« Giffords v. Bee in the NYT | Main | Blaming the Victim »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

True enough, Harper wasn't bashing Kyl at all, but then again neither was Pullen and a lot of folks have been trying to beat him up anyway. Maybe they were just trying to send a message that Jack received?

Count on the NYT to ignore the fact that Pullen hasn't actually spoken out against Kyl, just against the bill.

I'd disagree that the bill is destroying the volunteer base; those with illegal immigration as their main issue have not been very involved volunteering for the party, expecially in the last election (I know I was volunteering my #ss off for the party & the folks that are vocal now were vocal then and sat on their hands during the election)...the main volunteers were either for Graf, Kyl or pro-life. the rest were not seen or heard from...honestly.

the volunteer base will diminish due to the embarrassing actions of those vile protests of Senator Kyl. Honest & good people do not want to be associated with those "Republicans".

"If we could just elect the right people to office" is what we often hear from activists, party or otherwise. Ye have too much faith in politics, and parties, and individual people, elected or not. The immigration issue is beyond a legislative, partisan or personal "fix", and conservatives in either party should not become sudden totalitarians.

"especially in the last election"?

I agree that the bulk of the volunteer base was for Graf, Kyl and/or pro-life. But what issue do you think drove the folks that were working so hard for Graf? Eliminating estate taxes? It was securing the border and opposing amnesty. Do you believe that we can win CD-8 without them in 2008? Why do you think Kyl campaigned so hard on "no amnesty"? Because he knew that was what was motivating his volunteer base as well.

That is the base that has been jeopardized by this bill and that is the base that Pullen hung on to for the benefit of the Party.

Our stool won't stand without them!

Did Graf win? Did J.D. Win? Why?

Think about it.

Did Franks win? Did Shadegg win? Did Dean Martin win? Why?

Think about it.

My point exactly.

The illegal immigration rhetoric is getting really old. Only those who actually DO SOMETHING deserve support. I'm tempted to slap the next person who wails against immigration and is DOING NOTHING. Talk is cheap. Pullen is one of the talkers. At least Kyl is trying to do something.

You know Marsha, trying to use immigration as the only explanation for Graf and Hayworth just isn't smart. Kyl's race was every bit as much about immigration as Graf's and Hayworth's and, yes, he did win.

And no Travis, doing the wrong thing is NOT better than doing nothing.

So the AZRepublicans are adding another litmus test for their nominees,
I have been active as a volunteer at Republican headquarters but am one of the Republicans for Choice. I deeply resent the Arizona GOP's emphasis on the abortion issue and their continued emphasis on far right candidates. As more "foreigners" move to Arizona I think they will find that this stand loses many votes. I will not change my registration because I want to be able to vote in the primaries.

Marsha poses a question about Hayworth and Graf - implying that they lost because they focused on immigration. John responds by asking about Shadegg, Franks and Dean Martin, implying that they won because of immigration.

They're both a little off the mark. Hayworth lost because he stopped being the happy warrior and became a very angry campaigner - focusing only on the negatives of Mitchell. We didn't see any positive TV ads or mail from JD, and people want to be FOR something.

Graf had the disadvantage of running in a district that was drawn with Kolbe in mind - moderate-to-liberal bent.

Shadegg, Franks and Martin didn't win because they focused on immigration. I suppose they had something to say about it, but as I recall, Shadegg's radio ads were mostly focused on the war on terror. Besides, Shadegg and Franks reflect the conservative nature of their districts. Shadegg is the most conservative member of the delegation and represents a really conservative district. (I know, some people will say that Franks is more conservative, and there is but one big difference between Shadegg and Franks - Franks voted for the monstrosity of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill and Shadegg was a no vote - for small government conservatives, that's a pretty fundamental point).

Franks also represents his district well - and both Shadegg and Franks campaigned on good stuff they did - I don't think they even mentioned their respective opponents.

Grassroots girl is right about one thing. Shadegg, Franks, and Martin had other issues they talked about. Hayworth and Graf did not. That should tell you something.


I understand the party should have a range of candidates but how about a little truth in advertising? If Kyl is going to compromise away the franchise for citizenship with Ted Kennedy he should have told us that. Then I would have a few more dollars in my pocket and I would have eaten less cold pizza and made fewer phone calls in October, 2006. Just tell us who you are and what you stand for and we will all make adult decisions based on that.

