THE COSTS AND THE BENEFITS

A few articles have been published today which all strike me as having a similar theme. They all show the important struggle over the question of costs - hard dollar costs of going down the path of zero tolerance enforcement. Do unauthorized immigrants cost more than they benefit US taxpayers? What are the benefits of having a zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration and one that answers this offense with deportation and lifetime banishment? What are the dollar costs of a massive enforcement policy in terms of reduced taxes, dramatic wage and goods inflation, the costs of rounding people up and detaining and deporting them ? And what are the costs in terms of the moral compromises that must be made in tearing families apart, inflicting poverty on both immigrants and the families back home depending on their income, punishing US citizens who are "enablers" and don't participate in moving to the zero tolerance culture (the ones I blogged about yesterday) and many others.

One article forwarded to me is from the Vail Daily in Colorado that discusses Immigration and Customs Enforcement's quandary in not having a detention facility in the area that meets federal standards for housing detained immigrants. The pressure is ratcheting up as the detainee population around the US swells (according to another article in this morning's LA Times). How are we going to pay for detaining all these people in conditions that won't violate human rights law? ICE will face the choice over and over again whether to detain as many people as possible or not detain until it has the resources to do so in compliance with the law. How will we pay the billions required for this? Will Americans pay an enforcement tax or will we pretend trying to round up, detain and deport 12 million people is free?

The question of costs was raised in another article in the Kansas City Star that ran yesterday:

“The average person on the street is seeing the cost of illegal immigration,” said Kris Kobach, the Kansas Republican chairman, who has made opposition to illegal immigrants his life’s work. The cost of border crossings, he said: Crowded emergency rooms. Overstuffed classrooms. Declining wages.

Nonsense, said Lynda Callon, director of the Westside Community Action Network Center. “It’s policy by slogan. … There are jobs for (immigrants) to do. People don’t want to listen to the truth, the complexity of the issue.”

And then there's a piece that certainly ties all these questions together and that is one in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Congressman James Sensenbrenner will re-introduce a bill along the lines of H.R. 4337, an extremely tough, zero-tolerance immigration enforcement bill. I blogged yesterday on the death of a "righteous gentile" who harbored Jews in World War II (who, incidentallly, were considered unauthorized immigrants when the Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of their citizenship). My post was mainly intended to remind people of the provisions in H.R. 4337 which would make it a felony to provide any kind of humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants. That bill was more than just extremism on the part of a few far right members of the House. It passed the House in the last Congress, but moderates blocked it from being considered in the Senate. 

That post, incidentally, has triggered some interesting and emotional replies from anti-immigrants who don't like such comparisons. They like the cover of pretending that this is about law and order and not raw nativism. They love immigrants don't you know? But it is no coincidence that immigration has replaced hatred of blacks and Jews as the main cause promoted by white supremacist groups in the country. And I doubt it is a is a coincidence that most of the vocal opposition in the Senate to any paths to legalization for unauthorized immigrants comes from Southern Senators who have a pretty checkered history in this department. than going after African-Americans.

We should all be worried about the direction the tone has taken. Unless you've been asleep over the last few years, you have seen that the anti-immigration rhetoric is being turned up and statements that would have seemed extreme just a few years ago are now commonplace. If posts like the one I put up yesterday cause people to take a step back and think about the direction the debate is taking,  then that's good. Because if we all sit back and allow things to take their course, we'll have a lot to be ashamed about when we discuss it in future generations.

Comments

[EB Immigrant]

No name writes : "You keep repeating IV and H1B together".

Welcome aboard! That's one of the major virtues of the DAG, L&W,Illegal lobby on this board...

Complete lack of desire to even try to understand your issues, your concerns. Try to acquire some virtues such as broad mindedness, desire to "work with" other people, etc from them (if possible). May be your distress will diminish.

[paskal]

"You should talk to people from IV. They will tell you IV is pushing for EB reforms. H1B is not on their agenda."

this it true. iv advocates for EB reform and ending retrogression only and does not deal with the H1 issue. compete america spearheads that particular aspect.

it is also true that iv recognizes the fact that the passage of any immigration legislation including DREAM and AgJobs would create a beneficial environment for EB reform measures.

DAG, I will not comment on the DREAM act. You keep repeating IV and H1B together. You should talk to people from IV. They will tell you IV is pushing for EB reforms. H1B is not on their agenda. Lets keep H1B and EB separate.

[Greg Siskind]

>>the idea that USCIS delays would be a major problem with DREAM has it's roots in the 245i problem.<<

Just a couple of notes about 245i. There was a serious scandal, in my opinion, about the use of the 245i penalty funds. In the late 90s, I received information from a senior member of the union representing the INS examiners documenting that the money was used for enforcement and none of the funds were actually used to adjudicate the cases. I reported on this on my site, but unfortunately not much was done about it. However, this may have been one of the reasons why the INS was divided up into ICE, USCIS and CBP and USCIS' fees are supposed to go totally to adjudicating benefits now.

The other thing to note about 245i is that the rush of filings in early 2001 during the December 20th, 2000 to April 30th, 2001 filing period were for labor certs and I-140s and in most cases the $1000 penalty fees were not paid until later (concurrent filings were not available then). That meant USCIS saw a huge surge in applications without the windfall of fees that would come later. With concurrent filing, USCIS would presumably have had the funds to be able to handle the workload.

And the big backlogs were mainly on the Labor Department side with the labor certs. There are no fees for labor certifications so this was basically a recipe for disaster as Congress did not allocate enough funds for the additional caseload. DOL has discussed filing fees for labor certs - something I support - but this has still not happened.

[Dream Act guy]

Now, we're getting somewhere!

The Dream Act had a provision whereby there would be a maximum of 6 months for USCIS to create the paperwork before any legalization would take place. When everything is ready, USCIS would then finish the paperwork and decide on how much money to charge for those filing fees. Like the nursing provision and H1-B cap, the Dream Act would break even.

Also, USCIS has had experience with successfully processing a large influx of applicants during the 1986 amnesty without disrupting the system. As Greg mentioned, that was when there was less technology and less staff. The Dream Act would even legalize less people too. But all this talk is for naught because the Dream Act failed to gain cloture. We'll see how the 110th Congress handles other immigration measures in the next year.

[paskal]

my last post was not intended to oppose any provision purely on those grounds, but i do think someone should address these issues when new mandates are awarded.

