Sorry for the light posting today... In the meantime, more on the immigration issue.

Sorry for the light posting today. Aside from there not being much going on, I was watching as two of my daughters tested from their yellow to green belts in Tae Kwon Do.

In the meantime, since it's a hot topic at least on this website, one of the readers pointed out to me the other day that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has faced votes on immigration bills before. How did those votes go when it was a GOP controlled House?

H R 4437 RECORDED VOTE 16-Dec-2005 10:33 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act

Herseth voted in favor of the 2005 Bill. And on the Hunter Amendment which was to put a 700 mile border along the US Mexican Border.....

H R 4437 RECORDED VOTE 15-Dec-2005 9:30 PM
AUTHOR(S): Hunter of California Amendment
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment

She voted in favor of that as well.

And to those votes, I'd say good show Congresswoman. That's what we like to see. So that's why her recent flip flop on the immigration issue is so confusing.

Just because someone might get around any fence she voted to build is not a reason to reward them with "the cookie of amnesty. " No matter what Nancy Pelosi's position on the bill is.

Comments

Anonymous said…
“No matter what Nancy Pelosi's position on the bill is.”

PP – Stop it! This is George Bush’s bill. I know you can’t help but take cheap shots at Herseth but this has gotten just ridiculous.
Anonymous said…
Hey, the fact that this is George Bush's bill and PP and other GOP-ers (like) are vehemently opposed to it should tell you something. And that is that we (and Senator Thune for that matter) are not in lockstep with the President on this very urgent, critical issue. Ms. Herseth will likely use her vote as another excuse to tout her "bipartisanship."
Anonymous said…
but pp refuses to admit that this is not Pelosi's bill.
Anonymous said…
Umm...last time I checked, the House did NOT have a vote on this recent bill (neither did the Senate). So I wouldn't nessecarily call her a flip-flopper.

Wait until she actually casts a vote - then you can judge her.
Anonymous said…
where is the fun in that. much better to attack her now.
Anonymous said…
5 posts from Russ Levsen today...give it up Russ: Stephie is a total LIAR and PHONY. The Jig is up.
Anonymous said…
PP--you are owning Herseth on this whole flip-flop deal...her staff must be a bunch of idiots to let this go on
Anonymous said…
Does anybody want to help tear up the bread for the stuffing.
Anonymous said…
Herseths staff cannot control PP, he is their worst nightmare. he's prolly more dangerous wielding a blog than if he actually ran (which I think eh should) but eighter way Ms. Herseth is PP's B.
PP said…
guys, I'm not trying to own anyone. I'm only one schmuck with a website who is standing up to say 'I disagree.'
Anonymous said…
whatever the case, this is another outrageous case of a Herseth-Sandlin flipflop/sell-out to Pelosi and her Kyoto buddies
Haggs said…
Personally, I think this is a case of how President Bush is willing to sell out his conservative values to help out his corporation buddies.
nonnie said…
Just heard they revived the immigration bill. So much for Congress and Bush listing to the will of the people. I urge everyone who is against this amnesty bill to contact your senators/representatives, and let your friends/family know too to make those contacts.

If it passes, it will simply encourage a new flood of illegals waiting for the next amnesty a few years down the road. And why would an illegal (who already gets free education for his kids, free medical care, and doesn't have to pay taxes most times) register and become legal. Most are here to make money but don't care if they actually becomes citizens. And how would the gov't enforce the law when it hasn't enforced the ones it has on the books now?

This would work:
1. Enforce the laws we have now.
2. If we find illegals, deport them immediately along with their family.
3. End the anchor baby law; it was never meant to be abused.

Of course, this wouldn't buy votes. And this is the only reason I can think of for reviving this amnesty bill.
Douglas said…
Ann Coulter is obviously not one of my favorite columnists, but readers on all sides of the illegal alien issue might find this interesting:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=189

Suggest that a porous border that lets in uneducated aliens while the system keeps out English-speaking aliens with talents and skills not available and the knee-jerk liberals will attack you for being a nativist, xenophope, racist, bigot, nazi, etc.

There is a total brain short circuit on this issue where the short term partisan or corporate business interests are trumping the future of the United States.
Anonymous said…
Douglas, et al.