Do you remember this ad from 2006?


Does anyone remember the bill Sen. Kyl worked hard for last session? Where is it now? It got nowhere in a Senate with a Republican majority and now in the Democratic majority it had a snowballs chance in Phoenix of ever getting through. I’ve heard it said he should not have signed on because even if the Dems got their lousy bill passed, Bush could have vetoed it. Yes, that is right. But then we would still be without any bill at all. The standard "nothing at all is better than something bad" just isn’t the whole story.

It is May 2007 and we are already knee deep in a presidential primary campaign that will be getting even more complex for the next several months. Come February it will be a frenzy of no-holds-barred campaigning and by the end of March-April, both parties will have their nominee fairly well identified. Then expect all issues to be on re-election of 1/3 of the Congress and the president. Senator Kyl understood very clearly that if something was not done to get the dialogue started in a manner that could have a legitimate chance of passing in what is a long process, it would be two years from now before we could have a chance of another try.

He understands the process very well; original bill does not mean final bill.
Jon Kyl is an extremely gifted craftsman and much respected in Congress. It will be July before the Senate resumes activity on this bill. How much lobbying, how much behind the scenes work, how much support for stronger border measures can be achieved in that amount of time? If we continue to tear away at the fabric of our party with the hopes that the tent will stand, not much will affect a positive outcome on this.... but in Arizona a Dem Gov, AG, S of S, a Senate seat, and at least 3 or 4 House seats not to mention state legislative seats could easily be the result in 2008. If we focus our energies and passion and doing what the Senator needs to strengthen his position nationwide among the voters and other Senators (of both parties), as responding to the cries of the people for safe and secure borders and maintain control of legal citizenship we might have a chance of getting something of value.

I ate cold pizza or often nothing at all, went without sleep, gave what I could when I could in both time and money and often beyond that. I do not for one minute regret it, would not take the alternative as better (like Pederson would not have made the bill tougher…), nor do I believe the majority of voters believe Jon Kyl is anything other than a respected Senator who has done nothing but what it was we sent him to Washington for. Given the environment, we should be glad Jon Kyl was there to temper this thing; can you imagine what it would have been without him? Where would that get us?

Sen. Kyl's a good guy, but he's wrong on this issue. (Hope that isn't called "attacking" him.) What the pragmatists fail to address is that many of us no longer trust that the enforcement will actually occur. See the National Review blog for the varied reasons why the bill won't work and is doomed to fail.

I am withholding monetary support for the Republicans until they get serious about immigration cum amnesty. Closing the borders and enforcing current laws is the first step. Any deviation from that stated goal will cost the Republicans dearly. Sanctuary cities are a travesty and failing to question traffic violators legally pulled over regarding their immigration status is literally killing our citizens.

By the way, I just paid my automobile insurance which covers uninsured motorists and under-insured motorists.


Better idea David, simply direct your contribution to the Arizona State Republican Party, where they are serious about solving this problem the right way. If they are going to be brave enough to stand up to the powers in D.C., we should support them here at home!

Go to www.azgop.org to contribute!

I did...


I use to believe that you had to be a Democrat to be a sophist. Surely the Party of right and reason would never embrace sophistic argumentation just to 'win' a debate. Surely our members are more principled than that. Surely I am wrong.

–noun 1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

The bill that Senator Kyl supports imposes a $5000 fine to all who are now here illegally. It does not pardon or forgive the offense - it fines the offense and fines an amount that is greater than most Americans have in their savings.

So who are the sophists? All those that continue to call this bill amnesty! So if you now want to threaten us with removing your financial support from the Rep. Party then I say please do and give it to the dems because you clearly are at home with their fallacious method of reasoning.

Thanks for the softball Mark.

1) It has probably been pointed out already that the $5,000 fine is not new to this bill. That is the fine that is already on the books for being in the country illegally. You get fined, and you have to leave. Under the new law, the penalty for being here illegally is you pay a fine and you get to stay forever. Not exactly tough on crime...

2) The federal government has rarely, if ever, collected the fine from anyone in the country illegally, yet we are to believe it will now collect it from millions of people?

