Back door amnesty was dealt a blow yesterday. Not a deadly thrust but rather a flesh wound.

Still, we should be grateful there were enough Republicans in the Senate willing to stand up against this travesty:

The prospects for immediate Senate action on the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants, disappeared Wednesday amid Republican opposition.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledged that senators would vote on the the measure, which is strongly opposed by anti-illegal immigration groups, before the Senate finishes its work for the year in mid-November.

“All who care about this matter should know that we will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here,” he said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., had sought to attach the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. But Reid announced Wednesday night that Democrats were shelving the effort because of difficulties getting past legislative roadblocks.

“Unfortunately, some Republicans are opposed to this proposal and are unwilling to let us move forward on this bill,” Reid said.

It really was pathetic that proponents of the DREAM Act would try and sneak this amendment through using the very popular Military Construction bill as a vehicle. This kind of legislative subterfuge has become all too common these days after the GOP spent a decade tirelessly using the tactic to attach questionably germane amendments to a variety of legislative initiatives.

But as many predicted once the Democrats became the majority, many of the same parliamentary and legislative tactics abused by Republicans over their decade in power would be snapped up by the Democrats and used even more underhandedly.

While you can get away with this tactic easier in the Senate whose rules aren’t quite as strict regarding the germaneness of amendments, it still troubled some Senators:

Some Senate Republicans, including Texans Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, objected to the measure being brought up on a defense bill.

“Putting extraneous things on this bill isn’t helpful,” Hutchison said.

Other Republicans aren’t ready to revisit a debate that imploded in June when the Senate scuttled an overhaul endorsed by the White House that would have given most illegal immigrants a chance for legal status.

“People, I think, want to let the immigration thing cool off a bit before we jump back in,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who helped derail the comprehensive immigration bill.

Reid will now look for another legislative vehicle to push this amendment. He will want to find something that Republicans want to vote for and can’t afford to kill off entirely.

Meanwhile, at the state level, it appears that enforcing the law actually works the way it was intended; it sends immigration scofflaws home or off to find greener pastures:

Illegal immigrants living in states and cities that have adopted strict immigration policies are packing up and moving back to their home countries or to neighboring states.
The exodus has been fueled by a wave of laws targeting illegal immigrants in Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and elsewhere. Many were passed after congressional efforts to overhaul the immigration system collapsed in June.

Immigrants say the laws have raised fears of workplace raids and deportation.

“People now are really frightened and scared because they don’t know what’s going to happen,” says Juliana Stout, an editor at the newspaper El Nacional de Oklahoma. “They’re selling houses. They’re leaving the country.”

Supporters of the laws cheer the departure of illegal immigrants and say the laws are working as intended.

Can you imagine a country where every state actually enforced the immigration laws equally for all? Those who break the law by coming here illegally wouldn’t go “underground” as we’re constantly told by the open borders crowd. With no place to work, most of them would quietly go home, free to get in line and work to come to this country legally. That is sanity. And that is fairness.

Of course, for all of these state initiatives to work, we must have a federal government that is dead serious about patrolling the border. As long as we have a Homeland Security Department that continues to place a low priority on protecting the borders, not only will we be at a greater risk of suffering a terrorist attack, but the illegal immigrant problem will continue to be a source of concern far into the future.

And where there is utter depraved stupidity, there is the Mexican President:

President Felipe Calderon blasted U.S. immigration policies on Sunday and promised to fight harder to protect the rights of Mexicans in the U.S., saying “Mexico does not end at its borders.”

The criticism earned Calderon a standing ovation during his first state-of-the nation address.

“We strongly protest the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government that have only persecuted and exacerbated the mistreatment of Mexican undocumented workers,” he said. “The insensitivity toward those who support the U.S. economy and society has only served as an impetus to reinforce the battle … for their rights.”

He also reached out to the millions of Mexicans living in the United States, many illegally, saying: “Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.”

Interesting, isn’t it? Calderon can’t even make that boast good in his own country! Millions of Mexican citizens live in areas not controlled by the Mexican government but by vicious, murdering drug gangs. His control over his own capitol is also in question since the speech where he uttered those inflammatory words was not delivered at the Mexican Capitol building, the San Lazaro, where tradition dictates it be given, but rather at the National Palace (Palacio Nacional). This is due to the opposition’s blocking him from making the speech at the capitol, claiming Calderon rigged the election that brought him to power.

Of course, he’s counting on the fact that his fighting words will create a backlash from illegal immigrant opponents which will gain sympathy and support for the lawbreakers from legal Mexicans and naturalized citizens here in America. This will only serve to put more pressure on the Democrats and President Bush to pass an amnesty bill sooner rather than later.

No doubt, many will overreact to Calderon’s carefully calculated insult to American sovereignty and thus play into his hands. But actually, this is truly pathetic from the Mexican President. He is reduced to political tricks in order to get the American government to acquiesce to immigration reform.

Recent data on remittances from immigrants in the US to Mexico shows a significant drop thanks to measures designed to make it harder for illegals to send money home. This may have Calderon worried because those remittances dump around $18 billion into the Mexican economy in much needed dollars. And those transfer payments are the second largest source of foreign income following oil exports. Is it any wonder that Calderon sees putting pressure on the US government to pass Bush’s immigration reform as vital to Mexican national interests?

Let the popinjay spout, I say. He can brag as much as he wishes about Mexico claiming sovereignty over anywhere in the US that an illegal immigrant is breaking the law. But in the end, his rhetoric is as empty as his head if he thinks that anyone actually believes such nonsense.

Oh my. This should rock the boat a bit:

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. He fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties.