[paskal]

the idea that USCIS delays would be a major problem with DREAM has it's roots in the 245i problem. that provision did result in major delays. i think the issue is whether that kind of quantum of applications would cause problems. i would have liked to see funding and mandates for timely work attached to the bill. personally i have no trust in USCIS given that NSC currently takes >400 days to process a I-140 NIW petition (and the date has not moved in months!)

[paskal]

i'm not posting this to oppose nursing relief, but i do want to clarify this misconception:

"Likewise, the nursing provision would use 61,000 recaptured and unused nursing visas. In fact, the nursing provision and perhaps the Dream Act would have reduced the backlog as it would reduce the amount of people in the waiting list of both the employment and family based categories."

there is nothing such as "unused nursing visas", there were unused green card numbers and in this case a chunk of them would be reserved for nurses instead of dividing them across the board. this would put nurses ahead of everyone else in the line. good or bad, you can decide. keep in mind that there is a shortage. but i hope i have clarified that the GC numbers were not "nursing visas".

also last time similar relief was given to nurses, there would have been relief for EB3 if USCIS had alloted those GC's alongside the regular EB3 quota. that way nurses would have go the recaptured numbers and the ones free up would go to others. instead USCIS first completed the regular quota, so many nurses got GC's in it, then alloted the recaptured numbers. as a results relief if any for others was limited imho. anyway the nurses that get GC's have PD's well ahead of those who would have otherwise benefited. you may note that this bill also allowed "not less than 61,000 GC".
again i'm not complaining about the provision, just want to bring some perspective about the idea of "relief" for others.
it would truly be nice to see a recapture across the board so everyone can benefit. even if 61,000 go to nurses, others can go to everyone else. we continue to hope that this will happen in the near future.

"it goes back to Greg's point. If every immigration fix like the Dream Act, nursing provision, or increasing the H1-B cap will overburden USCIS with new responsibilities, why do anything? "

Not the same thing. Dream would be an unfunded mandate that takes resources away while any increase in the nursing or H-1B numbers would at least break even.

The funding issue is not a minor one as demonstrated by the fact that 6 years on the EB system is still dealing with fallout from the 2001 245(i) reinstatement. If Congress does not see its way clear to properly fund this program, then Greg's suggestion of charging a high fee is a good one as it will address the funding issue.

[Dream Act guy]

no name, it goes back to Greg's point. If every immigration fix like the Dream Act, nursing provision, or increasing the H1-B cap will overburden USCIS with new responsibilities, why do anything?

Also, you are mistaken that EBs did not like the Dream Act. Immigration Voice, for instance, wanted the Dream Act to pass because they knew it would provide momentum for H1-B legislation/EB reform.

"Your comments also indicate that you would rather have the status quo rather than trying to solve the issue one at a time."

No. My comments indicate that status quo is better than making things worse. Solve things one at a time all you like. Don't create new problems to solve.

"This is one of the weaker arguments against the DREAM Act, in my opinion."

Greg, I used the inefficiency of the USCIS not as an argument against DREAM act but to illustrate that certain groups on this blog refuse to even acknowledge that EBs don't support certain things not out of malice but because it has negative impact on them. If its just a simple matter for an EB to wait a longer for others to benefit it would have been easy. Unfortunately, its very easy for EBs to lose status while on the long wait. Every day counts. For example, you know this, H1B loses status as soon job is lost. Most jobs are at will. Its a different issue how USCIS implements the law.

Yes, it would be nice to fix things that are national priority. But to fix things, one should have the patience to at least learn what the issues are. For the DREAM act supporters to simply expect EBs to follow them without looking into why EBs are not too excited is silly. Did we hear people asking congress to increase the funding along with the changes? No.

Simple point is: Can't expect EBs to shut up and follow if it harms them.

[Dream Act guy]

no name, I think you're speaking for yourself (or a small group) because immigration groups like Immigration Voice supported the Dream Act.

The Dream Act would have helped all immigrants as its passage would have shown the 110th Congress that piecemeal immigration reform could work. The initial line up would have been DREAM, Agjobs, and H1B legislation but now everything is in doubt because of DREAM's failure. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, but everything is so much harder.

Your comments also indicate that you would rather have the status quo rather than trying to solve the issue one at a time.

[Greg Siskind]

>>Think for a second how USCIS is going to process DREAM act beneficiaries on priority without extra fee. Congress didn't provide extra funding for this.<<

This is one of the weaker arguments against the DREAM Act, in my opinion. The number of immigrants expected to benefit under the DREAM Act is certainly smaller than the number of people legalized in 1986 and that program - despite the criticisms, managed to succeed in processing people in a timely manner with very little in the way of technology and with a much smaller USCIS. Charge a high fee and use the money to build the infrastructure needed to get the job done rather than just give up. If this is an important priority for the country, it can be achieved. Don't let USCIS' inability to provide decent service be an excuse for not moving on needed public policy initiatives. If you do, we might as well not move forward on anything.

Amazing amount of ignorance on display here by DREAM act supporters on why EBs were not that excited about DREAM or CIR. Would be more productive to find out EBs concerns instead of lumping them as stupid, plain selfish, anti-immigrant. A small fact, USCIS stopped premium processing of I-140 because they don't have the resources though they charge extra $$$. Think for a second how USCIS is going to process DREAM act beneficiaries on priority without extra fee. Congress didn't provide extra funding for this.

Amazing amount of ignorance on display here by DREAM act supporters on why EBs were not that excited about DREAM or CIR. Would be more productive to find out EBs concerns instead of lumping them as stupid, plain selfish, anti-immigrant. A small fact, USCIS stopped premium processing of I-140 because they don't have the resources though they charge extra $$$. Think for a second how USCIS is going to process DREAM act beneficiaries on priority without extra fee. Congress didn't provide extra funding for this.

"The Dream Act would put Dream Act kids in a separate path to citizenship and will not use up existing visas."

So who is going to process the papers, clear namechecks and such and all on priority basis? The USPS?

[Dream Act guy]

no name, that would a be reasonable complaint except that its not true. The Dream Act would put Dream Act kids in a separate path to citizenship and will not use up existing visas. Likewise, the nursing provision would use 61,000 recaptured and unused nursing visas. In fact, the nursing provision and perhaps the Dream Act would have reduced the backlog as it would reduce the amount of people in the waiting list of both the employment and family based categories.

