The immigration bill, supported by practically no one in the voting public, crashed and burned today. I really thought the big player fix was in on this bill. Big employers wanting an endless source of cheap labor combined with liberals in search of an endless source of victims and therefore voters looked like an unbeatable combination.
This whole situation was really shaking my faith in the representative republic form of government as a practical substitute for pure democracy. After 51 years, I should know better.
The Founders really knew what they were doing when they organized our government. Setting up Congress with two houses with hundreds of members such that they are unable to make decisions via conspiracy was just pure genius. Adding in the Senate filibuster is just the perfect finishing touch.
While I don’t disagree with you that the system of checks and balances tends to work pretty well (assuming you don’t have all three branches heavily invested in a single party view at a given time), this situation still gives me pause.
The immigration problem is still there. There is still no legislation after multiple attempts to deal with it. So at what point does the political system simply continue to stymie any pracitcal form of resolution? We still don’t have anything in legislation that either helps reduce the number of immigrants or proposes what to do with the current illegal immigrants already here, and this has been going on for years now.
As a legal immigrant, I wasn’t too crazy about the bill, but what does it take, when you have a close margin balance of power, to actually do something about it? This is not just restrcited to the immigration issue either. We could look at attempts at health care reform, drilling in the Artic, or any number of other issues that keep coming up for legislation and dying repeatedly. Does the checks and balances preclude dealing with large, complicated issues?
I guess I would like to see something actually being done. My expectation is that any law will cause problems that will be a challenge to deal with, but at least something is being doen in some direction.
“There is still no legislation after multiple attempts to deal with it. So at what point does the political system simply continue to stymie any pracitcal form of resolution? We still don’t have anything in legislation that either helps reduce the number of immigrants or proposes what to do with the current illegal immigrants already here, and this has been going on for years now.”
Well, hard as it may be to believe, there actually are immigration and border security laws on the books. Just a year or so ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to build about 700 miles of border fence. From what I can tell, not a single mile is going to be actually built.
We have the 1986 Simpson-Mazoli law that called for border and employment enforcement. I was young and naive in 1986, and the same arguments I hear now convinced me to support that act. We got the amnesty, we never got the rest of the bargain.
If the federal government would build the promised fence, deliver on the 1986 promises and actually stop the bulk of the illegal immigration, I don’t know too many who wouldn’t be happy to sign up for the amnesty for the 12,000,000 or so and a guest worker program or other provisions.
Does the checks and balances preclude dealing with large, complicated issues?
Actually I think the checks and balances preclude really skewing large issues one way or another, a good thing IMHO.
Frankly the problem is not that the issues can’t be fixed with the current system but that the people in the current system are more worried about themselves than they are about fixing the problem. This of course precludes the big isues from getting fixed because anytime you approach the problem with a “Me first” attitude it will naturally be skewed…and thus the other “Me firsts”, won’t let it pass because it doesn’t benefit them enough.
OK - I can accept all of that. It parallels a lot of the discussion on gun legislation - enforce the existing laws before you go mucking about with more new stuff. But it doesn’t really answer my question.
I grew up with a parliamentary system. So theoretically, you boted the party, not the person (less so in this day and age, but that is beside the pint). If the pary controlled the majority, they had been given the mandate to govern, and could push difficult legislation through into law. What I have observed in the US however, is that particularly in the case of complicated issues like immigration, health care, etc., that very little gets accomplished for two reasons. One is that if you have differing parties in control of legislative and executive branches, things tend to get bogged down - the typical lame duck scenario. Two is that there is not really a “party line” to vote on. So, in the case of immigration, if you were a democrat in say Arizona, you would probably support tougher enforcment, but balk at the amnesty, since that would represent the interests of your contituency. So votes can swing beyond typical defined party politics. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but I do see it as making complex legislation very difficult to achieve. And perhaps the time it takes to come up with a good solution is fine, but that does allow for the problem to go unresolved for a long time as well, which I see as a less than optimal thing.
Hey Art, haven’t checked in in a while… you’re sounding like a Dem these days.
I really thought the big player fix was in on this bill. Big employers wanting an endless source of cheap labor combined with liberals in search of an endless source of victims and therefore voters looked like an unbeatable combination
I have never experienced a parlimentary system, and I have to admit I have no idea how such a system could possibly work. Apparently it does, since nearly every other country has adapted this approach, but I just don’t get it. The result usually seems to be fragmented parties with unworkable coalitions, leaving you again unable to get anything done. Look at Israel or Italy pretty much any time and Germany now.
I really have no problem with the necessity of essentially requiring super majorities to make major changes to major legislation like Social Security or immigration. I bring this up with immigration, since if only a majority had been required in the Senate, I don’t doubt enough arms would have been twisted to get it to pass. There is no reason to make an unpopular vote in a losing effort.