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

I don’t know what’s more interesting: Putnam’s findings or his fear in releasing them. Certainly his study fails to show diversity and multi-culturalism breeding happy, smiley-faced Americans walking down their neighborhood street hugging their ethnically or racially divergent brother and everyone dancing around the maypole in solidarity with the world revolution.

But we knew that. Any ten year old knows this from his experience on the real life playgrounds of the world. At a very young age, children are able to recognize differences and without being told or taught, tend to congregate in their own ethnically and racially similar groups. They will make alliances and initiate friendly relations with other groups made up of children from different backgrounds. But the ethnicity and race of their circle of friends will reflect what they see in the mirror every day.

Now don’t get me wrong. Being exposed to people of different cultures and races is a good thing. It breeds a tolerance and a respect for others that was probably missing from my rather sheltered childhood. In my time, one’s parents set the tone for how you treated others from different cultures, backgrounds, and races. If you had tolerant parents, the chances were very good that you would end up a fairly tolerant adult.

But the significance of Putnam’s study – a study he refuses to release because he’s afraid of either us evil right wingers making political hay of his findings (thanks, professor; we will) or he’s terrified of being skewered by the left for daring to publish anything against the multicultural orthodoxy – is that the old fashioned assimilation model for new arrivals might – just might – be a superior socialization strategy compared to the promotion of separate and distinct racial and ethnic groups in America.

Rather than look at the study, I am more intrigued with the Professor’s hand wringing over the fact that his work tends to knock the chocks from underneath a pillar of leftist thinking; that by pigeonholing Americans and recent arrivals into their own special group while encouraging a separateness based on culture and language, tolerance and acceptance will automatically follow in the country at large. This has been an article of faith on left for 30 years. It has affected school curricula for children as young as pre-schoolers on up through the speech codes and diversity mandates found in the finest institutions of higher learning in the land.

And rather than accomplish anything, it has made things worse.

Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”

Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.

What’s a conscientious liberal to do? The professor not only has political dynamite in his hands but .50 caliber ammunition for the enemies of multi-cultural thought. The professor’s solution is, shall we say, unique:

Putnam has long been aware that his findings could have a big effect on the immigration debate. Last October, he told the Financial Times that “he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity.” He said it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that,” a quote that should raise eyebrows. Academics aren’t supposed to withhold negative data until they can suggest antidotes to their findings.

No, they’re not. And if Putnam was a conservative he’d be lashed to the mouth of a very large cannon featuring a very short fuse. But I suspect the professor will be praised for his altruistic impulses in putting the needs of multiculturalism over his own academic reputation.

And the professor’s stated reasons for the delay in publishing raises some interesting questions; just what “proposals” could “counter” the negative effects of diversity? Let’s give that one some thought. Perhaps we could change the entire intellectual framework by which we approach the problem? How about treating people as individuals rather than lumping them into defined, monolithic groups and encouraging what Goldstein refers to as “the other” – a mindset that breeds a separateness from society and positing its superiority over the dominant culture?

But that would be relatively easy. The problem is we’d have to throw out The Diversity and Multi-Cultural Handbook in order to mitigate these effects on society. The fact that the professor has now taken 9 months to come up with other “solutions” probably means he doesn’t have a clue how to rescue the diversity baby without destroying at least parts of it. And if there is anything that would tick off the left more than producing a study giving the lie to one of their cherished beliefs it would be publishing solutions that would bury that belief for good.

To be fair, the professor’s study showed some improvement in these attitudes in the long term:

Putnam’s study does make two positive points: in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable, and successful immigrant societies “dampen the negative effects of diversity” by constructing new identities. Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance and social solidarity. For instance, white soldiers assigned to units with black soldiers after World War II were more relaxed about desegregation of the army than were soldiers in all-white units. But Putnam acknowledges that most empirical studies do not support the “contact hypothesis.” In general, they find that the more people are brought into contact with those of another race or ethnicity, the more they stick to their own, and the less they trust others. Putnam writes: “Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods.”

Though Putnam is wary of what right-wing politicians might do with his findings, the data might give pause to those on the left, and in the center as well. If he’s right, heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. Putnam is hopeful that eventually America will forge a new solidarity based on a “new, broader sense of we.” The problem is how to do that in an era of multiculturalism and disdain for assimilation.

Does this sound familiar? “...[S]uccessful immigrant societies “dampen the negative effects of diversity” by constructing new identities…”

We used to call them “hyphenated Americans,” these immigrants with “new identities.” It was special to be an “Irish-American” or “Italian-American.” The terms themselves defined a way of looking at America and the world as well as how you interacted with your “Polish-American” or “Russian-American” neighbors. Diversity then wasn’t some artificial construct. It was given life by assimilating oneself into the larger American culture through a wide variety of portals. Churches, social clubs, sports leagues, even local watering holes. And finally, a school system that cared more about children as human beings than dots on a graph.

It wasn’t perfect by any means. But in its creaky, uneven way, it served its purpose well. America successfully assimilated more than 150 million immigrants in less than 150 years – a feat unmatched by any other society in the history of human civilization. Whatever we did, however it was accomplished, it worked.

The fact that the multi-cultural model has turned out less well won’t matter to its advocates and high priests. Blame for its failure will fall elsewhere; oppressive white society, undiversified media, bad parenting, even evil right wing influences.

But perhaps following Hamlet’s Cassius’ advice in Julius Caesar would speed understanding by the left into what is truly a seminal moment in the history of our culture; “”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…”

UPDATE

James Joyner and I are on pretty much the same wavelength. He also rounds up some other reaction, including this from Rod Dreher:

I predict this research will have absolutely zero impact on the immigration debate. Why? Because Diversity is a dogmatic secular religion. To dissent from its dogmas is to declare oneself to be a heathen. Seriously, to question its premises is to be thought of as a closet hater by the Establishment. You would get about as far questioning Creationism at a backwoods Bible college as you would questioning Diversity at a US university, corporation or whatnot.

