it's a good bill or a bad bill or an indifferent bill doesn't matter. The folks who are listening to that stuff, it's hard to persuade them with facts."

Uh, Mr. Fundraiser, don't you mean it's hard to persuade us with spin? Because the facts are very clear about what that bill would have done, and we want no part of it; nor McCain, who was pushing it; nor arrogant fundraisers like you.

With staffers like this, it's no wonder McCain's campaign is going under for the third time.

The American People Win One!

The immigration travesty has gone down in flames, and by a humiliating 46-53 vote. In short, they couldn't even get enough votes for passage, let alone cloture.

The American people, through calls, emails, faxes, and letters, convinced enough Senators that their jobs were on the line if they voted for this, and that's a good thing.

However, don't think that this is the end:

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the key members of the coalition that crafted the bill, warned is Republican colleagues ahead of the vote.

“Remember this day if you vote ‘no,’” Graham said, adding that this bill would not come back in its current form and it is “as good as it gets.”

I guess Senator Graham is looking to be unemployed, because if he keeps angering his constituents, that's where he'll be after his next election.

Addendum: Senator Graham appears to be unclear on how negotiations like this work. If a bill fails, generally one wants to make the next version better, not say this is "as good as it gets" and bring forward a worse bill. I doubt if a bill that's not as good as the one that just died will even get cloture on the first motion. However, if the gentleman from South Carolina wants to commit political suicide by trying even worse bills, far be it from me to stand in his way.

Roll Call on Cloture for Immigration "Reform" Travesty

Linked above is the official Senate roll call on the cloture vote for the Immigration Bill Travesty that is currently being pushed by the increasingly out-of-touch White House.

For ease of reference, here's the Yea votes... if one of these is your Senator, and you oppose this bill, be sure to let them know they have just thrown away your vote in the next election... and then follow through!

Akaka (D-HI) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV)

Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)

Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Cornyn Nails It

Courtesy NRO's Corner, remarks from the Senate Floor by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):

"I continue to hope that we can pass meaningful, safe immigration reform. Everyone knows that our immigration system is broken, and I would like to see it fixed. This bill does not do it.

Finally, one of the biggest problems we have had with this legislation centers around the way that it has been handled. Written behind closed doors, this bill did not even see the light of a committee room. Instead, it proceeded promptly to the floor of the Senate. The short term result was predicable: Senators offered numerous amendments, many of them including important improvements which might have been most appropriately dealt with in the committee process.

The majority leader’s frustration led to that bill being pulled after almost two weeks on the Senate floor. Now, a new bill is back. Instead of learning from our mistakes, the bill has once again been secretly negotiated, and will once again forgo the committee process.

What’s worse, we’ve been told that it will be presented to us with bipartisan amendments already chosen by a select few negotiators, unrepresentative of the wide variety of strongly held views in the Senate.

There are a list of Amendments which I believe ought to be included in this bill, amendments that I think may find support from many of my colleagues. Provisions, Mr. President, such as one which would prevent criminal aliens from delaying and even avoiding their deportation by filing frivolous Z Visa applications and appeals against their denied applications.

Another amendment would prohibit criminal aliens, including gang members and absconders, from tying up our courts by frivolous appeals from the denial of a request for a waiver of grounds for removal. The bottle neck, sure to ensue without these two provisions, will cause extensive delays that will only increase the costs involved with this bill, and allow abuse of the system.

A third would require judges to consider national security implications before issuing nationwide injunctions against immigration enforcement, an essential provision to protecting our border, something this bill claims to do.

I would like to add an amendment preventing those who have committed terrorist acts or aided terrorists from asserting “good moral character,” something which seems so inherently obvious that I am shocked that this bill would allow it. Last year, Mohammed El Shorbagi pleaded guilty to providing material support to the terrorist organization HAMAS. His conviction, however, did not specifically bar him from becoming a U.S. citizen, because under the law aiding an organization which routinely fires rockets on families and neighborhoods, abducts innocent civilians, and has most recently staged a violent coup of an established unity government, does not in any way affect your “good moral character.” It is a dangerous shortcoming of our laws which will not be addressed because of the closed and secretive manner by which this bill is being considered.