"Some people did not wish for it to pass just because it did not personally benefit them although it benefited other immigrants."

Don't dissemble. People did not wish it to pass because they perceived it as hurting them by slowing down the immigration agencies. Just as mindless reinstatements of 245(i) put paid to a reasonable immigration process for many.

[Dream Act guy]

I disagree, paskal. Another Voice was saying that that we should work together more. I was really disappointed with some people (not all) here over their reaction to the Dream Act and even the nursing provision. Some people did not wish for it to pass just because it did not personally benefit them although it benefited other immigrants. Each pro-immigration piece of legislation builds momentum for the next piece of pro-immigration legislation, and people should realize that.

Pro-immigration groups do look at the big picture so that is good news, at least.

[paskal]

DAG: I do not think that the point being made was that we should not work together. i think i read some frustration about the whole "my way or highway" attitude that some have here. Not all of us will agree with every measure and this is after all a forum for discussion. calling people names and constantly questioning their intentions and "pro immigrant credentials" is just not kosher. I for one do not wish to prove myself to anyone and certainly not repeatedly.just my 2c. no offense intended....

[Dream Act guy]

I agree with Another Voice. We need to work together when our own bills come up for a vote or else we will continue experiencing defeat after defeat. There's still a year left before the new President and opportunities still exist to pass pro-immigration legislation. I'm hoping CIR will come back in 2009 or 2010, but when it is introduced, it will once again be the main event. Hillary, for instance, has said she will introduce CIR in her first term.

[always the same old voice]

"There you go for those Legal Immigrants that think that Undocumented workers are your enemy and you should not support anything that may help them or you."

huh? you really are stuck on this line aren't you? FAIR has never favoured any legal or illegal immigration, this is just an example of how extreme they are. why does everything have to become about this "legal vs illegal"? personally, i fear that your comments fuel that divide, you do not allow anyone any lattitude to comment on immigration issues if your views are not mirrored. it's most unfortunate. i seem to remember from CIR 2007 times that you battered anyone that criticized the "legal" provisions which would frankly have sent many of us back home after years of waiting. please chill out...let's allow people to express themselves and then debate the views.

ps your comment makes no sense "should not support anything that helps them or you"?????

"specially when trying to secure the Hispanic vote largest minority in the US"

The Hispanic vote will not matter if illegal immigration leads to consolidation of the anti-immigrant vote.

[Another voice]

"These guys oppose everyone. extraordinary ability included- that's a special interest. as is health care workers in shortage areas- apparently they compete with american workers- wonder why there are shortage areas then?"

There you go for those Legal Immigrants that think that Undocumented workers are your enemy and you should not support anything that may help them or you.

[paskal]

from the FAIR website:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=leg_110_reform_agenda

In the area of legal immigration, the 109th Congress can claim no progress whatsoever. No action was taken on the urgent need to limit and roll back immigration, no action was taken to eliminate abuse in the refugee and asylum program, and an immense backlog still exists in processing immigration applications due to slow-moving background checks. Meanwhile, in the last waning hours of the session, Congress managed to pass special interest language extending three guest worker programs. These programs allow nurses, doctors, and certain skilled individuals to work in the United States and compete with U.S. workers.

Extension of the H-1C nurse program for three years (H.R. 1285), authorizing the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to certain foreign nurses who agree to work in "shortage areas" of the U.S.

Extension of the J-1 doctor program for two years (H.R. 4997), authorizing the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to certain foreign doctors who agree to work in "shortage areas" of the U.S.
Passage of the Compete Act (S. 3821), expanding eligibility for P-1 visas granted to athletes and individuals of extraordinary ability

these guys oppose everyone. extraordinary ability included- that's a special interest. as is health care workers in shortage areas- apparently they compete with american workers- wonder why there are shortage areas then?

[L]

Guys

This is really hillarious ...

"And he insists the barbed-wire fence really does protect the country."

Please take a look at the picture in the link and this moron Chris Simcox thinks it can keep immigrants out ..

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/07/border.fence/index.html

[Another voice]

"The basic question is this - should the border be protected or not? If yes, then there should be some effort in that direction."

It would not need a fence and militarization from afriendly nation if there was a way for people(mexican & Central american low skill workers) to immigrate legally. That would decrease preassure at the border.

If not, you should consider that there are 40 million Mexicans who live below the poverty line (according to the CIA world fact book).

Just like there are many other poor people in the rest of Latin America. Trade policies to increase their standard of living along with a better immigration system in the US that allows for guest workers should help. Not the fence and the agents.

"The other question I have is what is your suggested fix for the broken immigration system?" CIR adressed that and at some point the American public will have to come to terms and practical reality with that, rather than build the fence and deport them all solution.

[Another voice]

I am skeptic on polls but just because the immigration issue won't carry the day alone in politics does not mean that is an issue not to contend with, specially when trying to secure the Hispanic vote largest minority in the US. Even though minorities are known not to vote the vast assault by the media and antis on this issue may prompt people to vote on this issue alone. The numbers of migrants becoming citizens of the US is large and they are also registering to vote. We'll just have to waith and see although history is not on the side of this when it comes to voting. I also think that immigration does not registered in the polls because we are back to the status quo which means as long as there is no change immigrants are not getting help and the people seem content with that for now.

[Sid]

"Wonder what explains the disconnect."

There isn't one. People are not happy with the situation w.r.t. illegal immigration but it's not as big an issue as the war, economy or health care.

Note the percentage of people dissatisfied with the current situation with illegal immigration in this poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-31-mood-cover_N.htm

And then you have this where voters don't seem to care as much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/07/ST2007110700119.html?hpid=topnews

Wonder what explains the disconnect.

[Dream Act guy]

Apologies for the typos on my post below. I'm on an internet device not on a comp and couldn't properly edit.

I do seem to be a topic of interest judging by this thread. I should be flattered by all the attention, I guess. Also, yes, Kennedy is one great pro-immigration Senator.

[USC]

Sorry that should have been 7 Republicans

[USC]

"Kennedy and his cohorts are hell bent on screwing up the EB immigrants"

FYI, the authors of the anti legal (FB & EB) immigrant* provisions of the CIR Bill were Kyl, Chambliss, Isaakson & Graham AND NOT Kennedy (the Democrats found Junior's bill so repugnant that only three co-sponsored it; the bill was written by the administration and supported by 6 Republicans).