While the reference to “backwoods Bible college” is a pretty gratuitous slap of Christians – especially since not all Bible colleges teach creationism or even intelligent design – the point is valid. There’s too much emotional investment (not to mention financial windfalls for some campus groups) in diversity for the academic community to do anything with these conclusions except dismiss them out of hand or ignore them.

One gets the distinct impression reading what is going on behind the scenes in Congress as the immigration travesty seeks to rise from the dead and walk Zombie-like back on to the Senate floor, is that even the bill’s opponents think that this monstrosity of a measure is better than no bill at all.

The reason is simple; this has been a do-nothing Congress from the start. The best laid plans of the new Democratic majority to change the culture in Congress, end the war, and force changes in Medicare (among other proposals the Dems promised voters last November) have mostly fallen by the wayside or been torpedoed by their own members.

This has Congress scrambling to do something before voters begin to notice and wonder why their Congressmen are getting paid 165 grand a year to essentially sit on their collective behinds and rake in donations from lobbyists and cronies.

It has always been America’s “Persian Flaw” – this belief that we send people to Congress in order to “solve problems” like immigration, poverty, or filling in that pothole down the street. Some problems simply aren’t solvable in any real sense by Congress (call your local mayor about the pothole, please) and in fact, fiddling with legislation that purports to do so can make the problem worse.

The immigration bill is a case in point. No one in Congress really believes the bill will “solve” anything except perhaps resolving their electoral problems by bringing a lot of Latino votes their way come November, 2008. It won’t stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States and it is an open question whether it will even slow it down. It may even lead to increased illegals crossing the border hoping that within the next few years, Congress will once again address the issue of illegal immigration by simply declaring lawbreakers as law abiding non-citizens provided they pay up and can prove they’re not out to blow up the Statue of Liberty.

And as Michelle Malkin points out, the backlog of cases already on the plate of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is approaching the catastrophic point. How in God’s name are they going to handle the millions of applicants who will eagerly apply for the special “Z” visa if they act as incompetently, irrationally, and as criminally negligent as this?

The agency, [Michael] Maxwell [former head of security for USCIS] told Congress, was “a viper’s nest” of political hacks and career federal employees who covered up criminal allegations of bribery, document fraud, extortion, money laundering and espionage within their ranks.

Maxwell’s testimony, corroborated by congressional staff and investigators at the Government Accountability Office, and a four-part editorial series in The Examiner (“Leaving the front door wide open”), described gaping security holes at USCIS, including the failure to check names against terrorist watch lists and to fingerprint applicants. All the while, USCIS personnel were being offered cash bonuses, time off, movie tickets and gift certificates to speed up processing times for their “customers.”

There were no incentives to keep undesirable applicants out. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s office found that 45,000 high-risk illegal immigrants from countries known to sponsor terrorism were allowed to legally enter the U.S. since 2001.

In case you may have forgotten, on September 11, 2001 several known terrorists – people on the CIA’s terrorist “watch list” – were able to sneak into the country and help kill 3,000 of our fellow citizens. The fact that 6 years after that bureaucratic disaster there doesn’t seem to be any kind of urgency whatsoever at the agencies responsible for making sure such an event never, ever occurs again would be shocking if it didn’t fit in with this Administration’s general lack of interest in closing the borders, securing our ports, hardening “soft” terrorist targets,” and a host of other security measures that could prevent an attack of even larger dimensions.

I hasten to add that some strides have been made in securing many of those areas. But it is not enough. And the biggest weakness we have – our porous, unrecognized borders – would actually be made worse by the passage of this bill. With the jaw clenching help of the Mexican government, ways will be found to cow the Border Patrol and Washington politicians into not doing much of anything to prevent the flow of illegals in similar numbers that we see today.

That’s because fence or no fence, virtual or not, the problem of illegal immigrants begins in Mexico with it’s under performing economy and a birth rate that continues to skyrocket thus increasing the numbers of a desperate underclass of Mexican citizens who see America as a cash cow to be milked for jobs and benefits so that they can send billions back home to relatives and fill Mexican banks with dollars. There is no incentive whatsoever for Mexican politicians to change their half socialist/half crony capitalism economy while rooting out the corruption and inefficiencies that slow economic growth in the first place. Why should they when they have a safety valve just to the north where they can send the overflow?

Until we get serious about border security and significantly slow the pace of illegal immigration, Mexico will not reform their economy. And the problem of desperate people coming to America seeking a better life by any means necessary – legal or illegal – will not ease until the lawbreakers are given an incentive to stay put and make a better life in their own country.

What this bill will ultimately do is doom real immigration reform efforts for another decade, sloughing off the responsibility for seriously addressing the problem to another generation. In the meantime, we have no idea who is coming across our borders and whether they mean us well or ill. If that doesn’t give Senators pause before voting on cloture today, then I fear for the future safety of our republic.

UPDATE

The latest from Allah has cloture probably passing. But that may not be the end of it:

We’re shooting at a moving target here but best estimates are that opponents are within six votes or so of killing this monster in its crib when the first cloture vote comes to the floor tomorrow. John Hawkins’s Senate source said last week that the first vote is the time to get it done, otherwise it’ll pick up momentum and force a do-or-die second cloture a few days later that will determine the bill’s fate.

With the White House doing a full court press on the bill, it is highly unlikely that a second cloture vote will be any more successful than the first. That means the bill will probably pass in the Senate with the House so far hanging strong on defeating it.

Reading and listening to politicians talk about their Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill is an interesting anthropological exercise. Being a separate species of human, Homo Politicus exhibits all the characteristics one might expect from a breed apart.

