The Facts: Congress on Immigration

Immigration bills have been something of a hot item in the Senate lately:

* S.2394 on border security
* S.2326 on immigration reform, mostly regarding employment
* S.2365 on sharing immigration information
* S.2377 and S.2368, calling for "the construction along the southern international land border between the United States and Mexico, starting at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward to the Gulf of Mexico, of at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing," among other border security and enforcement measures

All but one of these bills (S.2368) was referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Senate also sent to that committee the House-approved bill (H.R.4437) aimed at toughening immigration laws and strengthening border security.

Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee makes it easy to figure out what measures they're considering. The committee is working off a document called the Chairman's Mark. Click here to download the PDF of the Chairman's Mark (497K), current as of March 8. It has been amended since and will be amended further, most likely on Monday, but this is the most up-to-date version of the whole bill that's out there, and it serves as the framework for the committee's deliberations. Warning: It's long -- 306 pages. The table of contents alone takes up more than two pages, and that's in extra small print.

Next week, the immigration bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will be up for consideration by the full Senate. Frist's bill, S. 2454, is a mere 244 pages and is more concerned with border security than with employment issues. (The Chairman's Mark dives into both.) Click here to download the PDF of Sen. Frist's bill or just follow this link to see it for yourself.

Some say Sen. Frist introduced the bill to put pressure on the Judiciary Committee to finish up work on the comprehensive bill; others call the move one of presidential politics, given that Frist is expected to run in 2008. But word from Frist's office is that he was just trying to stick to the schedule he'd laid out previously, which had immigration reform being debated by the Senate the week of March 27.

Staff at the Senate Judiciary Committee and at Sen. Frist's office confirmed that the plan is for the Judiciary version -- when and if it gets out of committee -- to replace Frist's bill on the floor. (This can be done using the amendment process.)

It's worth noting that as serious as members of Congress appear to be about immigration enforcement, they're perfectly willing to make generous exceptions to the rules when it suits them. One glaring example is this appropriations bill into which an amendment was inserted that would expedite the citizenship process to allow a Canadian figure skater to become U.S. citizen in time to compete in the Olympics.

In a post later today, I'll provide plenty of links for general immigration information and statistics.

By Emily Messner |  March 21, 2006; 10:48 AM ET  | Category:  Facts
Previous: The Paranoid Fringe of the Immigration Debate | Next: A Note About The Debate

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701924.html

===========================================
Tom Rosenstiel, a former reporter and now director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, believes two problems have damaged usefulness and profitability. "Too many newspapers are edited for journalists, sources and prizes," he said. He also believes newspapers have made a mistake by ignoring immigrants, blue-collar communities and poorer neighborhoods, preferring a more elite readership. "They cut off their future." (The Post made a smart move in buying El Tiempo Latino, a local Spanish-language newspaper.)
===========================================

This "The Debate" issue needs a major disclaimer.

It is very much biased.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 10:57 AM

Emily, I'm afraid you're just not working out. Didn't you read your comments section yesterday?

You said you'd take on the best anti-illegal immigration arguments after you got the "paranoid," "wacky," "absurd," "xenophobic," "racist," "lunatic" "fringe" out of the way (all your terms).

So we waited patiently, and the first thing you do is dull us to death with a litany of 244- and 306-page bills before congress. You don't even bother to summarize them in your usual pro-illegal immigration fashion.

If there's a worse, less-productive way to hold an immigration debate than what you've given us so far, I don't know what it is. Didn't you learn anything as a 2005 Post Summer Intern?

http://www.washpost.com/news_ed/summer_internships/bios2005b.shtml

C'mon, Emily. Stop being coy! Give us some real topics to discuss, like "How to Solve the Illegal Alien Problem". I'd love to hear a clearly-stated, non-obfuscatory answer from you on that one. Then your comments section could tear you to shreds like we did yesterday.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 11:02 AM

Emily wrote:
===========================================
One glaring example is this appropriations bill into which an amendment was inserted that would expedite the citizenship process to allow a Canadian figure skater to become U.S. citizen in time to compete in the Olympics.
===========================================

That is not abnormal. There are different levels of immigration in this country. One allows those with high cultural/scientific/medical attributes to get in very quickly. They must be in like the top 1% of their profession to qualify, too.

They come in LEGALLY, and won't become a burden to the taxpayer, and add to the country in the sciences, arts and medicine.

No one is saying those folks shouldn't immigrate, folks are saying ILLEGALS don't belong here.

ILLEGALS. Get it????

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 11:04 AM

Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_questions_official_911_story_audio.htm

PLEASE EMILY, JUST LET THIS ONE, OR AT LEAST LISSEN TO IT, AND THEN DECIDE.

YOUR SECRET ADMIRER,

CHE

Posted by: che | March 21, 2006 11:07 AM

Che,

Go back to DU or KoS or whatever partisan forum that's your base. This topic is about immigration, not 9/11.

Shoo, gadfly, shoo!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 11:09 AM

Che,

You crazy spammer. Now they've gone and put all sort of spam filters in to interfere with the regular posts.

You should be ashamed of yourself. And now you've resorted to begging to be able to post. What a weenie you are!

Posted by: Borg | March 21, 2006 11:13 AM

I blame Emily. She may be good-looking, but she managed to make an interesting, important subject like illegal immigration dull today with her post. I'd almost rather listen to Che's crapola.

Step up to the plate, Em!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 11:16 AM

The Post is so consistently biased in favor of illegal immigrants, that the one-sided nature of these 'debates' is not surprising at all. The Post's reporters and editors truly believe that they are doing God's work in promoting the interests of Third World illegal aliens. In effect, they decide what story they want to tell first (in this case, illegals are great, and restrictionists are bigots), then they go find it. That's immigration reporting at the Washington Post. Welcome to.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 11:31 AM

OK, what's gotten into you folks? While (some of) you hide behind fake names and pseudonyms you feel it is OK to snipe at Emily.

SandyK wrote:
"This "The Debate" issue needs a major disclaimer. It is very much biased."

Now let's take a look in SandyK's dictionary.

biased (adj.) when someone takes a differing position on an issue than I do.

SandyK, you've been around on this blog long enough to see Emily called a tool for conservatives somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan and a liberal somewhere to the left of Che Guevara. Biased? Come on. And where is the bias in THIS post? Seriously? It seems to me that you just like throwing around labels whenever anyone disagrees with you.

DC Dude, that intern thing was a low blow. We've all got to start somewhere.

And Che, get the message. Go away! And Emily can have only one secret admirer and I've already applied for that job. (Still waiting to hear back on that one... Emily?)

Alright, that's enough for now.

Play nice, children.

Derek.

Posted by: Derek | March 21, 2006 11:39 AM

Virginia,

Obviously you're right. Even last week when they printed the entirely rational op-ed by Robert Samuelson calling for a wall to be built along the entire US-Mexican border, they buttressed it with the usual Ruth Marcus and Nurith ("N.C."!) Aizenman pro-illegal agitprop. So much for objectivity -- these are writers with an agenda.

What's also intensely grating is that the Post writers are so gung ho about illegal immigration and so quick to label opponents racists -- but then where do all the Post writers actually live and send their kids to school? Illegal immigrant-free Bethesda, baby! I bet Em winds up there someday, if she's not there already.

Bethesda is a wonderful perch from which to write about the wonders of illegal immigration, since you only get the good (cheap labor) without the bad (the illegals don't actaully live near you or go to school with your kids).

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 11:40 AM

I was not aware of the Canadian figure skater getting expedited treatment in the immigration process. That is obscene. Maybe I should have worn a pink tutu and done a pirouette at my residency interview and I could have not only gotten residency faster but citizenship to boot!

Pete.

Posted by: Peter Best | March 21, 2006 11:46 AM

Derek,

Not to sound too playground-ish, but Emily started the insult-fest, we're just throwing it back at her. She began yesterday by insinuating that many of those who disagree with her are "racist," "paranoid," "absurd," "lunatics," "fringe," and "xenophobic". These are not terms you throw around when you want an honest debate.