The antis (that includes the racists and those who want to end all immigration) reviled Senator Kennedy for his support of immigration reform. Kennedy accepted the Republican demands only in order to move the bill out of the Senate.

* I considered the point system to be an anti EB provision and the elimination of the various FB categories to be an anti FB provision. Those who claim Kennedy is anti legal immigration should research & find out as to who who pushed for these two provisions.

[Dream Act guy]

Sid, I said in this thread that I disagreed with the points based system. I can even quote myself with a time stamp if you want. Also, that comment you were referring (reduce backlog etc) wad referring to the goal the future CIR to meet with regards to legal immigration. Its sad to say but you did not heed my request when I asked you to read more carefully.

As for supporting EB workers, I've always supported it. Remember, I was the one of the first to post that the nursing provision passed by voice vote and I was happy as a result because it was the right thing to do and I know someone who would have benefited. Furthermore, as I said before, with the failure of the DREAM Act, I need EB reforms as much as anyone here to help adjust my status. It is in my interest (and a principle I have) to help pass pr o-immigration legislation.

[Sid]

"I do not see this kind of commitment from the Dream Act Guy and others, I do not see that you care about my interests at all, while I do care about yours."

Another proof of what you are saying is evident in their remarks about EB reforms. We do not benefit from the Dream Act but most of us were interested in the details of the bill - enough to debate on the pros and cons of some of the important clauses. Compare that to the kind of ignorant remarks about the point-based system - it will reduce the EB backlog, streamline the process, yada yada yada. That shows a genuine lack of interest in our issues.

I finally realized why I am so irritated by those who supported this year's CIR. If tomorrow someone introduces a bill full of wonderful promises for EB immigration that also forever bars permanent residence for anyone who ever been in the country illegally, then I would strongly oppose the bill (even though I have always been in status). I do not see this kind of commitment from the Dream Act Guy and others, I do not see that you care about my interests at all, while I do care about yours.

[paskal]

Sid,

If I may weigh in here, based on what I know:
CIR this year was a brainchild of Senators Kyl and Kennedy, Kyl was responsible for the legal provisions. However what we finally saw was a mish mash of proposals inserted and altered to please individual stakeholders in order to gain their support. Those who wrote the bill from the administration's side remain convinced that they had solved the backlog issue with EB by providing the additional 90,000/yr GC for 5 years. I believe that their intentions in this matter were good, they just ended up underestimating the number of people in line. As a results they were quite upset with the EB community's reaction. The points system was of course fatally flawed but there was no chance to demonstrate this to the authors. The real problem of course was that none of the shortcomings could be addressed once the bill was unveiled, because the "package" had been delicately negotiated and any give for EB would "unbalance" the deal. This will always be the problem with a CIR approach that comes through back room negotiations. Unfortunately open discussions lead to a different stalemate.
Maybe an enhanced Dem majority will bring out another CIR and maybe it won't...the fact is that the centrist majority already supports it. It's the fringes on both sides that have the power to stall everything. Let us see what happens in the coming few weeks. Frenetic efforts continue for getting some relief. IV's lobbyists have been engaged in efforts in DC, if anything breaks there will be an update on the forum. Meanwhile meeting your lawmakers and apprising them of EB issues remains of critical importance and may be the thing that counts if something is on the floor. In IV we are trying to facilitate this through local chapters- in the spirit of a true grassroots organization!

Btw DREAM was a significant opportunity, there were efforts for a quid pro quo but continuing hard lines on both sides did not allow it to happen. If DREAM had passed it may have opened doors....instead we are rudely awakened again....

[Sid]

Greg,

In that case, my questions to you would be - Why did things go so horribly wrong for EB legals in this year's CIR? Who was responsible?

[Greg Siskind]

I'll just weigh in briefly as I'm between flights, but the antis out there are probably having a good laugh reading this blog. They have us right where they want us with everyone fighting for a few scraps that they have no intention of delivering anyway. Up until this year, the CIR had great provisions for both legal and unauthorized immigrants. That should be the aim - solving the range of immigration problems the country is facing and not pitting one group against another to see who is the deserviest.

The discussions of the illegals lobby versus the legals lobby is also nonsense. The major players in this debate are simultaneous working on both sides. I know because I've been involved with this subject for the long haul and know the folks doing the work on the Hill and to say otherwise is just baloney.

"you seem afflicted by the "i trash you but don't dare say anything to me" syndrome others on this blog have. please stay away from it. you still have not reached the "voice" heights, hopefully you will be saved yet!"

Ha ha very funny and well said!

"Composure" and "maturity" lasted only for a nanosecond for DAG!

The way dollar is heading south and with the size of the budget deficit talking about increasing foreign aid to poor countries seems far-fetched/ wild idea.

[Dream Act guy]

entitlement?, those were in response to EB Immigrants' personal attacks. I was trying to tell him how he came off to a lay observer and to signal to him that it was not warranted.

Also, I did not initiate attacks in this thread. We may have our arguments but EB Immigrants' comments were over the top. Re-read the whole thread and you'll see.

[Sid]

"How about resurrecting JFK's "Alliance for Progress?" Increased aid could alleviate economic pressures in Latin America and also spread goodwill in the region."

Yes, sure. That's not a bad idea. The only long term solution to the immigration problem is economic growth and improvements in the quality of life in the poorer countries.

[Dream Act guy]

How about resurrecting JFK's "Alliance for Progress?" Increased aid could alleviate economic pressures in Latin America and also spread goodwill in the region.

[entitlement?]

"If you have genuine policy differences with who ever you are mad at, thats fine but lay off the personal attacks."

"My comments about you lacking in composure, maturity, and level-headedness refers to your post history on this thread"

please reread your whole comment. you freely attack everyone else and then act so sensitive when people return the favor? why do you think you are so entitled? either free speech is for everyone or no one. you seem afflicted by the "i trash you but don't dare say anything to me" syndrome others on this blog have. please stay away from it. you still have not reached the "voice" heights, hopefully you will be saved yet!

everyone should stay off personal attacks. sadly it's the self styled purist "pro immigrants" that seem to initiate them and then complain. the rest of us are not good enough it seems because we care for ourselves along with everything else. you know what- i do care. about my problem. and if you don't (ha!) then i bow to you.

[Sid]

"Building a fence does not solve the problem at all fixing the current immigration system does. A fence will just create large ladder sales in Mexico. Its an idiotic way to adress the real problem and the minute man are too stupid to realize it."