This verse by Emma Lazarus appears on on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

It sounds to me like most of you here think we should take it down, huh?

Really, you should all listen to yourselves sometimes. No wonder the American dream is fading. Liberty's children have forgotten the lesson.
Jake said…
Here is a Washington Post article that I think does a good job of addressing some of the concerns raised by commenters on this website (and PP):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901322.html

Remember folks, most of them pay taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), nearly three quarters of them pay payroll taxes (think Social Security and Medicare), all of them pay sales and property taxes, and a third of them pay income taxes.

Read the article for more information.

And please nonnie, do not try to tell me you actually think deporting 20 million workers from this country is a) possible, b) cost effective, or c) good for our economy.

It doesn't make sense to pass unenforcable laws. Many of you should know (as conservatives) that government is not capable of doing everything.
Anonymous said…
2:01, puh-leez. This is a different time, and most of all, immigrants with an ungrateful attitute. My grandparents came through Ellis Island (and were subjected to some indignities that were reserved for people of certain enthnicities, like southern and eastern Europeans), but they were so glad to be here that their motto was, "When in America, do as the Americans do." They had the proper "papers." They learned English. They became citizens. They never asked (or expected) any handouts from the government. All five of their sons served in U.S. military, 3 in WWII. That's the difference between then and now. And I see red when bleeding hearts like you invoke the immigration situation of a century ago in order to trash people who are against amnesty for people who figured that if they hang around and use our system long enough, all will be forgiven. THERE IS NO COMPARISON between yesterday's "huddled masses" and millions of today's, who are sneaky, ungrateful lawbreakers, and should be treated as such.
Anonymous said…
2:21, I wonder how many of those "taxpayers" are using stolen Social Security numbers....
Jake said…
Actually, they don't need to steal Social Security numbers at all. They just make one up for the form and pay their taxes. When the government realizes its fake, it doesn't care because it has the taxdollars anyway.
Jake said…
Anon 2:22,

"Immigrants with an ungrateful attitute."

Anything other than purely anecdotal evidence to support any of your claims? Do you have any aggregated evidence, or just stories about your grandparents? Verifiable facts, not just opinions, would be a useful addition to this debate.

Be sure to note that nativist Americans a century ago were using many of the same arguments to try and stop your grandparents from immigrating that you are making today.
Anonymous said…
Jake, too bad many of today's illegal immigrants don't use "verifiable facts" to work here, live here, get services that some U.S. citizens can't get. Too bad they don't use "verifiable facts" about the conditions they say they came from. And not that I owe you or anybody else any explanations, but as for my family, these aren't "stories." They are facts. I have seen the documents, etc., and I knew how they lived. You are right about one thing. The arguments are similar to the ones a century ago. The difference is that illegals today don't give a darn. No one, including me, wants to stop immigration. We just want people to do the right thing, become citizens, not be lawbreakers the minute they sneak over the U.S. border in the dark of night, then expect "Se Habla Espanol" everyplace and free services that the rest of us have to pay for.
Jake said…
Anon,

I'm not disputing that your grandparents were hard-working, fully assimilated immigrants. I was asking for something other than anecdotal evidence to support your argument. Here is a definition of anecdotal evidence:

"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation"

Give me something other than personal observations. How are immigrants hurting our economy? How are they hurting our fiscal situation? Are they really stealing our jobs? Are your proposals reasonable given these facts?

Do you see what I mean? Give me some rational thought. I'm not going to pay attention to emotionally charged, illogical rhetoric that adds nothing to finding a reasonable solution to this situation.
Anonymous said…
3:05 Don't look now man, but the red of your neck is about to set your shirt collar on fire.
Anonymous said…
305:

"then expect "Se Habla Espanol" everyplace and free services that the rest of us have to pay for."

Did you not read the previous comments stating that the majority of illegals pay taxes?

Is there any substance in any of your arguments?
nonnie said…
Jake, if we would enforce existing laws, this would include imposing fines etc on people who employ illegals. Make the fines stiff enough, and the jobs for illegals will disappear, and the illegals will deport themselves and maybe try to come back through legal channels.