As far as the definition of "biased" goes, I think you've got it wrong. I can't speak for SandyK, but I love hearing opinions different from my own, since they test my beliefs and may prove me (gulp!) wrong. The problem here is that Emily started off (using her foresnics / debate training!) framing the terms of the discussion in a laughably biased way, and she got dragged across the coals for it in her comments section (see her first post this week).

The commentators on these boards are running about 7-1 in favor of stopping illegal immigration. Emily obviously disagrees -- so let's hear your real opinion, Emily! Just spell it out for us and let us debate this topic on its merits.

I can't put it any more clearly: Emily Messner, what do YOU think we should do about the illegal immigration situation? Your commenters await.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 11:46 AM

For those familiar with Monty Python:

"And now for something completely different"

[Insert argument about immigration itself rather than about Emily and/or the Post]

Rolls eyes...

Derek.

Posted by: Derek | March 21, 2006 11:48 AM

Alright Derek, I'm in agreement. So let's you and me make it interesting. In 100 words or less, what would you do about the illegal immigration situation in the US? You go, and then I'll go. Gotta be 100 words or less. Then other people can go if they want.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 11:50 AM

The immigration debate is not about borders. Its about supplementing the profits of the agricultural, construction, and related industries. Its sort of a macro-WallMart problem. These industries have figured out how to climb on the backs of every American and make more money than even the protections of Congress previous afforded them.
The illegality of hiring undocumented workers is not enforced by any Law Enforcement agency, except the Border Patrol. Get in and it's easy to find a job. You don't have to pay any US taxes, and (since you are illegal anyway) you can ignore housing laws. You can put 15 of your closest friends into a 1 bedroom unit to save money so that as much of your low income as possible gets to be sent right out of the US to support your family in another country. This is even easier because if you get sick, the US hospitals will care for you - the American people pick up that tab. Also easy because your kids can go to good schools here - the American people pick up that tab also. And, the easiest part is that the US Congress is going to pretend to solve the problem by beefing up the border, while the corporations that will hire you will entertain congresspeople so that their little crime is not unconvered.

Posted by: Reboot | March 21, 2006 11:51 AM

I would like to see Emily (and other Posties) explain in some detail what they would do about illegal immigration. It's very cheap and easy to rhetorically throw one's fist in the air in support of "the People" (i.e., illegal aliens from the Third World), but the rest of us grown-ups have to actually decide on a policy. The Post's editorial page has an explicit policy: Open Borders and a guest worker plan. They defend that policy not through reason, but through labelling opponents as "nativists," "racists", "close-minded," "unrealistic", etc. etc. The Post's editorial page is likely very unhappy that immigration is being debated at all, because they know that the majority of Americans would prefer a restrictionist approach (62% in this Zogby poll: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200603%5CNAT20060320b.html)

I'd like to know if the Post's reporters agree with the editorial page's position, or if instead their consistent bias is really just a sort of juvenile affinity for "The Other" and all things foreign.

NOTE TO EMILY IN PARTICULAR: Xenophilia is just as irrational as xenophobia.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 11:55 AM

Virginia Dare writes:
"I would like to see Emily (and other Posties) explain in some detail what they would do about illegal immigration."

I've been calling for Emily to do this, too. How about it, Emily? Will you tell us in clear language what you'd do about illegal immigration? Emily? Are you there?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 11:59 AM

I have a question for us all to consider. Given that the Karlrovian wedge issue of the last election was gay marriage, I wonder whether it will be illegal immigration this election? It could easily split the Dems, between those on the left who think that we should liberalise immmigration policy and trade unionists (among others) who are against illegal immigration.

As a proud Northern Virginian, my attitudes to immigration have changed substantially over the past several years. I once felt that we should send 'em all home. But as I walk past building sites every day I realise that our skyline might look a little different if it weren't for the plethora of legal and illegal immigrants helping to build it.

And the day laborer issue in Herndon last year hit a real nerve for me. I thoroghly agreed with the Council's idea for a day laborer center. The current situation was terrible, and a realistic solution was needed, especially given the reluctance of the authorities with the power to do anything about the immigrants to actually do anything. It is not as if the Council itself had the power to deport illegal immigrants it found.

It does bother me, though, that work is being done by illegal immigrants tax- and social security/medicare contributions-free. I think we should be focusing our outrage on employers who deliberately employ illegal immigrants as cheap labor. The illegal immigrants are part offender and part victim in all this. Many of them live in poverty and are treated like dirt by their employers, with no legal recourse. Just like the drug problem - if we target the suppliers more than the users, the enforcement will be more effective. Just as if we target the unscrupulous employers more than the immigrants, I think enforcement will be more effective. Even if we tried, it is not as if we could send every illegal immigrant in this country home.

And Peter Best, I have no idea what you look like, but I am certain you would look ridiculous in a pink tutu.

Derek.

Posted by: Derek | March 21, 2006 12:03 PM

Immigration Policy in 100 Words or Less

(1). Build a fence along the entire U.S. border with Mexico;
(2). Require employers to verify the legal status of prospective employees through a unified Federal database;
(3). Impose fines of $10,000 per violation for employers that fail to check the legal status of employees;
(4). Issue a federal statute ending 'birthright citizenship' and requiring legal status for parents in order for children to automatically become citizens.

This approach will (a) keep many new illegals out; (b) cause current illegals to self-deport because they won't be able to work; and (c) end the dual lures of easy off-the-books work, and birthright citizenship.

How about it?

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 12:04 PM

Derek,

Your comments are heartfelt, but you don't appear to come to a coherent conclusion re illegal immigration. On one hand you seem to support it ("But as I walk past building sites every day I realise that our skyline might look a little different if it weren't for the plethora of legal and illegal immigrants helping to build it."), but in the next breath you imply that you don't ("It does bother me, though, that work is being done by illegal immigrants tax- and social security/medicare contributions-free.")

One of the most insidious and downright false arguments made by pro-illegal writers (at the Post especailly) is that we simply *can't* do anything about illegal immigration. The number here is already too great, they say, and we must be "realistic" about what can be done about the intense immigration pressure from poor countries in Latin America.

This is garbage. Doing what Derek says -- going after employers who hire illegals -- would solve the illegal immigration problem in a year or two. Illegals move where the jobs are, and if they can't easily get a job, they go home. Simple solution, with no new laws needed; just enforce the ones already on the books.

Do it!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 12:08 PM

Sorry, DC Dude, only just saw your challenge. Hmm. 100 words or less. That'll be tough. OK, here goes:

Establish a guest worker program for industries where it can be established that there is a shortage of American workers. Then allow short-term (maybe 3 year) non-renewable visas for low-skilled immigrants to work those jobs. Also, increase punishments for employers deliberately employing essentially almost 'slave' immigrant labor. Begin amnesty program for current illegals in the country - they could be eligible for the guest worker program. However, if they have been here for more than 5 years, it would be unreasonable to send them home. Some kind of residency program perhaps? Make them legal and make them pay taxes.

Ha! 99 words.

Derek.

Posted by: Derek | March 21, 2006 12:09 PM

Derek-

You seem playfully indignat to the fact that Emily has framed this debate in an entirely one sided way and it doesn't require a magnifying glass over her Blog-entries to recognize that. Her first post exposed that bias when she self-importantly linked "Xenophobia" to her own blog entry where people disagreed with her position on the Dubai ports deal for all to see. From that post, Emily: "Sounds like knee-jerk xenophobia to me... [and] frankly, it's not fair." Well, I guess that's settled.

Her next post entry was a patronizing depreciation of the entire debate portraying white supremacists and paranoid backwoodsman as the face of stricter immigration enforcement.

Which is insulting, really, because I don't consider myself a white supremacist anymore than I consider myself a paranoid backwoodsman. But I do have an interest in discussing the various merits of each position of this debate, even if Ms. Messner does not.