I'm not a border security expert so I can't argue that the fence is a good way of protecting the border, it's probably not. I guess increasing the border patrols or any hi-tech mechanism would be more effective.

The basic question is this - should the border be protected or not? If yes, then there should be some effort in that direction.

If not, you should consider that there are 40 million Mexicans who live below the poverty line (according to the CIA world fact book).

The other question I have is what is your suggested fix for the broken immigration system?

[Dream Act guy]

EB Immigrant, you need to stop thinking like the whole world is against you. My comments about you lacking in composure, maturity, and level-headedness refers to your post history on this thread. Again, I advise you to re-read them. They are filled with or have the appearance of bitterness and paranoia. Even stranger is that your invectives are directed at me. If you have genuine policy differences with who ever you are mad at, thats fine but lay off the personal attacks.

[Another voice]

"I don't agree with a lot of what they (Minuteman) do - specially w.r.t. confronting and harassing illegals but I don't see how trying to protect the border is a bad thing. What they are doing (by building a fence) may fail miserably but they should get points for trying. They are trying to do what the government should have done 20 years back."

Building a fence does not solve the problem at all fixing the current immigration system does. A fence will just create large ladder sales in Mexico. Its an idiotic way to adress the real problem and the minute man are too stupid to realize it.

"The whole discussion on border security and workplace enforcement focuses on punishing illegals and their employers but no one talks about the INS, the border security patrols, members of the Congress, the Presidents, all of whom ignored the problem for the last 20 years. I think they should be penalized as well."

When you have an immigration system that does nopt work this creates a domino effect these people that you mention have contributory negligence to the problem but again the fence is not it, the system is what does not work. But if it makes you happy go help them build the Cow fence, I guess they are short on funds for the real one.

[EB Immigrant]

"EB Immigrant, wishing for a united immigrant constituency is not putting oneself on a pedestal. I've always said that immigrants have to work together on the next version of CIR. I'm sorry if you think thats "holier than thou." "=

Now you do try to sound "composed" and "mature"! That's new.

Wishing for a united immigrant community is admirable...but Dick Durbin, Kennedy and his cohorts are hell bent on screwing up the EB immigrants..and they are gung-ho on legalizing 11 million undocumented on fast track....Any time when we point this out you are kind enough to let us know that we are severely deficient in composure,maturity, philanthropy and all sorts of other virtues!

If the democrats improve their majority in the Senate....we are doomed further.

[Sid]

I don't agree with a lot of what they (Minuteman) do - specially w.r.t. confronting and harassing illegals but I don't see how trying to protect the border is a bad thing. What they are doing (by building a fence) may fail miserably but they should get points for trying. They are trying to do what the government should have done 20 years back.

The whole discussion on border security and workplace enforcement focuses on punishing illegals and their employers but no one talks about the INS, the border security patrols, members of the Congress, the Presidents, all of whom ignored the problem for the last 20 years. I think they should be penalized as well.

[Another voice]

This is too funny I guess that guy has been scaming the money for personal use!!!!

Minuteman's high-tech border barrier called 'a cow fence'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/07/border.fence/index.html

[Dream Act guy]

EB Immigrant, wishing for a united immigrant constituency is not putting oneself on a pedestal. I've always said that immigrants have to work together on the next version of CIR. I'm sorry if you think thats "holier than thou."

AlexSD, I don't get what you are trying to say. The next CIR will take into account all the past CIRs before it. Some people here are obsessed with rehashing what they didn't like about the 2007 CIR bill. Its time to move on, and hopefully , we can get the next CIR right.

[AlexSD]

Dream act guy true to himself :)

"Sid, this is an immigration blog. Why shouldn't we talk about CIR? Besides, us not talking about CIR is like the E! network not gossiping about Britney Spears.

Posted by: Dream Act guy | November 06, 2007 at 08:27 PM"

"Legal and Waiting, I agree with you 100%. There's no point in rehashing the provisions found in old CIR bills as they did not become law.
...

Posted by: Dream Act guy | November 07, 2007 at 02:14 PM "

"Constant immigration" is a hogwash? I quite agree but try telling this to you senator. These guys really believe it, which is why we have all those immigration limits per year in place, and this is not going anywhere.

Coming back to Greg's post about "cost vs benefits", I wish someone would fund a comprehensive study on economic cost/benefits of immigration by respectable scholars who have no political agenda and value the truth and their reputation much more than anything else. But apparently, nobody wants to know the truth..it is all politics.

[Sid]

L & W,

The July bulletin reversal was very beneficial to the EB immigrants. I would definitely qualify that as one of our significant achievements.

Even if the H-1B fee is increased now, it's less likely to affect us since we can always survive on EADs.

I think the EB lobby has a long way to go though. That's why the focus now is to strengthen our base, increase our numbers and then lobby hard when the next set of reforms are up for consideration in 2009.

Out of the 1 million EB immigrants stuck in the backlog, even if we can mobilize 50-100K people to raise their voices, the results might swing in our favor.

We have to work really hard in 2008 to achieve our goals.

[EB Immigrant]

"EB Immigrant, you do not sound like a composed and mature individual. Please re-read your posts. It sounds paranoid and have no basis in reality in the context of this thread".

Frankly..it is quite amusing to see your childish refusal to come down from the pedestal that you have placed yourself in your own imaginary world!

And it is certainly not surprising that you are not responding to the specifics being raised by other EB folks.

[Dream Act guy]

Legal and Waiting, I agree with you 100%. There's no point in rehashing the provisions found in old CIR bills as they did not become law. We have a chance with the next President and Congress to pass the right CIR bill that will help out all immigrants and fix our broken immigration system. I'm not saying its going to be perfect, but I bet it'll be a lot better than the 2007 CIR bill that even pro-immigration advocates didn't like. It all depends on what happens in 2008 though.

[Legal and waiting]

"Constant immigration" is a hogwash - a bad idea, a bad policy, and something that literally, cannot be achieved in a contemporary society. If immigrants were working together, they could have proven that this idea is really bad for the country, but with the attitudes like that, nobody is going to stand up to crazyness, so antis are winning again.

[Dream Act guy]

EB Immigrant, you do not sound like a composed and mature individual. Please re-read your posts. It sounds paranoid and have no basis in reality in the context of this thread.