I would also like to limit the time frame for an appeal to two years, so that court proceedings don’t drag on endlessly, wasting tax dollars, and allowing an illegal alien to remain indefinitely, under the cover of an appeal.

These are only 5 of the amendments which I think are necessary to make this bill better. Others would make it harder for gang members to qualify, force immigrants to file a change of address notification to DHS when they move, and authorize the detention of dangerous aliens during their deportation trial.

Unfortunately, the majority leader has provided us with no opportunity for these measures to be considered and included in the final bill. Rather, the world’s greatest deliberative body will be presented with a bill that they have not had a full and fair opportunity to debate and amend. Since when did the Senate have so little say in the shaping of the legislation which they vote on? Since when did the majority leader get to force legislation on the rest of the Senate?

I cannot support this flawed bill or this broken, secret process that produced it. I hope my colleagues will join me in insisting upon the free and open debates which are the hallmark of the Senate, and which are the only possible path forward to providing a rational and common sense answer to the challenge of immigration reform."

Go get 'em, John!

THIS is How You Do Immigration Reform

Turns out one country on this planet knows how to take care of illegal immigrants... and it ain't the US:

...reform needs to focus on tough sanctions against illegal immigration, cultural assimilation, a paring back of family reunification, greater language competence and job skills, and temporary-worker programs that are truly temporary.

Which country is this?

France.

Yes, France, home of the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

Turns out Sarkozy wants to get tough with illegal immigration, and so does the rest of the EU:

The European Union has just proposed a tough new plan, featuring sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Under the proposed new policy, ten percent of Europe’s companies would be inspected every year, employers would be required to run identity checks, fines would be levied on business violators, and employers who repeatedly or egregiously breach hiring laws would be subject to severe economic penalties or imprisonment.

For once, I think America would do well to emulate the European model.

And maybe I can go back to being proud of my French heritage.

Immigration "Reform" Supporters Claim Empty Boxes Contain Letters

Somebody got caught trying to pull one over on the media and the public, and it wasn't the opponents of the so-called immigration "reform" bill.

Lawmakers were pointing to "empty boxes" at a press conference last Thursday, a Capitol Hill newspaper reports.

"At a pro-immigration rally Thursday, a group of politicians including Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) addressed reporters while picturesquely standing in front of an impressive tower of boxes they said contained letters from a million supporters of comprehensive immigration reform," Emily Heil reports for Roll Call's 'Heard on the Hill.'

[snip]

"As the Members repeatedly referred to the letters and gestured toward the boxes allegedly containing them as evidence of the support for the immigration bill that is struggling in the Senate, a crack Roll Call photographer on hand at the event began to grow suspicious," Heil continues. "He could see light shining through the handles of the boxes, indicating that they weren’t full."

The paper reveals, "Sure enough, a quick check revealed that the boxes were, indeed, completely empty."

Ya know, that makes a perfect metaphor for the immigration bill itself. They make grandiose claims, but when you look inside, what they claim isn't in there.

Hat Tip to the indispensable Wizbang.

Comprehensive Immigration "Reform": Making It Easier for Terrorists

The Heritage Foundation took a good hard look at the current bill and finds some serious issues with the claim that it increases homeland security:

Under Sections 601 (h)(1) and (5) of the bill, if an ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agent apprehends any alien who appears eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot detain him. Instead, ICE must provide the alien a reasonable opportunity to apply for the Z visa. This stands in stark contrast to the status quo, in which ICE can place the alien in detention and immediately initiate removal proceedings.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Read the whole thing (link in the title) to be really scared.

I Never Thought I'd Say This...

... but I agree with John Edwards:

On other national issues, Edwards was asked about his views on immigration.

Edwards said he preferred to respond in the context of the immigration bill that has been considered by the U.S.Senate. While Edwards said the bill clarifies the laws on immigration, he does not think the bill creates a practical path to citizenship for immigrants, which is what he would like to see.