And that brings us to you, Derek, where you cheerfully make joking comments about the issue without ever contributing any substantive contributions. And when all is said and done the best you can muster is demand that we offer more than ad hominems (which I have not resorted to) of Emily? There's about 60 posts in the previous entry that have everything to do with Illegal Immigration and nothing do with Emily Messner's preconceived notions of it. Yet you were reluctant to address those concerns at face value in the previous post and you are reluctant to do so here.

Instead you are a shameless cheerleader for Emily doing a dual disservice to her and her readership. Emily has proven time and time again capable of defending her own positions. All her readership asks is that she admit a certain bias or argue her position directly. She defended herself aptly in the Dubai port's deal and she can do so now, with or without you sidelining her fight with chants of "Give me an E! Give me an M!" -- garbage.

And you do us a disservice because you have yet to actually contribute anything. All the while those who have contributed arguments are left scratching our heads wondering why this "Derek" insists we think for him.

Give me a break.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 12:09 PM

Virginia Dare --

Works for me! I'd love to see anyone else's plan in 100 words or less. Emily, Derek? Enough of the heartrending, fence-straddling prose. What's your course of action? Virginia Dare's is the best so far...

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 12:09 PM

Thanks for taking up the challenge, Derek!

A coupla questions:

1) How would you determine what fields actually have a shortage of American workers, and what fields employers just don't want to pay the prevailing American wage? Congress already has a system and a limit for such workers. If employers can't find someone to build houses for $10/hr, they can pay $12.

2) We've tried amnesty twice before, both times being promised that the borders would be secured afterwards. Didn't work at all either time -- in fact it increased the number of illegals coming, since they logically concluded another amnesty would follow at some point. Why should we think an amnesty this time would be any different?

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 12:13 PM

Emily is totally playing "ignore the commenters". That's weak, Em. Engage us!

[EMILY RESPONDS: I think it's obvious to most regular Debaters that I certainly don't ignore the comments -- just look back at all the posts I write that reference different Debaters arguments.

At the moment, I can't write comments myself because -- I swear this is true, and believe me, it's incredibly aggravating -- for some reason the blogging system won't accept comments from my IP address. I've tried to comment from other Post computers but they have the same problem. The tech folks tell me it's just an inexplicable glitch that will be fixed when we switch to the new system -- coming soon -- and I believe them, but it is very annoying.

If I want to comment, I actually have to call someone outside the building and ask him or her to put in a placeholder comment for me, which I can then edit from inside the blog software. Or I can just insert my note into an existing comment like I did here, but I really, really don't like to do that.

In the meantime, feel free to put in placeholder comments for me here and there and I'll fill them in at my earliest opportunity. Just please, not too many -- there is a lot more to my job beyond The Debate, so as much as I'd love to spend all my time engaging with you guys (and I mean it when I say that I would love to) I do have a job that keeps me ridiculously busy most of the day. So busy, in fact, that I'm in the office for nine hours a day and no, I don't take lunches.

Thanks for understanding. Okay, fire away!]

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 12:15 PM

Derek's plan includes:

"Establish a guest worker program for industries where it can be established that there is a shortage of American workers."

This is the problem. You can't prove that there is a shortage in the absence of above-board competition. If the labor market is low-skilled, then employers will always say there is a shortage of workers willing to work at the wages the employers wish to provide. Think about it this way: If construction paid $200,000 a year, there would be no shortage of Americans willing to do that work. If it pays only $20,000, then there's a shortage. But the solution to that shortage is not to bring in more workers willing to accept lower wages. READ THIS CLOSELY: The solution is to have employers raise their wages until they reach a point where Americans will again willingly accept the job. Simple supply and demand, within the context of the American nation and its borders.

Any argument to the contrary will, in effect, require an assumption that the nation-state is an outdated concept and that labor markets should be borderless. Do you believe that, Derek?

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 12:17 PM

DC Dude, you are right, in that I am somewhat torn on this issue. I do think illegal immigrants, whether we like them or not, have been responsible for contributing to the economy and indeed the skyline here in NoVa. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily perfect. I would just like to see a happy medium (which I think my 99 words would be, for me at least).

A wall may sound good in theory, but not in practice. It would only increase the market for ladders and tunneling equipment. Plus, it would not address illegals who come here legally but outstay their visas (a class of illegal often forgotten in these debates). And just wait until a leftist Mexican President walks out to the wall, and calls on President Jeb Bush in the year 2013, "Mr. President, tear down this wall."* And again, a wall on the Mexican border would not address those freeloading Canadians who were addressed in yesterday's comments. Anyway, I digress.

I think the people arguing that the problem is too big are not necessarily pro-illegal immigration. I think they just have a realistic impression of the incompetence of the U.S. immigration enforcement and border protection agencies.

*For full disclosure I stole that joke from NPR.

Derek.

Posted by: Derek | March 21, 2006 12:17 PM

Derek-

"But as I walk past building sites every day I realise that our skyline might look a little different if it weren't for the plethora of legal and illegal immigrants helping to build it."

The "plethora" of immigrants that built your skyline were certainly not legal. And though your skyline would look different it would lack an underclass of illegal, exploited workers. This has its own kind of aesthetic appeal. No doubt many a slave owner often wondered how his Victorian home would look had he been forced to purchase it with his labors as opposed to the labor of unpaid "employees". But the the skylines are so pretty, yes?

If we really started "focusing our outrage on employers who deliberately employ illegal immigrants as cheap labor" then the effect would be no different. If employers were held accountable, as they should be, then they would have no incentive to hire illegal immigrants and the flood of them crossing the border would dissipate.

It's hard for me to understand the "victimhood" of illegal immigrants. Clearly you must think them pretty stupid, since these poor victims willfully enter this country by the truck load to enjoy the severe victimhood we put them through. What with all the housing, hospitals, and prisons we provide for them at no tax-cost... the 3 million a year crossing the border must be real Sadists, huh?

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 12:20 PM

DC Dude,

1. Way above my pay grade. I'm sure a process could be devised, and I am even surer the federal government could screw it up. Maybe if employers had to pay an added tax for employing guest workers, that would make it more expensive for them to employ guest workers than Americans. In that case, economically, employers would be forced to only employ guest workers if absolutely necessary.

2. Fair point. But I do worry about the horrible effects on, for example, chilren of illegal immigrants if they were deported. I know it is not ideal, but we can't punish their kids. And of course, if we said we'll only give amnesty to those with kids, they'll all be having kids 9 months from now. It really is tough.

Virginia Dare:

I think #1 above addresses your point. Anyway, I don't believe in a stateless world, even though we're a long way there already. For if there was a stateless world, it would take the fun out of international travel... and who would we play at the Olympics? Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Posted by: Derek | March 21, 2006 12:25 PM

Derek,

Again, the idea that "if we build a wall, they'll just climb over it" is false. The wall built south of San Diego in 2001 has decreased illegal immigration there by 95%.

And let's brush aside this silliness equating the US-Mexico border wall with the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall was designed to keep people *in*. The US-Mexico border wall will be designed to keep people *out*. It's the difference between having a lock on your basement door to keep someone imprisoned down there and having a lock on your front door to keep criminals out. One's completely immoral, the other completely moral.

Derek, America is extremely welcoming to immigrants. We allow 800,000 in per yea legally, which is about 1/3 of the total legal immigrants allowed into any country anywhere in the world. We are a beacon of hope for these immigrants, but there is a limit to what we can absorb, and, as you can see from these and other comment boards, we've reached that limit. It's time to end illegal immigration now.

I'm guessing you don't have kids. If you did, you'd know what illegal immigration has done to the public schools in Northern Virginia. That's a more telling sign of trouble than how pretty the skyline looks.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 12:25 PM

Derek wrote:
===========================================
SandyK, you've been around on this blog long enough to see Emily called a tool for conservatives somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan and a liberal somewhere to the left of Che Guevara. Biased? Come on. And where is the bias in THIS post? Seriously? It seems to me that you just like throwing around labels whenever anyone disagrees with you.
===========================================

The message is for the WP. There's clear biased here, and if you bothered to read that snippet I posted on top of the thread, you'll see why the pro-immigration stance stems from.