[Legal and waiting]

I just find it quite interesting and rather puzzling that the supposed rise of the EB lobby does not result in any positive movement in the EB or H1 area, but is rather associated with more and more proposals to limit those categories (CIR 2007, Durbin-Grassey, etc.) There could be only two explanations to this - either the efforts have not started to impact the policies, or the efforts are counterproductive. I guess, we will see...

One lesson that I learned by following CIR debates is that lots of senators want to keep immigration levels constant per year. So any massive legalization program will have to cut severely into family/EB immigration. I am not suggesting that those family/EB are any better human beings, but let's be honest we won't all fit on that boat. Which is why some people sound bitter: a lot is at stake.

[EB Immigrant]

"Its important that we immigrants have to work together. Let us make sure the next CIR is the best it can be and is an equitable solution to the problem of immigration reform. The good news is that pro-immigration groups like AILA and AILF work together to solve this problem and are in no way divided over this issue".

GOOD TO KNOW AND HOPE IT IS TRUE!

"EB Immigrant, I think you have issues that you need to work out. Your posts are very disturbing"

YOU CAN NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND SET ASIDE YOUR PATRONIZING, HOLIER THAN THOU S**T! I will not degenerate to your level and ask you to work out your "issues"!!!

[Dream Act guy]

EB Immigrant, I think you have issues that you need to work out. Your posts are very disturbing.

Its important that we immigrants have to work together. Let us make sure the next CIR is the best it can be and is an equitable solution to the problem of immigration reform. The good news is that pro-immigration groups like AILA and AILF work together to solve this problem and are in no way divided over this issue.

[just me]

Some here that I shall leave unnamed were of the opinion that we should blindly trust in the House's powers and good intentions- and mommy would make everything right!

And what if they did not? Many of us would be screwed.the next revision was prohibited for 14 years. Then there is the again unnamed crowd that bitterly trashes anyone who speaks even vaguely against a total and complete amnesty for unauthorized workers, and irony...calls them bitter! We still don't know this person's (the unannointed leader of the crowd) vested interest and are supposed to believe this "voice" is some philanthropic saint that we are blessed to have.

EB workers do not have anything against those who bitterly toil at minimum wages. We do not oppose relief for them. This point was made repeatedly when i last bothered to engage, but was conveniently ignored. That does not mean we commit suicide and give up our own chances of orderly immigration to help the "tragically less fortunate". A compromise would be good- but it has to provide appropriate EB relief, not the kind of silly sob- story fairy tale that this crowd espouses.

[EB Immigrant]

"If, in an argument or discussion, somebody makes a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, the discussion is automatically over, and the person making the comparison is considered to have lost.""

Yawn....I'm tired of even saying same old...once again you have nothing to offer..lies..calling names..accusing us of greed, evil, malice....
or coming up with crap like you just posted!

[Dream Act guy]

EB Immigrant, are you familiar with Godwin's law as it relates to internet discussions?

http://linguisticmystic.com/2006/11/20/first-they-came-for-the-internet-cliches-an-introduction-to-godwins-law/

Godwin's Law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

If, in an argument or discussion, somebody makes a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, the discussion is automatically over, and the person making the comparison is considered to have lost."

[Sid]

Here is what Greg wrote in the obituary for the CIR -

"While I'm disappointed the process is over since I was looking forward to seeing what the House would do on CIR, it's hard to get too sad about the departure of what was a pretty bad bill. The H-1B taxes, the point system, the silly touchback system are all ideas best left on the trash pile of immigration bills that died in the years past."

To whoever blames EB immigrants for opposing to CIR. Suppose you are offered a deal from God that he arranges that CIR is passed but you personally go to hell. Oops, I mean you will never a green card. Would you agree? Like legal-forever-waiting-forever is saying this was precisely the choice for many of those people.

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

1. there were serious problems with the points system. it would have largely excluded any non STEM graduate from a backlogged country from ever getting a GC. 18 additional points were alloted to STEM graduates (for degree and work). the country quota remained. so how was a physician or MPH or MBA as an example ever going to get across 18 points and a country quota?

2.The backlog was 1.1 million, 450,000 paltry visas were alloted to clear it. The rest were doomed.

Thse are two good examples of what made CIR 2007 so poisonous to many EB immigrants. There are those on this blog who blindly accuse the EB community of hara kiri for opposing CIR 2007. Sometimes it's good to understand what the issues areally are. Had the bill been even half good, it may have garnered EB support. We did not oppose it because of what it gave to unauthorized workers, but for what it would have done to us.

There were a couple of amendements to straighten out these issues. They never got a vote.

[EB Immigrant]

Trying to have a meaningful conversation with the illegal
lobby here has been futile. For this to happen they should stop
extruding lies...this means at a minimum they should accept the truth that the "CIR 2007" was utterly unfair to the EB immigrants.

Since I don't expect them to stop lying ....I'm going to save my previous Goebbels post and cut and paste it everytime ...as a generic reponse to the DREAM lobby lies here.

[EB Immigrant]

"Just a note - not all EB immigrants are arrogant bitter fouls"

tut...tut...tut....
same old...same old...

[Sid]

L & W,

I understand the concept of "united we stand, divided we fall". Can you tell me where the pro-immigration lobby was when the last CIR was introduced? What were the provisions included to end the EB backlog? How would the point system streamline the process and make it more effective when any T, D & H with a degree can apply for it?

[Legal and waiting]

Just a note - not all EB immigrants are arrogant bitter fouls, like the guy who calls himself "EB immigrant". In fact, people like him is the reason there is no strong pro-immigrant lobby, and the reason why divided bickering immigrants lost to the antis more times than I can count.

[EB Immigrant]

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”-Goebbels

The "dream act guy" and other illegal lobby/ DREAM act hypocrites are true beleivers of the Nazi Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister.

The truth of the matter is the so called "CIR" was a travesty of justice...it did NOTHING to alleviate the EB backlog. It advocated fast-track (Z visa a.k.a stat green card)massive legalization program for the millions illegals while throwing the law abiders- the EB immigrants- under the bus.

Sure ....your ethnic lobby is big, you are lot more financially more powerful than us....that doesn't mean we should accept your lies or stop challenging you when you lie through your teeth day in and out.

'Do you think it will ever work with people who are willing to risk death by crossing the desert in order to get here?'

By some estimates 50% of the unauthorized population is composed of visa or visa waiver overstays. The alternative for these people is between living in the US and moving to someplace halfway decent (like Europe :-)).

