83 to 16

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the Sessions Amendment by an 83-16 vote. The Sessions Amendment mandates the building of 370 miles of border fence in and around urban areas and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. The estimated cost for these barriers, according to Sen. Sessions, is $900 million. During his floor speech, Sen. Sessions said that he'd already gotten estimates from contractors on the project. Needless to say, this is a major victory for conservatives who've been clamoring for a enforcement first bill. Combine that with the immediate deployment of National Guard units to the border, the hiring and training of an additional 6,000 Border Patrol officials, and you have a serious border security system. These days, conservatives compare the current legislation to Simpson-Mazzoli. How any intellectually honest conservative can reach the conclusion that the curent legislation is just Simpson-Mazzoli II is beyond me. Here's the Indiana University capsule on Simpson-Mazzoli:

Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming and Representative Romano Mazzoli, D-Kentucky, recognized that illegal immigration could not be stopped entirely at the borders of our nation and proposed a different approach to curbing the problem. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. It also offered legal amnesty to immigrants who could prove that they had been living continuously in the U.S. since 1982, a concession to the reality that illegal immigrants who had been living in the U.S. for a long period of time had submerged in society and would remain difficult to identify.

Do you see anything in that description that hints of beefing up border security? Anything that increases Border Patrol staffing? Anything that builds 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 more miles of vehicle barriers? Simpson-Mazzoli didn't put in place a series of hurdles in the path to citizenship like this legislation has.

Frankly, conservatives are lying when they call this amnesty. Let me illustrate this anecdotally. Let's suppose 2 men rob a bank. One is convicted, serves time in prison, then is paroled. The erstwhile bankrobber stays clean during his parole. The other bankrobber isn't caught, is convicted in absentia and he's eventually pardoned by the President. I'd submit to you that one made restitution to the bank, paid his debt to society, met all the stipulations that the judge imposed, then stayed clean during his parole. The other was convicted of a crime, then pardoned.

The end result is that they're both free men at the end of a certain period of time. We'd be intellectually dishonest, though, if we said that they both were pardoned. We'd be laughed at if we said that. Similarly, Simpson-Mazzoli said that illegal aliens had a relatively simple path to total amnesty. This legislation puts in place a series of conditions that must be met even before they could apply for citizenship.

The other thing that intellectually honest conservatives must shoot down is the enforcement only/first peoples' argument. As Tony Snow pointed out on Sean Hannity's show this afternoon, the Senate bill gives the border patrol more officers and more fence than the bill that Tom Tancredo supports.

How on earth a conservative can say that the House bill is superior enforcement-only legislation is laughable.

---

Posted Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Comment 1 by Imafoolyourafool at 17-May-06 07:00 PM

"Similarly, Simpson-Mazzoli said that illegal aliens had a relatively simple path to total amnesty."

But Don't You Dare Call It Amnesty.

Comment 2 by Mike Savage at 17-May-06 07:20 PM

Mr. Gross: It seems to me that the flaw in your argument is that the McCain et al approach in reality dictates that: the illegal immigrant must come forward (or not); must pay a nominal fine (or not); must report prior income and pay back taxes (or not); must learn English (or not)...but at all events, will never face deportation, which (McCain proposes) is off the table now and forever.

The argument that our nation can't deport 12 million people translates to: we aren't going to deport even one illegal.

If the current plan is to suspend all enforcement/deportation efforts, it seems to me unimaginable that some fellow will be deported in the future for having failed to learn English or not coming up with a thousand bucks.

Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 17-May-06 07:48 PM

First of all, Mike, thanks for visiting. I hope you stop back often. From what I've read in the legislation, the provisions aren't suggestions but rather are the law. If you now want to doubt that the laws will be enforced, that's a different, legitimate matter. Time will tell on that.

What isn't debatable is whether Tom Tancredo & Michelle Malkin are misleading people by calling this amnesty. Here's the definition of amnesty:

amnesty

A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses.

Paying 2 fines & back taxes plus learning English, assimilating into the American culture, etc., before getting into line for citizenship isn't my idea of a pardon.

When Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, Rich didn't jump through any hoops. Clinton signed off on the pardons & that was that.

Tom Ridge was on Hardball earlier & made a great point, too, that's being forgotten. He said that most of the illegals stay because they don't want to take the chance of getting caught crossing back & forth.

If there was a guest worker program, alot of these people would travel back & forth from their border area.

I'd doubt that that group is a majority but it's likely bigger than people think.

Comment 4 by Pierre Legrand at 17-May-06 08:50 PM

Simpson-Mazzoli was signed into law by President Reagan based on the promise that enforcement would follow. It never did.

The present law states that illegal aliens are to be deported. Anything less than that is amnesty. McCain's bill is much less than that...indeed its a straight path to citizenship. Which begs the question if we have been completely unwilling to enforce employer sanctions as has been the case all through the Bush years then exactly why won't those businesses using illegals currently like, Tyson and Mohawk and others, simply hire more? So then we have 12 million former illegals with zero skills unable to compete against the newest crop of illegals.

This is a fiasco of the highest order.

Comment 5 by kobeclan at 18-May-06 07:15 AM

Your bankrobber analogy is flawed. The first bankrobber is caught, convicted, but not put in jail. Instead, he is fined half the amount of money he stole and put on probation.

The second bankrobber keeps all the money and is pardoned.

The proposals in Congress are basically the same, You sneek in, you get to stay.

Sure sounds like amnesty to me.

Comment 6 by Chris at 18-May-06 07:25 AM

I believe your logic is flawed in your illustration. First, by conviction, you imply that the man was arrested and charged. Okay, so part of any "normalization" plan would have to include the arrest, conviction, and jail time for the offenders. Still sound good? Second, what they "stole" was illegal entry into the United States. Okay, to make restitution the offender must return what he stole; In other words, go back to his country of origin. Finally, you want to give back to the criminal what he originally stole as long as he "stays clean." I have never heard of a bank president giving previously stolen money back to a bank robber because he "stayed clean" during his parole, have you? Any way you slice it, giving the offender what he steals, at any time after the original offense, does not dissuade similar offenses- it encourages it.