You can look at this bill another way. Some poeple are immigrating here legally, jumping thru the hoops, doing everything right, and assimilating into our society. Then along come the illegals who with this bill will go to the front of the line, while demanding rights like free college tuition, that even citizens and legal immigrants don't get.

Amnesty is unfair in all senses of the word. It just encourages more illegals with the hope of future amnesty.

Jack, ask CA and some other border states how illegals are impacting eduation and social services in their state. It's not up to me or Anon to find you anectodal evidence; you can do that yourself. Illegals have no insurance; if they get sick we do not refuse to treat them, but they can't pay, so the taxpayers do. They get free education, often with the added expense of an ESL teacher.

They might pay sales taxes. They don't pay income taxes for the most part. I doubt many of them own property, so the property tax argument is ridiculous.

And as long as we refuse to address border security, it's not only illegal Mexicans that are probably coming thru.

It seems that the only people who really want something done are the ones who aren't in DC.
Anonymous said…
3:37, oooooooooooo....and there's also some red dripping from your knee-jerk liberal bleeding heart.
Jake said…
Nonnie,

"They might pay sales taxes. They don't pay income taxes for the most part. I doubt many of them own property, so the property tax argument is ridiculous."

Check out the article I previously linked to for a good summary of some of the research on the effects of illegals.

75% of illegals pay Soc. Security and Medicare taxes, of which they will see nothing. Property taxes are imputed into rental costs. So, they actually do pay those taxes. You're right about income tax, only 1/3 of them pay that.

"It's not up to me or Anon to find you anectodal evidence"

Actually, I was asking for NON-anecdotal evidence. For instance, some pieces of research would be nice. Everything you are saying is good and fine, but it lacks legitimacy unless it is backed up with evidence. Hypotheticals, on the other hand, are not as useful as you would like to think.

" Make the fines stiff enough, and the jobs for illegals will disappear,"

Care to make a GUESS as to what THAT will do to the economy (since I know you won't actually look for any actual research)?
Anonymous said…
OK Jake. Here is what Tom Tancredo said about the effect of illegals on Colorado. JUST COLORADO. Not California or other states who are feeling the fallout. And if you want to trash the source (as I am sure you will), then it's your turn to prove that his statistics are inaccurate.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBlOTVlNDFkNTYwOTg4YWYxMThkZmE2MWZhMmVjMWM=
P.S. I never said they are stealing jobs. In fact, that is the problem. Big business (and heck, I'm a capitalist Republican) is enabling them because of the cheap labor. So they are not stealing the jobs. They are being handed them by businesses which, in my view, should be prosecuted.
Anonymous said…
3:56 Yeah, I know. That's ok with me, Bubba. Tell the truth now, do you still have that white hood in your closet or what?
Jake said…
Tom Tancredo is a credible source? No wonder your views are so distorted. Sorry Anon, but you are right. It's almost as if you wrote that op-ed, there are no cited sources.

Read this op-ed, by a non-politician:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20-07/04/29/AR2007042901322.html

Here are more studies refuting a lot the emotional anecdotes Tancredo referenced:

http://www.phil.frb.org/ec-on/conf/immigration/card.pdf

http://www.cfr.org/content/pu-blications/attachments/Imm-igrationCSR26.pdf

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/blu-esky/papers/kremer_globali-zation_0609.pdf

Note that I am not saying illegal immigration is good or justifiable. Nor am I saying they impose NO cost on social services. What I am saying is that your arguments and the arguments of Sen. Tancredo are incomplete and emotionally motivated. Furthermore, the solutions you are proposing are impractical and are not cost effective. The current immigration bill is probably not realistic either, but some parts of it are.

Read the literature, accept that immigrants commit fewer crimes (proportionally) than do current citizens. Accept that their net effect on the economy is positive and that the effects on wages are extremely small, at worst. Or, don't accept any of these things. But try and have credible, objective sources of your information.

If you all keep getting your information from talk radio and other sensationalist nativists, you're going to be ignorant. Plain and simple.
Anonymous said…
So you assume those websites hold the gospel truth???

