I hope Mark Krikorian doesn't mind my stealing his entire post:

1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system."

Relevant to his 1965 claim is this NYT article:

With the number of nonwhite Americans above 100 million for the first time, demographers are identifying an emerging racial generation gap.

That development may portend a nation split between an older, whiter electorate and a younger overall population that is more Hispanic, black and Asian and that presses sometimes competing agendas and priorities.

“The new demographic divide has broader implications for social programs and education spending for youth,” said Mark Mather, deputy director of domestic programs for the Population Reference Bureau, a nonpartisan research group.

“There’s a fairly large homogenous population 60 and older that may not be sympathetic to the needs of a diverse youthful population,” Dr. Mather said.

His 1987 claim is disproven by his 2007 claim. And his 2007 claim... well, I guess he's done making promises about this being "the last time." He's claimed that too many times before. This is just the last time, for about ten years.

Absolute must reading is Kaus, first item first, but his earlier item about how little sense any of this makes is great too.

Captain Ed loyally defends the deal in what may be one of the most unconvincing blog posts ever!

Here's the problem with the hard-liner arguments, which amounts to "they'll never engage the border-security and workplace enforcement portions." Well, that could be true of any immigration bill, even if it completely matched the conservative position on immigration. It's an argument that only supports no action whatsoever on illegal immigration, including border controls.

That's silly. You could pass "the border-security and workplace enforcement portions" and then see if they worked--and tightened them if they didn't--before you went ahead with amnesty. ... Lowry, meanwhile, defends Sen. Kyl, also unconvincingly. If Kyl had walked away from negotiations, would he really not bring along 39 other votes to block a "much worse" bill? There doesn't have to be a bill, remember. Bipartisan cooperative "action" isn't necessarily always a great thing (as the 1986 amnesty showed). The country is not in crisis, only Bush.

Two points: 1, I'm not much in the mood to do favors for Bush anymore; it seems he realizes he won't be fondly remembered by many Americans, so he's seeking to out-source his legacy building to Mexicans and other Latin immigrants. With all due respect, I don't think it's a good idea to screw up America just to give Bush a small number of (new) Americans who actually think he was a good president.

2, Captain Ed is being silly about enforcement. Part of the reason to object to the bill is that the government is currently refusing to secure the border. We don't need to speculate about what they will or won't do tomorrow; we know what they're doing today. Are they really going to be tougher in securing the border once millions of ex-illegals can vote in elections (legally)! I sort of doubt that.

If there were different facts -- if right now, right now, in fact, not merely in promise -- the government were actually taking serious steps to secure the border and buid the fence, I might not be so angry about this. I might actually be appeased that they're coupling amnesty with security.

But they're not-- they're only giving illegals amnesty without border security as a mitigating factor. And the only way we can get border security is to demand that as an absolute precondition to any amnesty bill -- but they're ignoring the wishes of 70% of Americans in going straight for amnesty, therefore destroying any hope of securing the border.

How on earth can we get the border secured post-amnesty? We'd have already given up the one chit we were holding back in exchange for an end to uncontrolled illegal immigration and the now-inevitable amnesty that occurs every fifteen to twenty years

The time to exact concessions and gain bipartisan approval for real, tangible, tough, non-virtual border patrol is before amnesty is granted. Not after. You can't get your liberal opponents to grant you concessions after you've given them everything they wanted, now can you?

Well, you could -- if you offered them even more. Though I'm dumbstruck to imagine what more could be offered.

Bush and the Republicans -- as well as Democrats -- had ample opportunity to demonstrate that they were serious about border security. They sold us out, and now expect us to be satisfied with vague promises that they'll do better in the future.

Incidentally, the reason the stuff about "fortifying the border" is only vaguely described in articles? Is because it's not described in the bill. It's a funding-only provision, without specifying what the money will be spent on, how employers will be cracked down upon, etc. So the government's idea of of fortifying the border is -- get this -- throwing money at it, without saying what exactly it will be spent on. And I predict somehow even that phony solution will be defunded shortly, the money diverted to more pressing concerns.

Like, I don't know, subsidizing hospitals and schools in areas overtaxed by large -- and ever-increasing -- numbers of low-wage, low-tax-contributing Latin immigrants.

More Kaus:

Hewitt's gotten a leak of the bogus tough sounding talking points GOP Senators will try to deploy to cover their retreat. Many of the alleged concessions--like ending "chain migration" of family members--seem unenforceable in the long run. Are we really going to give citizenship to illegals but prevent them from reuniting with their families? I don't think so. Even if we could, and even if that were desirable, and even if the provisions survived in the Democratic house, it would hardly be worth what the GOP senators have apparently agreed to: taking the risk of encouraging another 12 million illegals to evade our still-porous border controls and wait for the next amnesty.