On immigration, you don’t need anything from Congress. You need an administration that decides to enforce the existing laws. Should that happen for a few years, bring up immigration again and you probably have a slam dunk.
So at what point does the political system simply continue to stymie any pracitcal form of resolution?
Unfortunately, the issue has been placed in the hands of our elected officials who have no vested interest in finding a “workable solution”, despite their oh-so-genuine concern for representing their constituency. Illegals are our new slave-labor class, and the beneficiaries are the businesses who employ and the very same politicians who seek their support. Being that our country is now addicted to immigrant labor - as the South was to slave labor - it will take nothing short of a civil war between the people and its government to affect any meaningful change. Although, I think the term Revolution would be more accurate in that context.
Are you talking about a physical fence, or a series of sensor towers? The second is happening. I’m not at liberty to discuss much of the details, but several groups in Boeing are under significant schedule pressure to get the first round of these deployed.
I can see an argument for a series of sensors, but I frankly don’t trust that approach. Having sensors doesn’t do any good unless there is the daily political will to respond to the alarms and deport the violators. We don’t do that when we pick people up today in the middle of the country.
Today we issue deportation orders to people who have been previously released into the fog. The amendment to deny the amnesty provisions to those under deportation orders failed.
From what I hear that project is going pretty poorly anyway, not that I am surprised.
I really want to see a double or triple fence with patrols running up and down to protect its integrity. I also want real employment enforcement that was already promised me in 1986. I am talking about a real system in which a real employer can immediately verify employment eligibilty.
I’m going to kick myself for asking this, but why does it always seem necessary to have huge, all-encompassing bills? I mean, there are provisions of many bills that would go well, but the critters can’t help themselves and attach unpopular and unsupportable components. If someone really wanted to pass something:
1 bill that funds the border fence
1 bill that funds the border patrol agents
1 bill that funds crackdowns on people who hire illegal immigrants
1 bill that provides for quick legality status checks (LOL)
1 bill that provides “amnesty” to the illegal immigrants
Some will pass, some will fail, but put-together, it is a terrible bill.
No idea and I’d love to hear an answer as well. Also seems that we need to nuke the “Addons” in general. What’s the deal with adding in a line item that builds a bridge in Arizona in a bill that covers building a Nuclear plant in New York? I’m sure “Politics” falls in there somewhere as an explanations, but maybe we should start getting rid of politics.
The simple reason is that there are powerful interests in favor of an open border. They are not going to allow border security to happen. They will offer it only with the certain knowledge that they will be able to reneg later while pocketing their desired legalization of the status quo now. Lindsey Graham made that very clear from the Senate floor today. Feinstein has done likewise.
The so called $4.4 billion funding for border security “first” was nothing of the sort. There were provisions in the bill to divert the funding.
I really have no problem with the promised end result of the bill that failed today. I know I will never see that result unless it is achieved piecewise as you describe starting with border security. If things went in the order you describe, sign me up. You will get stuck at each of the first four items in your list, notwithstanding their broad support.
I think Art’s response to your post shows the problem with adopting this type of approach. What you state seems reasonible, but here is where the trap lies. Let us create an “Art” animus in the House or Senate. Basically he will accept your 5th bill if and only if the first four are passed. His priority is securing the border and getting control on the flow of illegals over it, before ever offering “amnesty” - whatever form that may take. I would suspect this animus would also wish to see that the first 4 bills are actaully functioning as designed prior to supporting bill 5. Now let us have an anima that supports bill 5 as a priority - thier view is that we need to deal with the immediate issues of the already resident illegal aliens, so amnesty or guest worker programs need to be established prior to border security (Note, they may support the crackdown on workplace issue at the same time since then the guest workers would now be legal). The problem is they are unlikely to wait until the animus is satisfied with its border security before implementing amnesty, and as such will not support the passage of the border control type of bills. And that creates the paradox of this type of reductionism.
Unfortunatley, in bills of this scope and complexity, it probably makes relatively little difference if you divide them up into parts or keep it as a whole. The only thing dividing up into parts will accomplish is you will more clearly define who supports or dissents on which specific aspects of a larger bill. Lack of support of a large bill could come from both sides of the political spectrum, making it a little less clear to discern where politician’s prirorities lie.
All encompassing, with dizzying size and scope = easier to hide pork. That's the big answer, but I think that it's easier to hide unpopular aspects of the bill itself, like those that conservative pundits pulled and shouted from the house-tops, thereby damaging chances of passage (and enraging Trent Lott etal, and bolstering the call for reinstitution of the "Fairness" doctrine").
All encompassing, with dizzying size and scope = easier to hide pork.
I routinely see this with education bills. They are often loaded with completely unrelated and negative (IMO) pork.
If they didn’t include pork then our congressman would have to work more than half the year and the voting/attendence rate might even be lower than it already is. Garsh.