The ability to talk out of both sides of the mouth at the same time is highly prized in Politicus although evolution has given the genus a forked tongue and a larger mouth to go along with this ability. This tends to force the nose to get out of joint on a regular basis which can be a hazard to the beast’s health considering all the hot air generated by an increased lung capacity. This tends to crowd the heart in the chest cavity, making that organ much smaller than ours. But evolution once again comes to the rescue as not only does Politicus have engorged bile ducts (a necessity given how much of that precious fluid they generate on a regular basis) but also a massive bladder – all the better to piss on the rest of us whenever they get the chance.

Many of these unusual attributes have been on display as Politicus has been busy trying to justify its sellout of the United States on immigration to a bored, cynical public who doesn’t believe half of what it hears and is depressed and discouraged by listening to the other half:

“The question is, ‘Do you want to solve the problem, or do you want to complain about it?’ ” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “There will be people who want to complain and will miss the problem if they can’t complain about it. This is about solving it.”

Yep. My opposition is based solely on the fact that I won’t have anything else to write about if immigration goes away as an issue. Who knows. Maybe I’d be forced to write a series of articles on incompetent lickspittle bureaucrats running the most spectacularly inept and hugely wasteful executive department in history. A department that after 5 years of existence still can’t figure out how to organize itself or, more importantly, settle the bureaucratic turf battles that make protecting the homeland effectively an impossibility.

Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me angry.

And Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a White House hopeful, warned that “the proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification, replace the current group of undocumented immigrants with a new undocumented population consisting of guest workers who will overstay their visas, and potentially drive down wages of American workers.”

The guy sounds more Republican than most Republicans. Two out of three ain’t bad, Obie although the idea that “family reunification” would be “devalued in this bill is silly. We’re going to allow 750,000 immediate family members a year for the next 8 years to come into this country legally. Just how many more would you let in?

“Year after year, we’ve heard talk about reforming our system. We’ve heard the bumper-sticker solutions, the campaign ads, and we know how divisive it is,” Kennedy said. “Well, now, it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system.”

A broken system is preferable to one that surrenders to lawlessness, panders to interest groups, sacrifices our security, and promotes separateness at the expense of assimilation. And speaking of bumper stickers, how about this one: “Ted Kennedy’s Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun.“ Or how about “I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than drive with Ted Kennedy.”

“It is intended to reflect the labor needs of the United States in the 21st century, rather than the 19th century,” a senior Republican staffer said on condition of anonymity.

Actually, given the low skilled labor performed by most of the illegals today, the bill reflects very much our labor needs from the 19th century. And don’t mention the fact that the German, or Italian, or Slavic, or Mexican immigrant from 125 years ago was pretty much forced by circumstances to learn English or not work and that the immigrant’s social network – unofficial and not sanctioned or created by any government – worked just fine in helping the new arrival assimilate into American society.

What our anonymous friend is talking about are the 180,000 or so high tech, high end immigrants with advanced degrees or special skills (H-1B visas) who would be allowed into this country every year under the new bill. For the overwhelming majority of the rest – hardworking, diligent, family oriented and illegal – any 19th century immigrant would have little trouble performing most of the jobs taken by today’s immigrant scofflaws.

No wonder the staffer wanted to remain anonymous. He’s ignorant.

A voice in the wilderness:

“What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty,” said Rep. Brian Bilbray (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

Such straight talk will get the Congressman in trouble, no doubt. He’ll be branded a “racist” before today is out.

Immigrant advocacy and labor groups also oppose the terms of a new guest worker program in which low-skilled immigrants would be forced to leave the country after temporary stints and would have limited opportunities to stay and get on a path to permanent legalization.

“Without a real path to legalization, the program will exclude millions of workers and thus ensure that America will have two classes of workers, only one of which can exercise workplace rights,” said John J. Sweeney, the AFL-CIO president.

I know, John. It’s tough to try and force unionization on people who are only going to be here two years. Not enough time to coerce enough people into checking that little box that allows you to grab a portion of their wages for political contributions.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who helped shape the deal, called it “long overdue.” However, Mitt Romney said it was the “wrong approach,” which provided “a form of amnesty” to illegal immigrants. Fred Thompson, who is considering entering the race, said it should be scrapped in favor of a measure to secure the border.

I’ll tell you what’s “long overdue,” John. Your immediate and humiliating exit from Republican presidential politics. See Hugh Hewitt for Mitt’s complete remarks that strongly opposes the bill and takes a swipe at the soon to be ex-presidential candidate McCain. (Mama Romney didn’t raise no fool.) And good for Fred! Except this one is a no brainer if you’re running for President and want a “GOP” after your name on the ballot. It remains to be seen what would happen if Mitt or even Fred made it all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What chance does this bill have in passing? They’ll fiddle with the family requirements a bit and fudge the numbers on the guest worker program. And they may even increase the security requirements thinking to peel off some GOP House members. But essentially, this is it. And since politicians love more than anything else to be able to announce to their constituents that they have “solved” a serious problem (or at least “addressed” it), the bill will pass overwhelmingly in both Houses – almost certainly before the July 4 recess.

But no matter what they do, the bill is still a disaster. It’s a disaster for the country first, party second, and I would even say a disaster for illegal immigrants as well. I devoutly wished they would have increased legal immigration and streamlined the path to citizenship to reward those who play by the rules and encourage new arrivals to assimilate quickly into American society. Draconian enforcement of workplace strictures against hiring illegals in the first place would make coming here a much more difficult proposition. And we could dramatically reduce the numbers of illegals already here that way while not having to “round up 12 million people” and send them home.