C'mon.. they're no better than talk radio. It's just someone's beliefs spun in a way to get people to agree, and to attempt to make them look credible.

Why is it that people assume that if someone writes something down, it must be the truth, but if it's spoken on talk radio or TV, it must be a lie?

Ever read the Argus?

Case closed.
Anonymous said…
By my count we progs have ass-whupped you neo-cons every way from Sunday on this one. Better luck next time, fellers. (Hint, What you alwayz fergit boyz, is that all folks iz jes' folks.)
The people rule. The people rule. (Oh, in case you didn't catch my drift? I, um, said, "the people rule.") Always have, always will.
Anonymous said…
Wonder if Jake would consider it a credible source if it came from God's own lips?! Probably he'd still demand more anecdotal or non-anecdotal evidence.
Jake said…
Case closed? Are you serious?

Those weren't websites I posted, they were academic JOURNAL ARTICLES. If you would have taken the 20 minutes to read them (or the 5 seconds to copy and paste them into your browser) you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment. Apparently, exposing yourself to opposing points of view is not something you're fond of.

Comparing a Tom Tancredo op-ed to a journal article published in a highly reputed economics journal is asinine. Or do you really think they are on the same level?

"Probably he'd still demand more anecdotal or non-anecdotal evidence."

Come'on, man. Read the comment thread before you type something.

I have not demanded more anecdotal evidence, I have demanded OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC evidence. Not emotional, contextual riff-raff. If you have a sound argument with some sort of sound intellectual backing, I will listen. Until then, your nativist and yes, racist claims are going to undermine your arguments.

Seek objective sources. As long as you listen to, watch, or read sources with obvious bias and a very blatant agenda, your thinking will be flawed.
Anonymous said…
And your referring to someone who wants laws obeyed regarding immigration does not make one a nativist or racist, except in your mind, Jake.
Anonymous said…
You made my point exactly, Jake.

Those aren't any more objective sources than the people who post on this blog. They just have their point of view, like everyone else, but it seems to carry more credibility with you cause they took the time to write it down.

And 7:23 -- What exactly do you rule?? Nothing that matters, as far as I can see.
Anonymous said…
7:54 So you're saying you're not part of "We the People?" If you can't see it, you're part of the problem. Re-read your Constitution. And learn to think before you puke out something so insipid again. (I'm starting to understand why you loonies don't use your real names here. This is a dangerous place.)
Anonymous said…
"Under God, the people rule."

State motto of South Dakota.
Anonymous said…
Asked this on the thread below but I don't think anybody is posting on that one...so I'll ask it here...Just wondering..honest question...has there been any comment from Senator Johnson's staff about how he would have voted? He has been weighing on some benign stuff...just curious where he is on this.
Anonymous said…
Here's what makes me mad. The meat packers are the ones that recruited heavily in the 80's and 90's to bring in cheaper labor. We sat back and basked in the glow of their growth diguised as economic development as they opened plant after plant in small communitites around the midwest.

But these stalwarts of the community were beyond reproach, they were wealthy, they said they were not going to be held hostage to unions and they gave "liberally" to our party.

And we did nothing!!!

We didn't ask questions as the almighty god of economic development was worshipped.

We didn't want to know...we were just glad they were on our side.

Now I wonder. Hell to avoid this I would have supported unions!

And lastly to get away from the racist label...as long as we're spending money like drunken sailors on a 700 mile fence let build one on the north and just shut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
Anonymous said…
Yup. When Ronnie trashed the Unions,
Americans went down the tubes. Flat out.
If you want your country back, get behing the American worker.
Anonymous said…
8:19, I could concur with that, but why haven't unions come out against illegal workers?
Anonymous said…
They have. For years. Here's the latest position.
Before that, when I used to work for them, we were the ONLY people who stood at the borders
and told people to go back home.


http://www.ufw.org/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=cre_leg&b_no=55&page=1&field=&key=&n=3
Jake said…
"Those aren't any more objective sources than the people who post on this blog. They just have their point of view, like everyone else, but it seems to carry more credibility with you cause they took the time to write it down."

If you don't think scholarly journal articles are any different than a blogpost, you are terrible (and sadly) misinformed. Go (back) to college.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over