Emphasizing that he does not favor amnesty but “earned citizenship,” Edwards said he is opposed to any measure that creates “a first-class group of citizens and a second-class group of laborers. This is what results from the current bill .”

“I think there should be fines if they came here illegally, and, this is the controversial part, I think they should learn to speak English,” Edwards said.

Edwards said he favors a much tougher stance on those employers in the United States who knowingly hire, and in many cases, abuse illegal immigrants. His latter statement, as well as that on requiring new immigrants to speak English, drew applause from the town meeting crowd.

So, now we have bipartisan dislike of the bill, to cancel out bipartisan approval. Can we kill it now?

Michelle Malklin Blows the Lid Off Immigration and Amnesty

That's all I can say about it. She literally blows the lid off it. (Title is the link, as usual)

Now, if enough people pay attention and complain... and actually throw the bums out that are doing this...

...and other daydreams.

One Side Doesn't Want to Debate Immigration

The editors at National Review have reiterated... for the second time... an invitation to the editors of the pro-amnesty Wall Street Journal to debate the immigration "reform" bill.

So far, it seems the WSJ editors are more interested in spinning than in a substantive debate:

Paul Gigot, in contrast, told the New York Times that he has no appetite for such a debate because he invited two NR writers to come on his Fox News show to discuss the bill the week before last. Both declined for scheduling reasons.

But dueling sound bites on a TV show moderated by Paul Gigot is not the kind of debate we have in mind. We’re challenging the Journal to a Firing Line –style debate — an extensive, detailed engagement on all the important issues surrounding the immigration bill.

Once again: Our challenge is two or three of us against two of three of them, in a neutral venue, with a moderator of the Journal’s choosing. What could be fairer? And who can doubt that the bill — the most important immigration reform in decades — deserves such an airing? “I wish we could lift up the level of discourse and dialogue,” Sen. John McCain said the other day. That’s exactly what we hope to do.

As we’ve mentioned before, in their recent videotaped editorial meeting, the Journal’s editors said that opponents of the bill are irrational and bereft of arguments. If that’s really the case, they should be willing to come out and prove it. What could they possibly have to fear?

In other words, the Journal says they want to debate their way, not the way a real, substantive debate should be done. And note that National Review will permit the Journal to pick the moderator.

The fact that the proponents of this travesty of a bill won't even engage in a true debate should speak volumes about it.

Views on the Immigration Fiasco from Outside the Beltway

Human Events went around the country to talk to GOP officials about this travesty called an immigration bill, and what they heard wasn't pretty:

Some state chairmen declined comment, perhaps out of deference to the Republican President. “They want to support the President on this, but need to be convinced those who’ve broken the law are not being given a pass” says one chairman. Others who did agree to speak were clear: conservatives, indeed voters in general, are not pleased. Benkiser says that Texans are “angry and disgusted.” She says that whatever the subject matter of state party communications to voters the answer comes back: “unless you secure the borders and enforce the laws we don’t want to talk to you.” Hoffman reports that “voters can’t understand why such a simple solution and an overwhelming majority” doesn’t lead to a far different proposal stressing border security. He notes that GOP headquarters has been “flooded” with angry calls. Saul Anuzis of Michigan is more circumspect, saying voters are “cautious and concerned” while Republicans (and all voters) in Maryland are “very upset” according to Pleura. Priebus also confirms that voters in Wisconsin are “not happy” and have “grave concerns” about the Senate compromise. Pitney agrees that in California “GOP activists are upset about the Senate bill.” A western state chairman says one thing is clear: the base is extremely frustrated with President Bush.

Opinions are mixed on how this will impact Mr. McCain, given that most anti-illegal people weren't really in his camp to begin with. However, I believe that this underestimates the number of registered Republicans who don't pay attention to politics on a day-to-day basis that will nonetheless be very dissatisfied with this bill. Expect McCain's opponents to hang this albatross around his neck every chance they get.

Don't call the moving company to take your stuff to the Oval Office yet, Mr. McCain.