Oh, the hell with that, Mickey. Stick with the first point: This no-chain-migration thing is bullshit. It will be repealed almost immediately. If the government cannot say no to people who can't even legally vote in this country, how can it be imagined it will suddenly have the gumption to defy actual legally-voting citizens?

One hardly needs to argue in the alternative in this one: The "concession" about chain-migration is a temporary sop to conservatives, but it will be off the books before the ink has even had time enough to smudge.

...

John Kyl was once fighting the good fight, but has thrown in the towel to the open-borders forces. Kaus suggests writing and phoning him to get him back on the team. His contact information is here. Try to be somewhat even-tempered in correspondence with him; we want him back, after all. But do let him know his political calcuation is a bad one, and will cost him and his party dearly.

Bonus: Illegal immigrants and their advocates consider the bill "too onerous" and not generous enough (latest update at Hot Air, at bottom). They don't like the fact they can't (for now) bring their entire extended families over with them or that they have to depart from the country (briefly) to get a green card. Nor that they have to pay a fine of $5000 to cover years of lawbreaking and fraudulent use of American-taxpayer-funded social services, schools, and hospitals.

Well then. Let us agree to scrap the bill, si?

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 PM | Comments (263)
Post contains 1333 words, total size 9 kb.

I'm adding the "gave lip" part. The soldier kinda alludes to it; given that they hasseled him to the point where he missed his flight -- a vacaton in Vegas before he rolled out to Iraq again -- I can see how he might be a little testy about the TSA and Vegas cops.

But testiness, and even the f-bomb, are not in fact crimes.

The cops seem to have acted here not to protect the peace but to simply to assert their own personal authority over anyone they thought wasn't paying them enough fealty. Watch for yourself, and especially check out the soldier's calm voice as he repeatedly calls the cop "sir" in the second clip.

Acting as professional peace officers or like fat-assed eighth grade bullies armed with weapons who've decided they're going to show they own the cafetorium? You be the judge.

Thanks to James, cribbed from Free Republic.

Posted by: Ace at 10:49 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 186 words, total size 2 kb.

...Jenna Jameson isn't liking the Republicans too much either.

PR.com: "Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?"

Jenna Jameson: "Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office. I would love to have Al Gore in office. When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. It's sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide...

Translation: She's sentimental about those halcyon days when she still had a chest that didn't look like two condoms filled with cottage cheese.

At least this means we have something to look forward to if/when the Democrats win next year.

Via The Hillary Spot.

Posted by: AndrewR at 06:52 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Another acceptable candidate.

Posted by: Ace at 06:01 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

A lot of classics here. A lot of fun. Great choices-- I recognize and love almost all of them.

Wish they would have included "22, 22, 22!" from Lost in America.

Thanks to Asher.

The Full List: Posted by the guy who made the video.

Posted by: Ace at 05:40 PM | Comments (42)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Can the anti-Amnesty forces filibuster this abomination? Probably not. Over at the Corner, Rich Lowry says that supporters of the bill probably have 70-75 votes, which would easily invoke cloture if true.

However, there is a parliamentary maneuver that can embarrass the bill's managers: any Senator has the right to demand that the bill be read in it's entirety by the Clerk. Once this point of order is invoked, the Clerk must read the bill outloud, and, more importantly, the Senate can not (if I remember the rule correctly) take any action to prevent the Senator who made the demand from being able to sit there and hear the whole thing.

This rule is often invoked as a "quasi-filibuster". Often, a Senator will use it to demand that a bill that is, say, 1000 pages long be read, knowing that it would take hours, if not a couple of days, for this to actually be carried out. This greatly annoys Senate Leadership, as it prevents them from conducting business on the floor.

The only way I know of for the request to read the bill to be overruled is if the Senate agrees, by Unanimous Consent, to waive the reading of the bill once it's started. As long as the Senator who asked for it to be read objects to the UC request, however, the Senate floor is brought to a stop.

I have no doubt that the lawyers who work for the Senate Legislative Counsel are feverishly drafting language as we speak, and will be doing so through the weekend.

However that doesn't mean it will get done, does it? In fact, it very well might not be finished.

It really would be embarrassing if a Senator went to the floor and demanded a bill be read only to have the clerk say that "we have no bill or legislation before us to read" wouldn't it?

Similarly, it would be awfully helpful to have the Senate tied up so that the American people could make their voices heard, I think.

So when you are contacting your Senators, ask them to demand that the bill be read in its entirety.

They shouldn't have the luxury of voting for something as early as Monday that we all know neither they nor their staffs have read in full.

Posted by: Jack M. at 04:59 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.

Frd Thompson, assuming he runs (a likelihood, but not a certainty), continues to make all the right moves. Blogging at RedState:

With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security. We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.

Huzzah.

At this point my only problem with enthusiastically endorsing Thompson is that I'm not totally convinced he'll run, and if he doesn't, we've got to still pick from the rest.