Not a perfect “solution” by a long shot. But to pretend this bill does anything except ensure that another 12 million people will cross the border illegally over the next few years waiting for their chance at the amnesty brass ring is stupid, silly, and self defeating. We have created a cycle guaranteed to keep illegal immigration a problem for the next generation to solve. And we will have devalued the rule of law, the security of our borders, and our national sovereignty in the process.

A pig in a dress is still a pig – even if you invite it to the Senior Prom and give it a corsage. You just can’t cover up the ugly stench of political pandering by gussying up a bill with so many flaws. It’s still a bad piece of legislation no matter how you try and sell it. And it should be soundly defeated if there were an ounce of sense left on the Hill.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin’s post from last night rounds up late reaction. And go ahead and vote in her poll on what you think of the bill. (Sorry – nothing stronger than “No” and “Hell No!”).

UPDATE

Allah’s contribtion this morning is a pretty straightforward take on the politics of the bill and the Democrat’s line of attack in attempting to exploit their obvious advantages:

The reason the nutroots has started to reframe racial politics as Republicans versus “brown people” (which Ace, for one, writes about regularly) instead of relying on the traditional Republicans-versus-blacks paradigm is because (a) they’ve already got 90+% of the black vote, so returns are diminishing, and (b) with immigration front and center after 9/11, there’s a whole new minority group affected by key policies that they can demagogue the hell out of for votes. Hence the new, expansive “brown person” formulation, which pits most racial minorities against conservatives in one fell swoop by suggesting that “brownness” itself is somehow frightening or intolerable to us and thus the real cause of all this hand-wringing over open borders. That term of art hasn’t trickled up to the party establishment yet, so far as I know, but it surely will have by the time illegals are legalized and begin to unionize and register in numbers. If the rhetoric is deployed skillfully enough (and the left is very, very good at this sort of thing), it could raise what they’d doubtless call “brown consciousness” to the point where it’s worth another 10-20% of the already large and growing Latino vote.

I’m not so sure. The dynamic in the Hispanic community has always been hard to read because there are actually different “communities.” I doubt whether you would lump Hispanics from south Florida with southwestern Hispanics (many of whom have families that have been here longer than any English speakers) or even “barrio” Hispanics from Los Angeles with illegals from Texas. As time goes on, Hispanics are becoming less monolithic a voting bloc as more and more immigrants move into the middle and upper middle classes. I see where Bush/Rove were heading in 2004 but it may have been a decade too soon. The entreprenurial spirit is alive and well in the Hispanic community and I have little doubt that these “natural Republicans” will only keep growing in numbers over the next few years.

As the Senate gleefully races toward the immigration reform gasoline dump sporting a lit match and a truckload of nitroglycerin, an outline of their handiwork shows the true nature of the disaster that is about to befall the republic.

Think I’m exaggerating? A little “Nuthouse nuttery” that I’m inclined to indulge in from time to time?

Think again. What these guardians of our national security have wrought is nothing short of a surrender to lawlessness, a pandering to an interest group so nauseating in its totality and so base in it calculated appeal for their electoral loyalty that it takes one’s breath away to contemplate how easily our safety has been compromised in the name of a few, lousy, votes.

For in truth, this “comprehensive reform” is hardly comprehensive and reforms nothing. Instead, it validates lawbreaking, rewards separateness, spits in the face of those who have followed the rules and come here legally, and endangers the cohesiveness and unity of the country. It also opens wide the borders and invites another two or three generations of immigration scofflaws to enjoy our hospitality, awaiting their turn on the amnesty-go-round willingly supplied by politicians who refuse to do the right thing in favor of being able to preen, primp, and posture in front of the voters, touting their credentials as compassionate lawmakers concerned about the “plight” of illegal aliens.

The more one reads about this bill, the more it becomes clear that border security advocates and immigration law enforcement supporters have been thrown off the train in favor of full blown amnesty and a visa program with big enough loopholes that you can drive a truck full of “undocumented workers” through:

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a “Z visa” and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called “triggers” had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Why bother with the “Z” visa when the “probationary card” will get you by for a few years? Then it would simply be a matter of going underground again, counting on the same kind of lax enforcement that has been the hallmark of our immigration policies for decades.

The “guest worker” program is another invitation to abuse. Anyone want to bet how many of those workers actually go home after 2 years?

One aspect of the bill not mentioned in the AP story but that Michelle Malkin has via email from Roy Beck of NumbersUSA:

WE LOSE —by getting a tripling of the rate of chain migration of extended family from around 250,000 a year to around 750,000 a year for about a decade;

IN EXCHANGE FOR —after about a decade, there should be no more chain migration (assuming that Kennedy doesn’t add it back in by then);

That’s three quarters of a million people – slightly less than the number of legal immigrants allowed on an annual basis – who will be dumped on the social welfare system (schools, hospitals, and government dependence programs), placing strain on what is already a nearly broken network of support for the poor. This will be in addition to the millions who have been fearful of taking advantage of this system because of their previously illegal status.

We should brace ourselves for the human flood who will seek to cross the border between now and when the amnesty takes effect. Now that the amnesty cat is out of the bag, it is more than likely that there will be a huge surge of humanity desperate to get here to grab the brass ring so eagerly offered up by our lawmakers.

How this will scramble politics is uncertain. I would not be surprised if this measure was the catalyst for the formation of a third party. Nor would it surprise me if it didn’t disgust enough conservatives that the political re-alignment predicted by some didn’t become a reality as a result of the right abandoning the GOP. For Presidential politics, I’d like to say it would doom John McCain’s candidacy but unfortunately, we will not be vouchsafed such a happy occurrence. Nor will it give much of a boost to Mr. Tancredo’s one-issue crusade, although one can barely see him as Vice Presidential material if the issue is still hot this time next year.