It's one thing to debate, but calling anyone or any group a "kook" for disagreeing that ILLEGALS should have the same rights as citizens is "kooky" to begin with -- it doesn't usher a debate, it seals it.

And since Emily is an experienced debater (and I was the same on the debate team too, Emily) she knows better to present material fairly. A disclaimer would've alleviated much grief.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 12:28 PM

Derek says: "Maybe if employers had to pay an added tax for employing guest workers, that would make it more expensive for them to employ guest workers than Americans. In that case, economically, employers would be forced to only employ guest workers if absolutely necessary."

Under your plan, there would be no real guest worker plan, because you have made it more expensive to hire foreigners than Americans. The only reason anyone wants a guest worker plan is to ensure a supply of workers who are cheaper than American employees.

So what is the point of your plan? A guest worker program that no one will use?

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 12:30 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Americans don't want the Bush or Clinton "modified" immigration. They by 80-20 percentages, want it STOPPED until we can restore middleclass wages, assimilate the 40 million added plus their copious ninos and ninas, and try and salvage the black American natives that now have 51% unemployment of young black males + 8% in prison of black men in their late teens and 20s."

Chris,

You have little regard for the "black American natives". You're only trying to play two groups against one another to achieve your own racist goals. My ancestors were here long before yours, so who made you elected king of immigration by race? The biggest victims are the "natives", the original inhabitants. Native Americans have been forces off of lands for......, but no one here has shown any concern, including Emily?

Illegal immigration is only one symptom of the much larger global problem of over population. Funny, I see so many issues brought up, but other than myself, forgive me if I am in error, no one has mentioned or commented in response to my postings of global over population. We can keep on bickering "till the cows come home", but until the root cause of illegal immigration is addressed, the problem will not go away.

Until the major religions reverse stances on family planning to control over population. No fence will by high enough, no number of border guards sufficient enough, no laws strong enough, no law enforcement adequate enough. Unfortunately the control of major religions, with their antiquated doctrines, on world politics is increasing with time, the more followers of a religion the more human and financial resources that religion will have. We live on an island in space, as population grows, and non-renewable resources decline, not just the United States, but the world as a whole will have a bleak future.

We invade another country under the premise of "pre-emptive strike", because of a terrorist. But we can not target birth control counseling as part of a foreign aid package? Most of the future terrorists and going to come from countries where a not enough jobs exist for all of its citizens.

Welcome back Che, would love to hear original commet from you.

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice, Emily Messner continues to ignore the fact that she's getting raked over the coals by her comments section. Later she'll dine at Lauriol Plaza and tell a fellow 26-year-old what "lunatics" and "racists" and "xenophobes" express such "absurd" and "paranoid" positions on the Washington Post site. "When you're dealing with extremists," her friend will say, "you can never be too careful."

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 12:34 PM

Jamal, can you be a little more concise? I don't get your point.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 12:35 PM

Pete wrote:
===========================================
I was not aware of the Canadian figure skater getting expedited treatment in the immigration process. That is obscene. Maybe I should have worn a pink tutu and done a pirouette at my residency interview and I could have not only gotten residency faster but citizenship to boot!
===========================================

If you're not the top 1% of your profession (a legit one), it doesn't apply.

This is a special immigration waiver that goes to the top athletes, top scientists, top doctors, Nobel Prize recipents...you know the creme of the crop?

It's offered in special circumstances for those who will be a credit to have as citizens (as they produce one of a kind services -- top stem cell researcher; top thoratic surgeon; top drug chemist trying to find a cure for cancer; top structural engineer; top astro-physist -- you get the picture).

Only a handful are awarded yearly (as the top 1% is rare). Get it now? RARE?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 12:37 PM

DC Dude,

Ya getting tiresome and boorish with the attacks on EM. Go back and read her post from yesterday. Her point was she wanted to deal with the fringe lunatics up front once and for all so we can have a serious debate on this politically explosive issue from now on. Let me give you a bit more to chew on. Maybe the fact that a twenty five year old is tackling this issue is because the more seasoned ones know this can be a career destroying minefield if they are not careful around it. Got it?

Posted by: Borg | March 21, 2006 01:01 PM

Jamal-

I agree that American policy towards birth control is draconian. This does not mean the core "issue" of Illegal Immigration is our birth control or family planning policy. It is the Mexican family planning policy which is largely enforced by the catholic church on its members.

The United States has a 14 (out of 1,000 people) birth rate which is well below the global average. It's still probably too high, but that has more to do with the flood of immigrants than it does with our domestic family planning policy.

Some things could change about how the American Government treats birth control, but painting this issue as one of family planning and not about millions of Mexican citizens breaking American law every year is water muddying.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 01:02 PM

SandyK,

Stop defending congress on that figure skater from Canada. The law should not be bent to benefit one specific person like that. Like the US really needs a figure skater from Canada. Even if she wins what's the glory in it? People would say she's really Canadian.

Posted by: Borg | March 21, 2006 01:05 PM

Borg,

Fair enough. Emily wanted to get the fringe out of the way -- only one side's fringe, mind you -- and now she did. But is it unreasonable for me to ask her to tell us her opinion of what we should do about the immigration situation? All I want is her honest opinion. Other commenters have asked, too. How about it, Emily? Just tell us what you think!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 01:10 PM

Borg-

What is important is that the legal and expedited immigration policy of a Canadian figure skater has nothing to do with enforcement of illegal immigration down south. It does not expose some grand racist hypocricy. The United States reserves the right to offer citizenship to whomever it wants legally (like Albert Einstein in 1940), that is part of US sovereignty. It also has the right to deny immigration (which is excercises less than virtually any country in the world because the US really is generous).

I agree that is is silly for the US to grant premature citizenship to a figure skater because I don't watch figure skating. But it isn't racist, and it doesn't affect this debate one way or the other.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 01:13 PM

Borg,

Re SandyK's comment, what's wrong with the government choosing to let in certain immigrants and not others based on how useful they will be to American society? That sounds totally rational to me, yet the Post keeps running pieces against it.

Granted, we ought to always have room in the mix for some members of the poor huddled masses, but it seems like entirely rational and smart immigration policy to have exceptions for people who will benefit the country to an exceptional degree.

It's also hypocritical to have the Post cry about lack of fair treatment when they're so pro-illegal, since illegals are essentially line-jumpers, as many of the pissed-off legal immigrants on this board have noted.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 01:14 PM

DC Dude- "What's also intensely grating is that the Post writers are so gung ho about illegal immigration and so quick to label opponents racists -- but then where do all the Post writers actually live and send their kids to school? Illegal immigrant-free Bethesda, baby!"

Well of course they're so gung ho about illegal immigration. After all these are the folks that show up to their Bethesda/Potomac/Great Falls homes to mow their lawns, clean their pools and nanny their kids....and then conveniently disappear at the end of the day.

Reminds me of a great line from a rage Against the Machine song, "Down Rodeo":

"These people ain't seen a brown skin man
Since their grandparents bought one."

Posted by: D. | March 21, 2006 01:14 PM

Emily has just left a comment upthread embedded in one of my comments. Apparently she's having technical difficulties and can't easily post comments here at the moment.

Alright, Em. I'll lay off for now, but you've got to promise to come play with us later. There are people here like me who want to change your mind about the illegal immigration problem, and we'd like the chance to do that!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 01:24 PM

Virginia Dare wrote her version of an immigration policy:
"(1). Build a fence along the entire U.S. border with Mexico;
(2). Require employers to verify the legal status of prospective employees through a unified Federal database;
(3). Impose fines of $10,000 per violation for employers that fail to check the legal status of employees;
(4). Issue a federal statute ending 'birthright citizenship' and requiring legal status for parents in order for children to automatically become citizens."