So sure, the attrition strategy will work at least to some extent.

[Another voice]

"Sure, if there's no job waiting for them. Deterring illegal hiring would directly weaken the jobs magnet which would then deter illegal crossing. If your goal is to actually lessen illegal immigration, deterrence is the obvious strategy."

You are failing to consider the economics of your proposal.

4.7% uneployment in the US which means that there is nobody to replace these workers with. 75% of agricultural workers, 40% construction plenty more in other industries. Capital and Labor need each other and here we have both elements present you can't end this by wroting a Law and hope that it will work out in the end.

"Then the theory goes most illegal workers would self-deport."

The chocices for these people are either starve to death in their native countries or be here illegally no matter the obstacles. The chiice is obvious

"E-verification from employers and if there was a stiff enough penalty for noncompliance (combined with auditing) the rational choice would be to fire illegal workers."

Sure as long as the US society and economy were willing to pay the huge costs associated with this proposed solution. this is an ecuation that will not just see an effect on one side it alters all sides.

"Some would call that immoral, stupid, cowardly.." Other would refer to this the defense of the status quo in a way that gives the apereance that the government is doing its job enforcing current Immigration laws regardless of the human costs.

[Jack]

'Do you think it will ever work with people who are willing to risk death by crossing the desert in order to get here?'

Sure, if there's no job waiting for them. Deterring illegal hiring would directly weaken the jobs magnet which would then deter illegal crossing. If your goal is to actually lessen illegal immigration, deterrence is the obvious strategy. If you are referring to people *already* here, it's messier but if you wanted to you could require E-verification from employers and if there was a stiff enough penalty for noncompliance (combined with auditing) the rational choice would be to fire illegal workers. Then the theory goes most illegal workers would self-deport. It's not perfect but would work for the most part in the same way income tax compliance works for the most part. It's more a matter of how in the world do you get the law passed against the will of the business lobby and even if you did, the Executive would have to enforce it. How many of the current presidential candidates would? 3? And none are first tier candidates. But practically everybody will go for fencing while ignoring the jobs magnet and this leads to crossing deaths. There are also lots of deaths on the way up through Mexico but those are unrelated to fencing, just the jobs magnet. If you're gonna fence, there's a moral imperative to deter crossings through employer enforcement.

From a humanitarian standpoint, it's awfully hard to defend a policy of fencing combined with ignoring the jobs magnet. For those who didn't go to law school or haven't heard of this, there is a doctrine in tort law of 'attractive nuisance'. It is foreseeable that a kid trespasser might get killed in a junked refrigerator sitting on your property so this doctrine allows that the property owner can be held liable even though the kid is breaking the law by trespassing. The immigration analogy is the U.S. government is the property owner, the people who illegally cross the border are the kid trespassers, and the looking the other way at illegal hiring is the refrigerator/empty pool, etc. We know these people will cross and do nothing (a whopping total of *3* 'notices of intent to fine employers' in 2004) about the hiring. And to make matters worse, we push them out to make the crossing more deadly all the while leaving the prospect of work dangling for them to grab. Some would call that immoral, stupid, cowardly...

[Dream Act guy]

I get the last word!!!

[Sid]

I don't think you understand English very well. I'm done arguing with you.

[Dream Act guy]

Sid, this is an immigration blog. Why shouldn't we talk about CIR? Besides, us not talking about CIR is like the E! network not gossiping about Britney Spears.

[Sid]

In that case, let's discuss the next CIR when it comes up. There's no point in discussing the version of CIR that exists in your imaginary world.

[Dream Act guy]

Sid, what I mentioned were the goals for CIR to meet (path to legalization, fix broken immigration system, and tough border security). Don't obsess over the 2007 CIR bill, and if you misunderstood, raise a question instead of being so combative. Alpha male behavior is unbecoming of you.

[Sid]

"Again, don't dredge up old bills. Look to the past CIRs only as a lesson on what to bring to the upcoming (hopefully) form of CIR."

The only lesson I derived from the last CIR was that I have to fight for myself. There's nothing called a pro-immigration lobby. There's a lobby for illegal immigrants, a lobby for FB immigrants and another one for EB immigrants. Everyone is pushing their own agenda.

You may say that you support the EB reforms because you can benefit from either Dream Act or the EB reforms but I feel that if you have to choose between the two, you would pick the Dream Act because that would give you a conditional GC immediately.

[Sid]

"BTW, wanting an immigration system that is orderly and efficient is not "ignorant." "

Nothing ignorant about "wanting" such a system. Saying that the point-based system would have ensured that, is.

[USC]

Jack, the so called attrition strategy is laughable. Do you think it will ever work with people who are willing to risk death by crossing the desert in order to get here? IOW, they are here and they are not leaving voluntarily. Moreover you have to be careful if you arbitrarily distinguish as to who gets amnesty and who doesn't. The US constitution contains an Equal Protection clause, you know!

[Sid]

"Sid, please correct your language. Use of the word "illegals" is such a dehumanizing and mean word."

I don't agree and I will continue to use it. If you don't want to use it that's up to you.

[Sid]

"If you actually read my original comment, I never mentioned EB reforms. Please read more carefully next time."

Yes you didn't. You mentioned that the CIR would have reduced the backlog for legal immigrants. Since that includes both FB and EB immigrants, you were wrong. You should be more careful about what you write.

[Dream Act guy]

dream, you shouldn't take everything so literally. A Dream Act kid refers to those who were brought to the United States as minors and who are incapable of making informed decisions.

[dream]

"It is a humanitarian bill designed to correct a flaw in the immigration system on the basis that kids should not be punished for the actions of their parents"

If the bill is all about kids why the maximum age limit is 30? Last time I checked a kid is someone who less than 18 years old. What should be done to the parents who brought them in first place?

[Dream Act guy]

Sid, please correct your language. Use of the word "illegals" is such a dehumanizing and mean word.

Again, don't dredge up old bills. Look to the past CIRs only as a lesson on what to bring to the upcoming (hopefully) form of CIR. Sen. Kyl proposed the points based system as an attempt to help legal immigrants. Personally, I disagree with a points based system, and provisions in the 2006 CIR bill would be a better fix.

BTW, wanting an immigration system that is orderly and efficient is not "ignorant." If you actually read my original comment, I never mentioned EB reforms. Please read more carefully next time.