Make no mistake. This bill is a watershed, the GOP’s Gettysburg. And those of us who favor enforcement and security are in the position of making a futile charge up the long slope under the guns of the pro-amnesty crowd from both parties.

And there’s not a damn thing we can do to stop it.

UPDATE

Allah has a good question:

Rich Lowry thinks the “triggers” are a scam from the word go, with amnesty granted immediately upon passage of the bill and the “Z visas,” which are keed to the enforcement triggers, only relevant insofar as they allow the bearer to travel. But even if Lowry’s wrong, what happens to the illegals who are here while the feds are working towards the triggers? Let’s say they get bogged down and can’t get them done for another decade. What’s the status of the “undocumented” during that interim period?

Answer: Congress will simply say the “triggers” are in place even if they aren’t. Just move the goal posts.

And Hugh Hewitt issues a challenge:

If there aren’t 41 Republican senators willing to fight for the common sense solution, the Senate GOP will be staggered again, just as it was by John Warner’s and Susan Collins’ attempt to agree to slow surrender in Iraq some months ago. Apparently the bulk of the Senate Republicans simply do not understand that an opposition party is supposed to oppose bad laws, not attempt to merely dilute them.

Michelle Malkin has many links, but despite the obvious anger in the ranks of the party’s base, this bill will move quickly unless stopped immediately. Call 202-225-3121 and ask for the offices of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott or Jon Kyl, the three leaders of the GOP in the upper chamber. Surrendering half the fence is the first step in surrendering half the seats they are trying to defend in ‘08, and Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, John Sununu and others ought to be demanding the caucus stop this national security and political insanity. The Senate GOP can and should filibuster any bill that dismantles half the fence before it was built, and any bill that is vague on the details of amnesty-lite.

GOP lawmakers should be polishing up those back benches, making them nice and presentable. They’re going to be stuck there a few decades if they meekly submit to the passage of this bill.

Funny how these things always seem to happen at the last minute in politics.

Republicans, including the President, have been saying for more than two years that his immigration “reform” bill was not – repeat – not an amnesty measure. Anyone who said any differently was a “racist” or paranoid. There was no way that this bill would be used to grant permanent legal status to the 12 million illegal immigrant scofflaws residing in the United States.

“Trust me:”

Senators negotiating a bipartisan immigration reform bill have settled on the details of a plan that would immediately grant legal status to all illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

The deal on “Z visas” for illegal immigrants is one of several issues where Democrats and Republicans have reached broad agreement.

But as senators emerged from what they had hoped would be a final round of negotiations Tuesday, they indicated that painstakingly slow progress would keep them from meeting the deadline set by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to begin debate on a bill today.

Late Tuesday, Reid agreed to push that deadline to Monday.

“They tell me they’re 80% of the way,” Reid said in announcing the delay. “That’s fine, the other 20% is hard.”

The plan to award legal status to all illegal immigrants who meet certain qualifications would occur only after other “triggers” are met. These triggers would require that certain border security and work-site enforcement measures be in place before other aspects of the overhaul go forward.

The Z visa plan would start with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States going on a probationary legal status. If the triggers are met — a process that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated would take 18 months — then illegal immigrants who qualify could get Z visas. Those who have committed felonies would not be eligible, Graham said, and all participants would have to pass security checks, pay a fine and a processing fee and pass an English proficiency test.

I am a cynical old curmudgeon, having long ago lost my wide eyed innocence when it comes to worshiping the men and women who occupy seats in the House or the Senate. In fact, I lost my schoolboy notions of government and the people who serve the United States within about 6 months of coming to Washington. They are not paradigms of wisdom and virtue nor are they evil manipulators. They are human. There are nice ones and mean ones. Smart ones and dumb ones. Clever ones and clueless ones. Serious and unserious, trustworthy and untrustworthy – the whole, rich panoply of the human tapestry encompassing all the good, the bad, the bald, and the ugly resides in those chambers of lawmaking. So it is entirely possible to revere lawmaking but be cynical about the lawmakers. Such is the way of Washington.

But one thing that all politicians can’t help being – good, evil, and everything in between – are liars. The very same thing that you might spank your child for, politicians do on a regular basis. The very same thing that you would divorce your spouse for, politicians do without thinking.

Hence, the illegal immigrant amnesty bill and what seems like an abrupt about face by many of the politicians involved. Long time Hill watchers took a look at that immigration bill when it first saw the light of day and could smell the amnesty provisions in it a mile away. Despite the denials that this simply wasn’t so. Despite the name calling by proponents, tarring the opposition with horribly hurtful epithets questioning their fairness and empathy. Despite all of it, the opponents of the bill turn out to be right and the advocates are revealed as liars.

Our politics have become so cynical that politicians know there is a very good chance the public will not penalize them for their lies, that the people will simply shrug their shoulders and chalk it up to “politics as usual.” And they would be right. The infection of fatalism regarding our politics and politicians has so sickened the public that expecting honesty and integrity in our public officials is no longer a given. When someone like Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) can be caught with $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer and be re-elected by a comfortable margin, you know that something might just be amiss with the body politic.

It’s their fault, of course. And ours. And our parents and grandparents and the long, illustrious line of Americans going all the way back to the Founding Fathers. The Founders may not have imagined a republic the likes of which we have today. But they knew what men were capable of doing when in power and tried to set up a system that mitigated against the worst of what we were capable of. The fact that they largely succeeded is astonishing. It’s just too bad they couldn’t imagine an age where lying became second nature to the politicians that people have grown weary of making excuses for.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey doesn’t seem alarmed, pointing to increased border security measures. better workplace enforcement, and a slight roadblock placed in the way of amnesty seekers.

Obviously, I’m a tad more hysterical. Allah less so. Hewitt – steaming.