RedState also says there really is no "bill" yet -- just a draft still being worked on by lawyers. So there's still time to tank it.

And on the rest: Maybe it's time to give those second-tier candidates a fresh look.

Good stuff at Hot Air.

“Senator McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization.’ Unfortunately for them, however, the American people know amnesty when they see it,” said Tancredo. “The President is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security.”

“If Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy spent as much time working on improving border security as they did poll testing creative euphemisms for amnesty, America would be a much safer place,” quipped Tancredo.

I hope Allah lays off mocking Tancredo from this point forward.

I'd prefer a more serious candidate pushing this issue. Duncan Hunter says he himself built the San Diego border wall (he means that not in the Al Gore invented the internet sense, but that he was largely responsible for it).

I'm going to look up his exact position on this. I assume he's made enforcement noises, as most candidates have (noises only, for the most part), but I want to see if he's serious about it.

Update: Seems mostly like noises only -- his website lists his principles and priorities, but fails to include a single statement (among 25 numbered points) regarding immigration and amnesty.

He has an opening to break out, though. He needs to do something to elevate himself, to separate himself, to make him stand out from the liberal guys.

Romney provided a confusing answer at the debate. If he clarifies in a good way, he's a possibility.

Due to Rudy's previous wild-eyed enthusiasm for illegal immigrant workers, plus his constant fudging on the fence (after mentioning a "fence," he always adds "a technological fence," a formuation designed, I think, to suggest he wants a low-tech (real) fence as well as a high-tech (fake, virtual, useless) fence, but which I think really means he onlu wants the latter), I hereby retract any support for him.

If he changes his position on this -- strongly, dramatically, and with no wiggle room, committing to border security as an iron-clad promise -- I'll reconsider. For now -- given that the President and only the President can certify/dishonestly claim the border is secure in order to activate those "triggers" for citizenship -- I do not have enough faith in him to pursue the enforcement policy. We need a president who will. Unless Rudy flip-flops and comes out swinging for the fences (ahem), which he won't, he's dead to me as a candidate. I can't trust him to be the only line separating the US from Mexico.

So for me it's either Duncan Hunter (assuming he's pro-security-first, which he seems to hint at, but who knows) or Fred (assuming he's smart enough to embrace the security-first position) or no one at all.

Maybe I'll vote third-party for Tancredo. Or even Ron Paul.

Whichever. I'm not voting for anyone supporting this sell-out, and no, I am no longer worried by the threat of a Hillary! or Obama presidency enough to carry the water for the Republican Party. We've done the go-along-to-get-along thing for years, and it has earned us merely greater contempt and scorn and nonresponsiveness from our "leaders."

That's it for me. I don't give a fuck if Hillary is President. At least if a Democrat is pursuing liberal policies I don't like, I'm not responsible for that, and the conservative movement isn't damaged further by acquiescing to them.

If our Republican congressmen and President are carrying out the Democrats' agenda anyway, I say give the keys of government to the Democrats so that at least they'll be responsible for the consequences.

Sometimes a party needs to be brought to the brink of extinction before it changes its policies. After six years of Bush and the godawful overspending Republican Congresses, I think that time is just about now.

We're probably going to lose anyway. Might as well make a statement about it.

Thanks to "someone" for the Red State/Thompson links.

Great news on Thompson-- again, I just worry that I'll get my hopes up about him and then he won't run.

Posted by: Ace at 04:10 PM | Comments (77)
Post contains 859 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm told this is a must-listen.

Posted by: Ace at 04:06 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

MikeZ. sent his off:

May 17, 2007

By Telecopy – 202-225-3186

Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen

Washington, D.C.

Re: The Immigration Bill

Dear Congressman Frelinghuysen:

I have been a Republican my entire adult life and I have lived in your district for over ten years.

I will never again vote for you or support the Republican Party with donations if the immigration bill currently under consideration passes.

The border must be secured first, verifiably, before any amnesty legislation passes.

To evidence my sincerity and seriousness, I attach a copy of my party affiliation declaration form. I intend to mail it tomorrow to the Superintendent of Elections, Commissioner of Registration, Administration & Records Building, 1 Court Street, PO Box 900, Morristown, NJ 07963-0900. I will reaffiliate myself with the Republican Party only if this legislation is defeated.

Respectfully but with regret,

[Name, address, cell phone number]

By The Way... People are asking "Why punish those Republicans fighting this?"

Well, duh, you don't. You can still vote for those Republicans who vote your interests, of course. Changing your party affiliation does not, you know, prevent you from voting Republican.

It will prevent you in Republican primaries, but 1) almost all of the Republicans who are good on this issue are in safe seats, unlikely to face a primary challenge and 2) if necessary you can always flip your affilliation back in time to vote in a primary, if it's actually necessary.