Not bad .. but ...

(1) is supposedly in the works but there is already a string of walls, ditches, razor wire, and cameras watched by border guards with dogs and fast trucks and planes, and yet many still get through. I doubt a wall would work much better. People can always get around an obsticle.
(2) is already on the books. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) requires employers verify the citizenship or legal status of all new hires. They also must submit a form (I-9) verifying they did such a check. You filled one if you were hired in the last 20 years.
(3) Fines are already part of the IRCA. They increase with each violation and get as high as you indicate.
(4) this gets complicated when one parent is a US citizen and another is not. Its an old tug of war (law of the land vs. law of the blood where the first refers to where you were born and the second your parents citizenship). Still, a good subject for debate since I believe a huge problem is illegals coming here not just to work but to give birth to Americans who may then become wards of our schools and welfare systems. It reminds me of retirees in the 70s who retired to Poland because they had good free healthcare under communism.

So Virginia, there is already in place a good immigration law to deter employers from hiring illegals knowingly. But look around and ask yourself whether it is being enforced. A law is one thing, but enforcement is what makes it work. The US government in a bi-partisan fashion does not want to stop the hiring of illegals any more than they want to prevent Walmart from importing goods from China. Both are good for the local businesses of every congressman and those businesses pay for the elections, not you. This is democracy in action (inaction). Until you make it an election issue by writing your congressman along with thousands of others, it will never be enforced with any vigor.

Posted by: Sully | March 21, 2006 01:24 PM

I agree that is is silly for the US to grant premature citizenship to a figure skater because I don't watch figure skating. But it isn't racist, and it doesn't affect this debate one way or the other.

Posted by: Will | Mar 21, 2006 1:13:36 PM | Permalink


Did I say it was racist? You folks are getting a bit paranoid yes? I said the law should not be bent to benefit one single person, for the great refrain of this country is no one is above the law.

If you want to let in a category of useful people then fine. Don't pass a law to benefit one single well connected individual. Terry Shiavo was another example of bad lawmaking.

Posted by: Borg | March 21, 2006 01:26 PM

Sully, I appreciate your comments, but:

(1). A wall would make it harder to come in. We aren't shooting for impossible, as that is unachieveable, just harder. Also, a wall has a lot of symbolic significance. It tells Mexico and the rest of the world that we take our border seriously. That's an important message.

(2). Yeah, I know that verification is presently required, but my point (cut short by the 100 word limit) is that we need an easy, mandatory federal database to check against. Something as to which false IDs like forged Social Security cards would be ineffective.

(3). You are correct, already on the books, but it would be easier to enforce if the verification process in # 2 were in place, because employers would no longer be able to say, "yeah, he showed me a social security card, and I didn't know it was forged..."

(4). You are correct, birthright citizenship is a toughie. Ireland abolished it last year. We might start by looking at their debate over the issue, which was (not surprisingly) ignored by the American Media, including our beloved Washington Post.

Thanks again for the comments.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 01:32 PM

Dear Emily,

Why don't you make your next topic the unclear( or unanswered,if you dare) questions about 911? I expect that you will get many comments on it.

Thank you in advance.

Yours truly,
Che

Posted by: Che | March 21, 2006 01:40 PM

Sully,

Just because a wall wouldn't keep everyone out doesn't mean it wouldn't keep a lot of people out -- and discourage a lot of others from trying.

You're right that we've already got the laws we need on the books to end illegal immigration -- now we just need to enforce them. I advocate this strongly, as do 80%+ of the American people in polls.

Ending birthright citizenship is also key. If my wife sneaks into France, Japan, Denmark, or Australia illegally and has a child there, that child has no moral or legal right to Japanese, Danish, or Australian citizenship. We need to, as Virginia points out, change our interpretations of this clause in our own country. Ireland and New Zealand have recently done this and we need to as well. A pregnant Mexican woman who enters the U.S. illegally six months before giving birth has no moral or legal right to expect that baby to be a U.S. citizen. The baby is a Mexican citizen by virtue of her mother's nationality.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 01:41 PM

It seems to me that the illegal immigration/amnesty/guest worker/etc. debate boils down to this:

(1). If you believe that there should be an amnesty and/or a guest worker plan, then you necessarily believe that labor markets should be global and borderless.

(2). If you believe that labor markets should be global and borderless, you'd better prepare for the fact that there are 5 billion people in the world who live in countries that are poorer than Mexico. I'm sure several billion of them would love to compete in the American labor market. A global, borderless system would allow them to do so. This would drive wages in America down to Third World levels, or at least down to the federal minimum wage for most jobs.

(3). In other words, a global labor marketplace guarantees an endless supply of cheap labor, but it also guarantees a lack of upward mobility for workers, at least for the several hundred years it will take to finally reach a bottoming out of wages.

(4). Unless you are already very wealthy, why support such an approach?

Input, anyone?

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 01:43 PM

Right, Virginia. The U.S. is more than just an economy; it's also a country with standards. Open the borders, and those billions (literally) flood in, and there go your standards.

The only people in favor of illegal immigration are those (such as Bethesda-based Post writers) who have enough money to shield themselves from its consequences.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 02:02 PM

Posted by: Will

"Some things could change about how the American Government treats birth control, but painting this issue as one of family planning and not about millions of Mexican citizens breaking American law every year is water muddying."

Not muddying the water, people go where the resources are to survive. When populations are out of sync with resources, mass migrations of people go where the resources are. The rest of the issue is keeping illegal immigrants out, coping with those here, enforcing existing laws (severe break down), and amending existing laws (strongly needed).

An Illegal immigration question was asked in the Bush's press conference today. I don't recall his exact wording, but he feels illegal immigrants are only taking jobs Americans don't want. Don't expect any enforcement of immigration laws till after Jan. 2009 and then only if you vote for a president not in bed with "big business".

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 02:59 PM

Borg-

"I said the law should not be bent to benefit one single person, for the great refrain of this country is no one is above the law.

If you want to let in a category of useful people then fine. Don't pass a law to benefit one single well connected individual. Terry Shiavo was another example of bad lawmaking."

I think it is perfectly within the United States sovereign rights' to extend citizenship to individuals as well as groups. It is also within the United States sovereign right to refuse said citizenship.

Regarding HR 3010, the aforementioned bill with the amendment added, it does not make an exception for one figure skater, it makes a broad exception for the "naturalization of aliens with extraordinary ability so that such aliens may represent the United States at international events."

This is not a bill about helping one "well connected individual" (you'd know that a Russian has already accessed this law as well, had you read Emily's link) but rather a law specifically to ease the citizenship process of individuals with extraordinary abilities.

Personally I think it is a ridiculous amendment but that's just me. There is still nothing racist about it, nor is directed solely at an individual which is your chief concern.

Posted by: Will | March 21, 2006 03:14 PM

Today's pro-illegal agitprop article:

"Study Shows Increase in Hispanic Entrepreneurship"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032100532.html

These are businesses largely fueled by the illegal immigration boom. The Post turns a blind eye to it with these daily articles about how wonderful it is to have all these illegals here.

Send your kids to public school in Langley Park, Herndon, Arlington, etc. and see how wonderful it all is!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 03:37 PM

Most hilarious line from this article trumpeting the "1.6 million Hispanic-owned firms" in the U.S.:

"Most Hispanic businesses are small. Nationally, only 12 percent have paid employees."

I see. So 7 out of the 8 "Hispanic-owned firms" in the U.S. don't have any paid employees. Some "firms" you've got there. Is the guy selling cheese from a cart out on Columbia Road a "Hispanic-owned firm"?

This is like the Post education reporters who constantly claim Hispanic "gains" on test scores, even though decade-by-decade charts show no gains at all. They just take normal fluctuations in test scores and report the upticks as "gains" while ignoring the downticks.

