Thursday, June 28, 2007

The Problem of The Illegal Immigration Bill

The more laws we have the more the Government tells us what to do by definition. As we as a people continue to believe that every time a problem arises we must turn to Washington to “fix” it through social engineering or “forcing” behavior in some way, the less freedom we will have.

Most laws are of the flavor of “Thou shall NOT” or “Thou Must.” This is the opposite of what freedom is all about.

Our Founding Fathers believed that our Congress should be very judicious in the passing of new laws. They correctly reasoned that any new law by definition has the effect of decreasing our freedoms. So, our Founding Fathers said that the “wheels of Congress should turn slowly and finely.”

It also has to do with the idea of “Compromise Pollution.”

“Compromise Pollution” says that if two sides cannot agree on how to fashion an agreement whereby not only will both sides win, as in the win-win slogans we hear all the time, then they should not pass it until both sides are adding good instead of bad to the solution.

Suppose one side of the Congress wants to make a law where 80 percent is horse dung and the other side has 20 percent oatmeal or some other good food.

Compromising so that the side with the 20 percent gets more oatmeal, say 40 percent instead of 20 percent, still leaves a preponderance of bad food.

This is why the current proposed bill in Congress should not be passed even with some of the good amendments proposed because the overall effect of this bill is still bad.

Here is what we need in a good bill on Immigration.

Any people here illegally should not be given citizenship in a special path as they do now. If they are to become citizens, they should be put in the same line as everyone else. They should come through the “front door” not a “back door.”
All people who are here working should be granted “legal status” as a “Resident Alien” but not put on any guaranteed path to citizenship. If they are put at the back of the current line, the same as someone from China or Japan, then we will be treating everyone fair and not be giving someone who broke the law an advantage over others who don’t happen to live on our borders.
We need to finish the double wall that works so well in San Diego across the entire 700 plus miles at least.

Because one group in Congress views the immigrants as potential voters, it is willing to put them on a special path to citizenship, and the other group wants cheap labor, so some of them will go along with the other side and produce a bad bill.

“Compromise Pollution” is always a bad thing since over the 200 plus years of our Nation, we have forgotten that the job of Congress is to insure every bill is a good bill, and that we are not paying them for the amount of bills they pass. Here in California my understanding is the typical legislator in California sees over 200 bills a day cross their desk.

We are allowing the “Compromisers” to bring down our values and continue to decrease our freedom by churning out bad law after bad law.


At 10:45 AM, Blogger mrsleep said...

FAR. Yes, it's a bad bill all around.

The "potential voters" angle is a total fabrication, and frankly offensive. It's just spin.

I read something to the effect that 90% of Americans didn't like the Amnesty aspect.

You would think we have smart people in Congress. It shouldn't be that hard to write a make sense bill.

No Amnesty. Enforce the borders. Give every illegal an option to register as a Resident Alien, and admit to using any Social Security number illegally. Have them immediately stop doing so. The only way this could work, is if, we established a formal guest worker program or some timetable to legally request, or apply for citizenship.

Make the guidelines easy and clear to understand, and enforce the guidelines forcefully. Anyone with any type of criminal record would be deported immediately.

At 11:05 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


On this one there is total agreement. :)

I don't mind them getting in line to become a citizen, but they shouldn't be allowed to "cut" the line.


At 11:35 AM, Blogger mrsleep said...

On the surface, this issue what contentious, doesn't appear that difficult to solve from a policy standpoint.

Why is it so hard for our Politicians to develop a plan?

At 4:53 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Because of partisan politics. They don't want to do what is right, only what they feel will keep them in Washington in their "select" group of country club "insiders."

It is just like this Scooter Libby issue. The punishment is "subjective" and the "right" is mad at Bush for not getting him off the hook and the "left" thinks Libby should have gotten more than 30 months.

Neither side can think without their worldview bias.


At 6:15 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

The "potential voters" angle is a total fabrication, and frankly offensive. It's just spin.

Agreed Mr. Sleep. That is outright nonsense. The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties receive campaign donations from the SAME corporations that benefit from cheap, undocumented labor.

Each side jockeys to make it look like it is presenting an alternative to the other when, in fact, each is answering to the same corporate interests.

This isn't about right or left or Democrat or Republican anymore (although I'm not sure it ever was). America has been completely corporatized. It is now We The People v. The Corporations.

At 12:00 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Don't get me started on Corporations.... :)

As I have said before, I think we should have never allowed that tax loophole because the companies cease to be caring since there is no "owner personality" that is responsible, only a "transient CEO" who is only concerned with his "Golden Parachute."



Post a Comment

<< Home