But changing affiliation demonstrates you're serious about this. It's a small gesture -- but so much political anger is just talk, or assumed to be so, that it's helpful to back your anger up with even a small gesture like this.

Incidentally, I don't care, really, about the "amnesty" thing. I always assumed that any deal would include something like amnesty; how could it not?

What incenses me is that is the government refuses to build the fence it promised, and is, rather obviously, not actually interested in "securing the border" as this bill dishonestly "requires." If they'd wanted to secure the border, they could have started doing so a year ago. If not five years ago. If not ten years ago.

The "secure the border" provision is bullshit, a rhetorical dodge, a sucker-provision tossed out to chump you guys into thinking anything's going to change. If things were going to change, they already would have begun changing.

I'm completely with Charles Krauthammer on this: I don't particularly mind the amnesty, if it's limited to the 12 million already hear and a few extra million family members. But it's not. With no real securing of the border, it's simply an invitation for half the population of Mexico, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc. -- all of the Western Hemisphere, pretty much -- to come here in the reasonable expectation that whether they come here legally or illegally the government will, within a few years, grant them amnesty at some point.

It's a simple principle -- eat your vegetables (secure the border, build the wall, crack down on illegal-immigrant employers, end the sanctuary city regime) before getting to enjoy your dessert (amnesty).

The government just wants dessert, followed by a bit more dessert, followed by even more dessert, plus a whole lot more desserts coming in five or ten years, and then even more desert in fifteen or twenty years.

I don't care that the bill has "triggers" in it and promises -- vaguely -- "fortifying the border." They have had a long time to do this; they have refused to do so. Their only inducement for securing the border was part of a quid-pro-quo to get their amnesty plan passed -- and now that they already have the quo of the amnesty plan passed, why bother with the quid of border security?

Border security was supposed to be the political accomodation we were supposed to receive (our end) in order to accept the amnesty (their end). A trade, and a fair one.

But they've done a three-fer -- amnesty, plus no border sercurity in place, plus no reason to even pretend at border security now that they already have the amnesty they want.

Many of us were willing to accept amnesty in exchange for border security. They've decided they don't need to make deals with their lowly no-account constituents, and have given us amnesty in exchange for nothing. (Well -- in exchange for more amnesty, coming, inevitably, in 15 years or so, just as it unavoidably followed the Reagan amnesty.)

The Republican Party

Formerly the Party of Reagan, now the Party of Judge Elihu Smails: "You'll get nothing and like it!

Like Reagan and Goldwater and Buckley, a man before his time.
History just needed time to catch up with his innovative theories of
go-fuck-yourselves-sideways governance.

Screw you guys, I'm going home.

Again, have fun with your new very-small-tent party.

To be honest, I never really liked you all that much anyway, and I feel kind of liberated by this break up.

You know that "It's not you, it's me" thing I'm supposed to say?

Sorry. It was you. It was always you.

Posted by: Ace at 02:44 PM | Comments (104)
Post contains 859 words, total size 5 kb.

I say "good."

Congress gave final approval on Thursday to a $2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for education and health care and a federal surplus in five years.

The Senate's 52-40 vote probably sets up veto confrontations with President Bush over spending increases and the fate of many of his expiring tax cuts.

Shortly before the Senate vote, the House passed the measure by a 214-209 vote without a single Republican voting for it.

The nonbinding measure is not sent to Bush for his signature or veto. Rather, it sets parameters for Congress to follow when writing tax and spending legislation later this year.

The blueprint is for the budget year that begins Oct. It also makes a statement about Democrats' differences with Bush and was seen as a critical test of Democrats' ability to govern.

The budget plan seeks to bolster domestic programs whose budgets the president has curbed. It also would let expire tax cuts that have greatly benefited upper-bracket taxpayers.

Since we're now going to be the social services provider for a large part of the mostly impoverished western hemisphere, we're going to need to start jacking up taxes quite a bit if we want to avoid a runaway deficit.

I heartily urge President Bush to veto this budget -- requesting even greater spending and special emergency tax increases, perhaps creating a large "trust fund" to cover our fresh and severally-multiplied obligations to twenty, thirty, or fifty million new below- or just-above-poverty-level US citizens -- in order to keep our government finances from going the way of, well, the former home countries of our new fellow American citizens.

Update: President Bush just emailed me personally to say he could keep the tax cuts in place while also greatly expanding social spending for a suddenly-larger pool of lower-income citizens.

Apparently Harry Reid sold him some "Magic Beans" which, if I understand this correctly, grow beans made of platinum and diamonds.

So, no problem on the tax front. We gots them Magic Beans working for us now.

(PS, Bush didn't actually test the beans to see if they actually fruited platinum and rare gems, but says he "trusts" Harry Reid on this point, as he "looked inside his soul" to see a legitimate magical-bean vendor.)

Posted by: Ace at 02:34 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.