All these Hispanic-owned "firms," according to the article, earned $222 billion in 2005. The U.S. economy was about $11 trillion that year, meaning that Hispanic-owned "firms" accounted for about 2% of that. And we don't know how many of the "Hispanic-owned" places are fronts owned by white guys to get minority set-aside contracts (answer: a lot).

Well, that's the Post: constantly trying to paint a pretty face on illegal immigration...when Emily gets her glitch fixed, maybe we can discuss the Post's habit of news-lying on illegal immigration. I'd particularly like to discuss Ruth Marcus, agitprop queen.

Whenever you're ready, Em.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 03:49 PM

Virginia wrote:
"(1). A wall would make it harder to come in. We aren't shooting for impossible, as that is unachieveable, just harder. Also, a wall has a lot of symbolic significance. It tells Mexico and the rest of the world that we take our border seriously. That's an important message."

A wall seems to make sense until you realize the thing will be 2000 miles long! And even with such a great wall you will still need border patrol to catch those with ladders to climb over it, explosives blowing holes in it, and shovels digging under it.

I would rather take the billions such a monster would cost and give it to the INS to enforce the existing laws. If employers were actually punished, and knew they would be punished for hiring illegals, no illegal would come here to just stand on the street. Its the easy jobs they come for, and those employers, who look at you and the illegal, know which one will work cheaper, and so your wages are depressed.

Lets put the money into what we have already built, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, and not into a wall to be built becauses the IRCA is not being enforced.

Posted by: Sully | March 21, 2006 03:56 PM

Sully, if you're serious about enforcement, why not do *both* the wall and go after employers? It's really not that hard to build a wall that's very difficult to get over. $2 million per mile is the widely-cityed cost -- that's $4 billion total to build. A pittance!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 04:05 PM

Jamal wrote:
"An Illegal immigration question was asked in the Bush's press conference today. I don't recall his exact wording, but he feels illegal immigrants are only taking jobs Americans don't want."

This is a refrain I keep hearing and it just makes my blood boil. I grew up in the 60s & 70s. Crops were picked by high school and college kids glad to have a summer job. They worked along side the migrant workers combing the country from farm to farm. The money made on the MD eastern shore was great. More than you would make working at a store.

But today try looking for farmers who want college kids to pick the summer crops. Where are the landscape companies looking for kids to mow lawns and landscape during the summer? Did the kids of America just decide one day that they didn't want these summer jobs? They paid well.

So what changed? Not the kids. My daughter runs around the neighborhood after a snowfall to shovel driveways for $$$ and is taking advantage of being the only teenager in our neighborhood for babysitting. Her friends are just as energetic. The kids I see today are no more lazy than they were in the 60s and 70s, maybe less so. What has changed is that they now compete with an illegal labor pool ready to take any job at any price. The farmers and other companies know it and don't even bother with the kids. If that is happening to the jobs kids would want, you can imagine what is happening to jobs requiring a little more skill that also paid well.

I'll say it again ... the illegal labor force is welcomed by corporations and their political supporters because it is a cheap labor pool. The cheap labor increases profits and is no different than sending the job off shore where labor is cheaper. So corporations have off shore for jobs that can be exported and illegal labor for jobs that cannot be off shored. Why would a republican be against that, even if it reduced our security?

If anything is going to change, illegal immigration, the existing illegal immigrant population, and corporate hiring of illegals MUST become a political issue this fall. Otherwise the politicians have no reason to change it themselves.

Posted by: Sully | March 21, 2006 04:17 PM

DC Dude wrote"
"Sully, if you're serious about enforcement, why not do *both* the wall and go after employers? It's really not that hard to build a wall that's very difficult to get over. $2 million per mile is the widely-cityed cost -- that's $4 billion total to build. A pittance!"

Look, if the jobs are here and the corporations here are eager to hire illegals and the INS is looking the other way, under funded, or both, people will find any way to get here. Most get here via smugglers. Do you really think people smugglers will look at the wall and tell those paying them $1000 each to go home and forget about America?

Like illegal drugs, if you want to keep illegal labor out of America you must get rid of the demand for the illegal labor. Enforcing laws will do that. No wall will.

Just a side joke: How many illegals will it take to build the wall? After all, building a 2000 mile wall sounds like a job no American wants. Lots of dust, heat and heavy lifting. No, let the illegals build the wall while we all work in comfortable Walmart stores. Build it from the Mexican side of course :^)

And $4B is only a pittance in a republican congress. Why not take the 4 billion and rebuild NOLA?

Posted by: Sully | March 21, 2006 04:27 PM

Regarding the cost of building a wall, why not impose a tax on remittances sent by immigrant workers to their home countries? This tax could then go a long way towards funding a wall.

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 21, 2006 04:28 PM

In other news, Ben Domenech's Red America blog on Washingtonpost.com is now open for business.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/

oh yes my pretty's, we are taking over...LOL

Posted by: D. | March 21, 2006 04:34 PM

Sully,

I don't know why you keep talking past my point. I agree with you that going after employers who hire illegals is advisable, and I agree with you that putting up the wall won't stop everyone. *But it will stop a significant percentage*, and $4 billion for such a wall is easily doable, whether the congress is (D) or (R)-controlled.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 04:38 PM

Derek: "As a proud Northern Virginian, my attitudes to immigration have changed substantially over the past several years. I once felt that we should send 'em all home. But as I walk past building sites every day I realise that our skyline might look a little different if it weren't for the plethora of legal and illegal immigrants helping to build it."

I skipped over many posts to respond to this, so sorry if others have.

I have had a construction project going for over a year now, and no illegal aliens are part of any crew except for the painters. The painters have been the biggest problem. They do not listen and have done a crappy job compared to the others. I would not have hired them if it weren't for my Equadorian friend (actually, he is second generation US citizen) who has them working for him.

I could have gotten by just fine, and with less problems without hiring them. I did not do so for a cheap price, as it cost 18k to paint the exterior of my house. I'd say the only thing I would have them do is dig a trench or hole, and pay them by the job and only after it is done.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 21, 2006 04:43 PM

Get a life, pendehos.

Posted by: Alberto Gonzales | March 21, 2006 04:45 PM

Alberto, the problem is that these guys are coming here and taking jobs that require real skills, some that take years to learn. They do not have them, and are a pain in the ass after you point out why they are not performing well. I know because I was once a contractor myself back in the 70's and 80's.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 21, 2006 05:03 PM

DC Dude,

Unlike the republicans I do not think money should be wasted. I believe a wall would be a waste of money. Would it deter some? No. Like water the illegals will just flow in around it, under it and over it. I will predict that if it is built you will not see the number of illegals go down, so my point is why build and waste even more money it if it won't matter and will distract those politicians who should be doing something effective.

Look at the war on drugs and how we have stopped the flow of drugs. Tunnels a mile long are being found and drugs are cheaper than ever, well the illegal ones anyway.

A wall will only be symbolic and will not stop anyone who wants to get here. To stop the drugs coming here you must stop the demand and if you want to stop illegals you must stop the hiring. You might argue that the cost of a wall will be worth it if it stops even a small percentage. I disagree. A wall will give false hope, will give politicians something to point to to say they are doing something when in reality nothing will change. The government can reduce border patrol expenditures justifying the reduction because the wall is there. Corporations and small businesses will still be hiring more and more illegals while the government sits idly by and everyone is happy thinking the wall is keeping out the illegals. And 15 years from now when we realize this, what then?

The most direct action to take is to enforce the IRCA laws, increase funding for manpower to audit corporations, increase funding for the INS to find those 12 million illegals already here, enforce IRCA and increase the level of punishments to those who hire illegals. If it costs $4B it will be money much better spent.

Posted by: Sully | March 21, 2006 05:33 PM

Emily(?) wrote:
===========================================
At the moment, I can't write comments myself because -- I swear this is true, and believe me, it's incredibly aggravating -- for some reason the blogging system won't accept comments from my IP address. I've tried to comment from other Post computers but they have the same problem. The tech folks tell me it's just an inexplicable glitch that will be fixed when we switch to the new system -- coming soon -- and I believe them, but it is very annoying.
===========================================

Glitch? Those IT guys better get a cracking because chances are their firewall is blocking the IPs, from the inside out.