[Assimilation]

" Dream Act kids are already fully assimilated into American society"

How do we know if someone is assimilated or not? Is there a way assimilation can be measured rather than asserting that all the dream act benificiaries are fully assimilated compared to everyone else?

[Sid]

Dream Act guy,

I don't have a problem with legalization for illegals. I was pointing out that your comments about EB reforms in the CIR were full of ignorance.

[Dream Act guy]

Dream Act kids did not come into this country out of our own volition and should not be classed with other undocumented immigrants. It is a humanitarian bill designed to correct a flaw in the immigration system on the basis that kids should not be punished for the actions of their parents. Furthermore, Dream Act kids are already fully assimilated into American society. Tying Dream Act kids into countries that we have no connection with is unnecessary and works against the notion of assimilation.

As for the other inquiries, a new President, assuming he or she is pro-immigrant, will propose a new form of comprehensive immigration reform. Dredging up old battles and dead bills is an exercise in futility because a new CIR bill in the next session of Congress will take into account what worked and what didn't work in past CIR's. Be part of the solution and propose equitable ways to improve CIR rather than siding with anti-immigration groups whose only goal is to wall off America to all immigration.

As for me, I will get to adjust my status through the EB immigration system, and I have a stake in making sure the next iteration of CIR provide an orderly and efficient immigration system for all immigrants.

[going back to the line]

"go to the back of the line among other stringent requirements"

I dont think Dream act mandates going back to the line . It gives a preferential treatement for dream act benificiaries over many people who followed the rules and lines. This act eliminates the country based caps for these benificiaries alone while retaining the same for everyone else who want to do it in a right way.

[Legal Immi]

"Legal immigrants, in turn, gain a functioning immigration system that greatly reduces backlogs and allows future immigrants a much better immigration channel with which to immigrate."

Really , I dont think I was sleeping when CIR was being debated . Can you please suggest me what were the specific provisions of the bill that were meant to reduce the backlog in EB category?. Please let me know if legal immigration for you means family based immigration only?

[Sid]

"Legal immigrants, in turn, gain a functioning immigration system that greatly reduces backlogs and allows future immigrants a much better immigration channel with which to immigrate."

Can you please point out the provision in the CIR that aimed to reduce the backlog for EB immigration?
I doubt that the point-based system qualifies for being a "much better immigration channel". A merit based system has to be an approximation of the natural selection that exists in any society. The best students apply to the best universities - the best universities accept only the top students - employers prefer to hire graduates from the top universities - the top graduates prefer to work for the best employers - there are no artificial caps when companies try to expand their workforce. Where were all these issues captured in the point-based system?
Were there any provisions to speed up the processing of EB GC's? Any service guarantees from the DOL/USCIS/FBI?

I know that there was a provision to eliminate the FB immigration backlog in 8 years. If by legal immigrants you mean only FB immigrants, then yes, the CIR was great.

[Dream Act guy]

By the same token, a path to legalization as part of comprehensive immigration reform can be seen as the middle ground between mass amnesty and deportation. A punishment has to be commensurate to the crime, and a path to legalization plan achieves this by requiring an offender to pay a fine, undergo background checks, learn English, and go to the back of the line among other stringent requirements. Legal immigrants, in turn, gain a functioning immigration system that greatly reduces backlogs and allows future immigrants a much better immigration channel with which to immigrate.

Furthermore, CIR would include tougher border security, a fix to the US Visit system, and increased sanctions for employers as well as other tough measures. CIR is the consensus solution to immigration reform among many in Washington, including the top candidates in both parties, and those who believe in "attrition through enforcement" need to broaden their social circles beyond Minutemen hearings and anti-immigration websites prone to group think.

[Jack]

USC, I was talking about the mass deportation straw man and not advocating mass deportation. There are not only two options of mass amnesty OR mass deportations. You are right, with our procedural requirements it would be a huge undertaking to process that many people. It would also be a huge undertaking to process that many people for Z-visas. When that many people are outside the law it is reasonable to ask whether it is wise to enforce to the letter. But is also reasonable to ask whether it is wise to simply forgive being outside the law and establish that precedent. You can also do limited amnesties like AgJobs but they are arbitrary and the biggest fraud magnets of all.

Due to the impracticalities of both amnesty and mass deportation, the attrition idea is gaining steam. There are variations/compromises on that too. You could make a distinction between new hires and existing hires. Deter new illegal hires but take a benign neglect approach to those already here and working, i.e., no amnesty but no E-verify requirement for prior hires. This would lessen disruption to the economy during a transition to a more legal workforce (you'll never get all but like with tax compliance you can get most employers to be on the up-and-up).

[USC]

Jack:

Due to the crippled nature of my Internet access (Greg, I have free Internet access via the Grand Suite computer which is crippled but to use my notebook via wifi through which I have full unrestricted access costs me 50 cents per minute) I can't cite (no right clicking allowed & too much trouble to re-type your post) the specific parts of your post but why don't you answer the following questions before you start talking about deporting 12 million people:

(a) Number of Federal Judges required
(b) Number of Prosecutors required
(c) Number of defense lawyers required
(d) Number of ICE personnel required to conduct raids
(e) Court time per deportation and total number of days to deport 12 million illegals
(f) Number of aircraft required to deport 12 million

I don't know the amount of Federal Judges currently on the bench but my suspicion is that there are not enough to process 12 million people!

Just to put it in perspective, 12 million is greater than the population of America's largest city, ie NYC. I have heard that the number may in fact be closer to 20 million. The population of the entire State of NY is about that figure. So you are talking about emptying out the entire state of NY. I would venture to state those that talk about mass deportations are the ones with a couple of screws loose!

[Jack]

'...trying to round up, detain and deport 12 million people is free?'

I am trying to give this blog a fair shot but expect more than the old mass deportation straw man. I have come to accept that homilies are irresistible to open border fans so I just got used to it. No points deducted. At least you ask substantive questions (amid some loaded ones) although in the last paragraph you did have to throw in the SPLC-ish 'tone and tenor' foreboding. I'll give it a pass since it's not all you have to say like Luis Guiterrez but it still comes off like warmed over Mark Potok.

'Because if we all sit back and allow things to take their course, we'll have a lot to be ashamed about when we discuss it in future generations.'

What exactly do you think is taking course? If you are referring to enforcement of law, that is something to be ashamed of? If you are referring to rhetoric, that, of course, is protected speech even if you disagree with its 'tone'. Not 'sitting back' equals what to you? Just curious.