The left is all atwitter this morning about the shouting match broadcast last night on Bill O’Reilly’s show between the host and Geraldo Rivera. The issue was an incendiary one alright – an illegal alien named Albert Ramos, arrested several times previously for alcohol related crimes, murdered two teenagers when he slammed into their car while driving drunk.

It is a shame that both men couldn’t have kept a lid on their emotions because there are serious issues involved here. Should Ramos have been identified as an illegal alien and deported following his previous arrests? Is it the job of state and local officials to enforce immigration laws? Is there anything that could have been done to avoid this tragedy?

Here’s the video, courtesy of You Tube:

Then there is the question of whether immigration issues should even be raised in response to the tragedy:

O’Reilly told Allison Kuhndhart’s father and sister during his show, “The authorities in your town would not obey the law, defied the law of the land and somebody needs to be held accountable sir. I want you to keep in touch with us. We’re gonna get the mayor, Oberndorf and the judge, Whitehurst, because they’re the villains.”

During the news conference, Mayor Meyera Oberndorf said she has never even O’Reilly’s show and did not mention him by name throughout the conference.

The mayor and Tessa Tranchant’s father both said that making an issue out of immigration loses the focus that the girls were killed by a man that police said was driving drunk.

Ray Tranchant said, “We need to heal, and to bring immigration, that’s disrespectful to a family who’s just mourning.”

Hard to argue with that sentiment. The problem is that this is not the first time an illegal alien has committed murder and brought tragedy to a family – not by a long shot. There have been dozens of cases across the country where it is more than likely that some innocent would be alive today if we took border security seriously. And in each case, local and state authorities take the cop out position that it is the job of the federal government to enforce immigration laws, not theirs.

I disagree strongly with that excuse. The state or local authorities are well within their rights to hand over an illegal alien to USCIS for committing a felony. The problem, of course, is that the Feds don’t want to deal with the problem either. So in a bizarre echo of “don’t ask don’t tell,” illegal aliens are allowed to continue their criminal activities, safe in the knowledge that they can prey upon American citizens and not worry about having their criminal careers in the US interrupted by a stricter enforcement of the law.

This is an indefensible position so Rivera ignored the immigration aspect of the case and tried to point out that it was a question of drunk driving, nothing more. I know what Rivera was trying to say – that it was wrong to bring “politics” into the case – and in a perfect world, at some other time in American history, he would probably be absolutely correct.

But how can one ignore the singular fact that this tragedy need not have happened? If we had a rational immigration and border policy, it is more than likely that Mr. Ramos would not have been on American soil to kill those two teenagers. This uncomfortable fact was not addressed by Mr. Rivera nor anyone in the open borders crowd. Instead, we get platitudes about how vital immigrants are to this country and how much they have contributed to the richness of our culture and our economy.

I do not begrudge legal immigrants these marvelous accomplishments. And I would strongly support – as part of a rational immigration policy – a tripling of legal immigration. It seems to me that if we can dramatically reduce border incursions by illegals we can certainly massively increase the number of people who want to go through the legal process of immigration and make an orderly entry into America. While there are no reliable statistics to prove it, anecdotal evidence from immigration attorneys would suggest that people who go through that process are much more motivated to make a living, learn English, and eventually become citizens.

But as the shouting match between O’Reilly and Rivera showed in microcosm, it is much easier for people to talk past each other rather than come to some kind of meeting of the minds on a rational borders and immigration policy. The time and place for that debate can be questioned in this case. But the issues raised cannot be.

UPDATE

My brother Jim, a folksinger who has performed with some of the legends in that genre, sent me an interesting email the other day with a link to a funny song by Bob Haworth about immigration.

“Can You Get Me In?” Here are some of the lyrics:

CAN YOU GET ME IN?
Words & Music by Bob Haworth
Copyright 2006 – Three Cats Music, BMI
All Rights Reserved

NOW I PLAN TO TAKE THE WHOLE FAMILY
ALL MY COUSINS, MY SIBLINGS AND EVEN AUNT BEA
WE’D ALL LIKE JOBS AND A REAL NICE PLACE TO LIVE
I WANT MY KIDS IN AN ENGLISH SPEAKING SCHOOL
I WANT FOOD STAMPS AND HEALTH CARE – I’M NO FOOL
‘CAUSE ALL THAT STUFF IS MY PREROGATIVE!

And the video. Go ahead and sing along. You know you want to. (Additional lyrics here at the bottom of the page.)

I’ve never really felt my classically liberal brother out about immigration. But he lives in southern California and taught “English as a second language” classes for many years at a local Junior College at night. I daresay he probably doesn’t agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Haworth in his little ditty. But he knew that I would so I have to express my appreciation for his passing it along.

The following is one of those stories that at first blush, you check the calendar to make sure that it isn’t April 1st. The next thing you do is pinch yourself to make sure you’re awake. Finally, desperate not to believe what you have just read, you swear off dropping acid, smoking pot, and taking other mind altering substances in hopes that the hallucination that has appeared in front of you will disappear – the result of some drug addled stupor you’ve fallen into.

Alas, you then read the story again and realize that it is not April 1st, you are, in fact, awake, and that you haven’t dropped acid for 30 years anyway so what’s the point?

A 22-year-old woman is suing a Chicago Spanish-language radio station over allegations that they refuse to give her the car she won in a contest because she’s undocumented.

Maribel Nava Alvarez won the Corvette on July 4, 2005, in a raffle sponsored by 107.9 FM La Ley.

In a lawsuit naming both the radio station and its parent company, Spanish Broadcasting System, Alvarez says La Ley withheld the car when officials found out she’s undocumented.

She is suing for breach of contract and emotional distress.

In a written statement, La Ley said that it is legally required to get a valid Social Security number or tax identification number from anyone who wins prizes worth more than $500.