I hope a new blog system has the ability to quote, as that's a feature sorely missed in replying (have to quote so another will know who you're replying too).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 06:18 PM

"CHE" writes:

"Dear Emily,

Why don't you make your next topic the unclear( or unanswered,if you dare) questions about 911? I expect that you will get many comments on it. Thank you in advance. Yours truly, Che"

Just my opinion, but you don't listen.

You have been asked repeatedly to post on topic and desist from just pasting up SPAM you copy from your Trotskyite forum. But you keep it up. Because at your root, you are simply slapping up the same 4th Internationale propaganda on every open Internet Forum you can find - ignoring the requests of others to stop sabotaging the Forum, until you are eventually banned. I noticed you doing this on another Blog until they banned you as a troll.

Even your ostensibly "polite" letter requesting that your host Emily ignore her own topic and posters do the same and do more "9/11 discussion" (because 4 1/2 years of coverage isn't enough???) is at it's core incredibly rude of you and clearly a passive-aggressive tactic.

Go away.

Only Jamal and a few that refuse to post under a "handle" bother to read your dreck, and sadly, Jamal is stupid.

************************

Jamal, only you could play a double race card.

Terming those who object to immigration racist, and topping that by terming me saying immigration is killing the chances of any black in the underclass to advance "racist" in it's own right.

The facts are young black male unemployment is exploding. They are being methodically displaced from "first rung" jobs by illegals. Anyone who lives out West can see it. Blacks sitting idle as Mexicans replace them in industry after industry for less pay. The black crime rate is staggering and getting worse.

Before our eyes we see the Katrina rebuilding, and a lesson on how mass illegal immigration is warping American society. Illegals are being mass-bused in. Contractors preferentially hiring illegals over local blacks. Blacks that helped build NOLA and much of the coastal infastructure. The only black jobs, from friends I know there and contractors writing me, appear to be black females in officious-acting minor government bureaucratic jobs dealing with the rebuilding and social services positions.

To poor dumb Jamal, the truth is racist...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 21, 2006 06:32 PM

No Sandy,

It's the ping coming from the flism-flasm router due to an inappropriate codec response. I'd try to fip-flop to flism flasm and the IP addresses will be seen as proxy.

Posted by: Bill Cosby | March 21, 2006 06:32 PM

Sully,

You claim a wall wouldn't work, yet the wall built south of San Diego in 2001 has decreased illegal crossings there by 95%.

Your Drug War analogy is well-taken, but a little off. Drugs are much easier to smuggle than humans. A wall would probably work quite well.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 21, 2006 06:54 PM

Not to mention the effectiveness of walls being built in Israel.

Posted by: | March 21, 2006 06:57 PM

Borg wrote:
===========================================
Stop defending congress on that figure skater from Canada. The law should not be bent to benefit one specific person like that. Like the US really needs a figure skater from Canada. Even if she wins what's the glory in it? People would say she's really Canadian.
===========================================

I'm not defending Congress, I was telling you about the waiver program that's been in place for years. It's there for the creme-of-the-crop athletes, scientists, MDs, Nobel Prize awardees and cultural/social/economic icons.

There are also waivers on foreigners setting up businesses in this country, and are to employ American workers, as well.

There's even one for religious workers (missionaries), as well.

Has zero to do with defending Congress, it's the facts.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 08:40 PM

Clueless Cosby wrote:
===========================================
No Sandy,

It's the ping coming from the flism-flasm router due to an inappropriate codec response. I'd try to fip-flop to flism flasm and the IP addresses will be seen as proxy.
===========================================

There's no "codecs" involved, Clueless. This isn't software. What are you going to do see or hear the pings??? :rolleyes:

And what they use to filter isn't a router, it's a hardware firewall with rulesets that are fine tuned by papered IT types (I don't know their config, but larger businesses employ one of those nice, beefy and sweet Cisco firewalls that would break most bank accounts!).

I work on computers for over 20 years; build them; maintain servers (FreeBSD to RHE); web design; setup/maintain/mod forums (including backend database work); do a little coding/scripting to make things work better (like with PHP and JS); and love to play with the egos of script kiddies and l33t hax0rs, who think using a script (or ethereal) makes them a black hat (oh, please) <-- I'm a white hat, and enjoy teaching 15 year-old wannabes a lesson to not touch other folks property. :evil grin:

Now, get back to posting on topic, as you don't compute otherwise. :)

SandyK
<3

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 08:55 PM

I made all that up Sandy baby! LOL

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC aka Bill C. | March 21, 2006 09:42 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Only Jamal and a few that refuse to post under a "handle" bother to read your dreck, and sadly, Jamal is stupid."

Che, has a right to post as long as he follows Emily's instructions. I'm amazed you haven't been reprimanded for your racial euphemisms, that I have found personally insulting, terms such as "mammies" for black women or "chillins" for black men.

"Terming those who object to immigration racist, and topping that by terming me saying immigration is killing the chances of any black in the underclass to advance "racist" in it's own right."

If you look at my post there was no plural used only singular, being you. If you're so concerned about blacks not having jobs then see to it some are hired to jobs where you work, that is how you can help out.

"The facts are young black male unemployment is exploding. They are being methodically displaced from "first rung" jobs by illegals. Anyone who lives out West can see it. Blacks sitting idle as Mexicans replace them in industry after industry for less pay. The black crime rate is staggering and getting worse."

If you're so concerned about blacks not having jobs then see to it some are hired to jobs where you work, that is how you can help out.

"Before our eyes we see the Katrina rebuilding, and a lesson on how mass illegal immigration is warping American society. Illegals are being mass-bused in. Contractors preferentially hiring illegals over local blacks. Blacks that helped build NOLA and much of the coastal infastructure. The only black jobs, from friends I know there and contractors writing me, appear to be black females in officious-acting minor government bureaucratic jobs dealing with the rebuilding and social services positions."

Funny in the Katrina debate you posted the following, see the permalink:

Posted by: Chris Ford

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/katrina_report.html#c14077237

"It is hard-working Americans from other sectors of society and even hard-working illegal aliens that are living hard in bad conditions, doing the needed dirty work and the heavy lifting. Many of those Mexicans who are making a 100 bucks a day while a feckless underclass family sits in Holiday Inn waiting on their new double-wide and locale for their new subsidies - those Mexicans and hard-working Americans from elsewhere.....You can excuse the parasites and say they can't work if they are "tendin' to they chillun' and another on the way from some Texas hotel encounter" or "too drug dependent to work or too long a rap sheet" but they are still, bottom line, parasites.."

or:

Posted by: Chris Ford

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/katrina_report.html#c14039420

"Now in America we have parasitic women with 4 out of wedlock kids and no man to pitch in in an emergency and we are told that is the "government's job" to take care of her ever need. We have people building in flood plains or below sea level that think they are entitled to "be made whole again" by the taxpayers when a totally predictable storm screws up their lifestyle choices and possessions.....and who expect responsible people to make up for their personal shortcomings by paying for more "bennies" and more state and local Gov't which if it screws up, passes the buck to the Federal Gov't."

If you're so concerned about blacks not having jobs then see to it that some are hired to jobs where you work, that is how you can help out.

"To poor dumb Jamal, the truth is racist..."

My concern with illegal immigration is economics, yours is racial. I have seen you comment repeatedly in previous debates using racial euphemisms such as "mammies" "chillins", etc... And now I find you trying play the role of a "liberal lefty" defending the black community. Anyone who has seen your postings from prior to hurricane Katrina, knows you have nothing but disdain for the black community.

I'll be perfectly blunt about your postings on this subject, it appears your trying your best to pit blacks against Mexicans. If you want to help a black male, then hire some or shut up ford.

Posted by: Jamal | March 21, 2006 11:28 PM

Jamal, wassa problem, coochie??

I responded to this posting you've pasted up 3 times on various threads on the most recent one.

You're just playing the race card, yet again...vs. thinking, and explaining your position.

The fact is that as long as massive waves of illegal immigration pour in, native-born Americans, inc. whites and Asians and hispanic-Americans in low-skilled work, standard services, clerical, and blue collar non-union jobs will be screwed - but none more than underclass blacks whose pathologies compound their being bypassed by illegals in competition with them.

Without "step-up, first rung on the ladder" type of jobs available to blacks on the bottom, they will stay on the bottom...no, actually continue to lose ground....and that won't change until illegal immigration is halted.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 22, 2006 03:54 AM

No Sandy,

It's the ping coming from the flism-flasm router due to an inappropriate codec response. I'd try to fip-flop to flism flasm and the IP addresses will be seen as proxy.

Posted by: Bill Cosby | Mar 21, 2006 6:32:44 PM | Permalink

There's no "codecs" involved, Clueless. This isn't software. What are you going to do see or hear the pings??? :rolleyes:

And what they use to filter isn't a router, it's a hardware firewall with rulesets that are fine tuned by papered IT types (I don't know their config, but larger businesses employ one of those nice, beefy and sweet Cisco firewalls that would break most bank accounts!).

I work on computers for over 20 years; build them; maintain servers (FreeBSD to RHE); web design; setup/maintain/mod forums (including backend database work); do a little coding/scripting to make things work better (like with PHP and JS); and love to play with the egos of script kiddies and l33t hax0rs, who think using a script (or ethereal) makes them a black hat (oh, please) <-- I'm a white hat, and enjoy teaching 15 year-old wannabes a lesson to not touch other folks property. :evil grin:

Now, get back to posting on topic, as you don't compute otherwise. :)

SandyK
<3

Posted by: SandyK | Mar 21, 2006 8:55:53 PM | Permalink


I made all that up Sandy baby! LOL

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC aka Bill C. | Mar 21, 2006 9:42:56 PM | Permalink

flism-flasm router? LOLer!

Posted by: Borg | March 22, 2006 07:33 AM

DC Dude wrote:
"You claim a wall wouldn't work, yet the wall built south of San Diego in 2001 has decreased illegal crossings there by 95%."

I'm not surprised. But did illegal immigration go down overall? No, they just went around that wall as they will any wall.

Posted by: Sully | March 22, 2006 09:04 AM

Talking to yourself now, Borgie?

Don't get to talk much about computing here, so it's nice to talk shop every once in a while.........

Would you know anything about clustering? HPC looks interesting. I'm doing some folding and want to up my WU count, but alas!, not enough flops. Really need high I/O here. Would you know where I can find a m/b that that has a higher FSB than 1066mhz? I could probably try to O/C it, but then under all that crunching, it'll be unstable -- and forget using ECC, as that'll just slow processing by 10%. Or should I just concentrate on making a hot RAID 5/O with some 15k Cheetahs with a nice Clear controller? Also would need an enclosure as I don't like mounting m/bs on the wall, it gets a l-i-t-t-l-e hot running 5 processor @ 100% with 16GB memory without direct a/c? But what enclosure can house 5 dual cores and PSUs, and not short the rated 15amp breaker, too? And it has to withstand a fat heatpiped HSF assembly -- you know the 2 pounders?

[BTW, the above isn't made up, it's real tech talk]

Give it a rest, Borgie.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 22, 2006 09:05 AM

Ah,

A tech talking shop with all the acronyms. Should we be impressed?

What about the deserialized quantum electrified multiplexer grid router? Or the fully engaged level 9 RAID eliminator? Or the dual cored Turing fully redundant SMP/NUMA replacer?

How about the Von Neumann reductionist anti-intrusion inducer? Or the Dijkstra-Knuth tactical mutiphase intrusive engager? Or the Gray simultaneous coupler-decoupler transaction monitoring system? Or the Phish Turbo Ruby fully linked two mode polymorphic very late binding compiler/decompiler?


Bet you never heard of them eh? Guess your security clearance needs to be upgraded from sysadmin level.


Remember,
Resistance is Futile!

Posted by: Borg | March 22, 2006 10:06 AM

baffle 'em with acronyms.

hey, Derek, being humanitarian is nice, how about traveling down to North Carolina into the old furniture manufacturing areas, or over to the cotton textile mills areas on the coast where they used to make Cannon towels...and talk to the people about jobs they don't have any more.

how about traveling outside of the DC area and talking to someone beside the Adams Morgans people...

you can't get perspective thinking that DC is a microcosm, it isn't

average household income in DC Metro was more than 2.3 times the national average 15 years ago....there were more degreed per square mile in that area than any other area in the United States...

go to Allentown, Pennsylvania, go Detroit Michigan, Gary Indiana, heck even Portland Oregon, had a collapse after the .com failure, San Jose dried up and blew away..


how about getting the people working here jobs that pay enough to work just one, and have that one have benefits?

used to be 37.5 hours a week, with 3 weeks vacation, one week sick days and healthy benefits, with retirement was the norm during the 70's

how you going to get that back if they fire the brother to hire juan?

you got a prob with that?

.

Posted by: Well Sandy K, at least you know about electron substrate drift.. | March 22, 2006 02:01 PM

but cf and sandyk have pretty much said that there isn't

a war on, that it's an intervention.


why don't you discuss that?


that poppies boys' just admitted that there is no war,


that the current congress and administration scammed the public into attacking another country on the pretext of stopping terrorism,

when the current administration and those that supported them, NSA, CIA, FBI are running the country outside of the Constitutional limits,

that there's a coup in place.

Did we the citizens vote in a replacement of our Constitution, or is something illegal going on here?

.

Posted by: I don't know if you noticed it. | March 22, 2006 02:08 PM

do you.

Posted by: you don't need direct AC for a lousy fiver.. | March 22, 2006 02:14 PM

Borgie wrote:
===========================================
"Phish Turbo Ruby"
===========================================

Now you're mixing things, Borgie.

Phishing is hijacking a label hoping folks like you would enter personal info so it can be exploited.

Turbo is what you do when you want add umph to your memory, via BIOS.

And Ruby (and you forgot the Rails) is a new programming language that has taken the web by storm (along with crappy AJAX) -- and it's more simplier low level language to learn (much like Python). The higher languages like Java are a PITA to work with (I know).

Nice try, Borgie, nice try.

[It's 7:43am Emily, let's get our next daily debate]

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 07:42 AM

Another day of Latino bashing, anyone?

Posted by: Alberto Gonzales | March 23, 2006 09:07 AM

Sandy Baby you're the one who got it mixed up!

Ruby is the name of a red stone valued by some.

Turbo is what you do when you want to add umph to your hotrod, via feedback.

AJAX is the name of either a Homer character or a household cleaning product.

Java is the name of an Indonesian island.

As for computer languages here's a free lesson:

A simpler to learn language is actually a higher level language 'cause they've removed the complicated low level details that folks like sysadmins can't deal with.

A language like Java is actually considered lower level compared to Ruby since you have to do a lot more things by yourself. Got?


Now tell us what "fully linked two mode polymorphic very late binding" means.

And remember after you flipflop the flism flasm router to reverse the process you must flopflip the flasm flism router in that order.

Posted by: Borg | March 23, 2006 09:47 AM

The pennsylvania lawns ARE mostly cut by immagrants. also go after the employer and get all that tax,ss money. no wonder all these programs are going broke. Most of these people are good workers but it has to be done by the laws. The great divide is getting widerby the day.

Posted by: greg. | March 25, 2006 08:03 PM

You People forget one thing, illegal aliens
and Wal-Mart are doing the same thing, they
cost us more than what we get in return. Check the facts, we will never buy America back as long as we have other people selling it at tyheir costs. When something costs you more than it makes, it's time to get rid of it, Wal-Mart and illegals.
Thank you, Vic Bailey

Posted by: Vic Bailey | March 27, 2006 10:35 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.