The station tried to give Alvarez the car even though her tax information couldn’t be verified, the statement said.

Alvarez said she was never told she needed to be a U.S. citizen or legal resident to win the car.

I’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the floor…

What’s wrong with this picture? We can start by taking the Tribune to task for referring to the woman as “undocumented.” She is, of course, an illegal alien who is breaking the law by residing in the United States without a visa or green card. But hey! Whose counting?

And I don’t know what’s more shocking; the fact that the station tried to give her the car anyway without collecting the necessary tax information or the unmitigated gall of the woman to sue for “emotional distress.” Living here illegally is emotionally distressing in and of itself. But to try and soak a radio station for trying to follow the law and deny her the benefit of her ill gotten gains is beyond the pale, beyond avarice, and beyond belief.

The Spanish Broadcast System attorney played a little hardball with the woman:

Alvarez’s suit also names SBS lawyer James Cueva, who sent her attorney a letter on Dec. 19, 2005, threatening to contact immigration officials if she pursued a lawsuit.

“I will caution you that if you insist on filing suit against SBS, I will in turn be forced to refer this matter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as I believe your client is in this country illegally,” the letter said.

Cueva’s remarks “have sometimes been presented without proper context,” the station’s statement said.

Alvarez said she has left the Chicago area out of fear that she would be deported.

Why should the station apologize for a lawyer doing his duty as a citizen and reporting an illegal alien? The context is perfect; an illegal alien was trying to claim an expensive prize without having to pay taxes on it and was threatening to sue in order to get even more loot from the station. Whatever context you want to view that in is fine with me.

The woman is a fool. She should have waited a few months when the amnesty bill that will almost surely be passed gives her everything her little mercenary heart desires.

Until then, I sure hope she finds a way to deal with her “emotional distress.”

“Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit.”
(Sergeant ‘Buster’ Kilrain from the film Gettysburg)

I’ve got to hand it to Representative Virgil Goode. Not content with exposing himself as an ignorant bigot by sending a letter to his constituents warning of a Muslim invasion of America and the prospect of many more Congressmen swearing allegiance to the United States on the Koran, he has now reiterated these points on the pages of USA Today:

My letter did not call for a religious test for prospective members of Congress, as some have charged. Americans have the right to elect any person of their choosing to represent them. I indicated to my constituents that I did not subscribe to the Quran in any way, and I intended to use the Bible in connection with my swearing-in. I also stated that the Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall of my office, and I have no intention of displaying the Quran in my office. That is my choice, and I stand by my position and do not apologize for it.

My letter also stated, “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.”

Immigration is arguably the most important issue facing the country today. At least 12 million immigrants are here illegally. And diversity visas, a program initiated in 1990 to grant visas to people from countries that had low U.S. immigration at that time, are bringing in 50,000 a year from various parts of the world, including the Middle East.

Let us remember that we were not attacked by a nation on 9/11; we were attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion. I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.

Goode may not have called for a “religious test” specifically, but what the hell are we supposed to make of his warning about there “will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran…?” Ooooh…those “demanding” Muslims, how dare they! I didn’t hear Ellison “demanding” anything. I heard him state the fact that he would use the Koran when being sworn in. Why does Goode mischaracterize Ellison’s action in this way?

I will point out that making Ellison into a martyr was something I thought impossible. The radical liberal can be taken to task for his position on any number of issues. But his religion shouldn’t enter into the debate.

And what’s with Mr. Goode solemnly stating that he will not display a Koran in his office? And that he doesn’t “subscribe” to it in any way? That’s just bizarre. And that he assures everyone he has the Ten Commandments on the wall of his office and refuses to apologize for it? Holy Mother! If this guy set up any more strawmen to knock down, he’d be populating the universe with scarecrows.

The tone of this article is, if anything, more blatantly bigoted than Goode’s letter to his constituents. I can’t understand why his colleagues don’t take the lost soul aside and advise him to keep his mouth shut, that he’s sounding like a paranoid fool when he uses phrases like “vulnerable to infiltration…” – as if legal immigrants are sneaking around behind the government’s back.

My last post on the good Mr. Goode’s prejudice was met with outraged cries of “You don’t understand!” and “He’s absolutely right!” I suspect I’ll get the same for the following.

Anyone who believes that Muslim immigration is bad in and of itself doesn’t know American history and also doesn’t know much of American Muslims. The overwhelming majority of second and third generation Muslims are loyal, patriotic Americans who speak excellent English, believe firmly in American values, are very well assimilated into American life, and generally are indistinguishable from Americans of any other ethnic group who have recently arrived. They are teachers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, factory workers – in short, good, hardworking Americans who want the exact same things you and I want.

While it is true that a small subset of American Muslims are very insular and remain wedded to the old ways, their numbers and influence on the Muslim population is negligible. It is also true that there are enclaves of Arabs in some big cities where immigrants are not assimilating and where radical Islam is a lure that entices some younger men. But if we are to deny immigration to people based on the violent proclivities of the few, best we keep out all sorts of “undesirables” such as the Irish, the Basques, and black South Africans.

Goode is dead wrong – and an embarrassment to the Republican party to boot. It is one thing to advocate enforcement of the law when it comes to illegal immigrants and to support stopping illegal immigration – something I wholeheartedly agree with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with insisting that legal immigrants be law abiding citizens in their own country and not have joined a terrorist group or terrorist sympathizing entity. And even though I strongly disagree, there is nothing bigoted or racist about supporting reduced immigration quotas.

But to work toward denying the blessings of America to Muslims simply because there are extremists who would do us harm is nutty. Yes we should tighten up our screening procedures for all immigrants. But to judge an entire group by the actions of a few makes Goode a pea wit.