3) The path to citizenship that is set up within this bill is offensive to many who do not want any rewards for people who have cheated to be here. That said, for many of the rest of us, it is neither the truly offensive part of the bill, nor the "amnesty" part of the bill.

4) That is reserved for the new "Z" visas, which do not require any background checks, fines, penalties of any sort or really anything at all other than a declaration that you were here since before January 1 of this year. Of course, we have no way of really checking that and the feds have no intention of really checking that, so for the next several months, while illegals line up in however long a line of 20 million people is, more will stream across the border to get into that line. Now the "Z" visa allows you to stay in the United States FOREVER, an indefinite amount of time, renewable every four years. We are supposed to believe that the same federal government that already has a backlog of 8 million applications will also quickly conduct background checks on these 20+ million, but we all know that's a lie. So there you go, amnesty by your definition and ours. No fees, no penalties, and you get to stay forever.

5) This bill does little to nothing to secure our border. This is no accident. Last year's bill to secure the border passed both houses and was signed by the President. It ordered the construction of 800+ miles of double fences to help close the 2,000 mile border. To date, only 11 miles of ONE fence has been built. They are going slow on purpose. It does not take 20 years to build this fence, but that is how they are doing it. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! The new bill scraps that fence and replaces it with 347 miles of fencing. Yup, half the fence... Now we're covering a mere 15% of our border. Why? To leave the door open for more illegal aliens.

To summarize, we legalize them all, requiring only a small group of them to pay any fines at all, then we leave the back door wide open so that more illegals can keep coming.

15 years from now we'll be talking about the need for "just one more final, final amnesty" for the 30 million who have entered our country illegally since the last "final" amnesty in 2007.

Its a scam Mark. I'm so very sorry that it is, but it is.

Mark, the answer to your question is in Point #3 below:


If the tradeoff for giving legal status to 12-20 million illegal aliens is that this bill will ensure an end to illegal immigration in the future, the bill has to aggressively combat the problem of people entering the country legally on temporary visas and then failing to leave at the
appointed time.

An estimated 40% of all illegal aliens came to this country legally on temporary visas as students, tourists and workers.

It was easy for them to stay because our government has no idea whether the millions of people entering for short-term visits each year ever leave.

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act called for an automated entry/exit (or check-in/check-out) system that would record the arrival into and the departure from the United States of every alien. In theory, when someone failed to check out on time, the computer would flag the person's record so he could be apprehended the next time he came into contact with the government.

But the Clinton Administration and Bush Administration dragged their feet in implementing the exit portion of the system (US-VISIT is the entry portion). Last year, the Bush Administration just announced that it had no intention of implementing an exit system!

Not surprisingly, the Bush White House made sure that its Grand Compromise leaves out a requirement that a computerized exit system be in place and working before any new immigration programs can begin. This
ensures that if this bill passes, we will continue to have hundreds of thousands of legal visitors becoming illegal aliens each year.


Some of the relatives of the victims of the 9/11 attacks immediately pointed this out, noting that all the enforcement measures are subject to future appropriations.

The 9/11 Families for Secure America noted that Congress has been passing all kinds of enforcement measures through the years that never got implemented because the White House refuses to ask for funding and because the Congress routinely short-changes them.

Without appropriations, none of the talk about increased enforcement means much -- based on the track record of the last three Administrations (including the first Bush) of ignoring immigration laws.


Of course, the White House says this is not true. They point out that the part of the amnesty that puts illegal aliens on the path to green cards and citizenship doesn't start until the enforcement triggers are met.

The triggers must be met before the Z-visas are given out to illegal aliens.

But the big hole in that argument is that illegal aliens get their legal status long before the z -visas. They get their "probationary" legal status, including a work permit and social security number, at the very beginning after the bill passes. If the z-visas are never offered (because
the enforcement triggers aren't met), the bill would allow the now-legal aliens to work and live in the U.S. the rest of their lives under the probationary status.


The enforcement triggers are tied to starting an expanded foreign guest worker program and to extending the rewards of amnesty from lifetime residence to getting on a path to U.S. citizenship.

The triggers are all about process and nothing about results.

The bottom line for the American people is not that we want more enforcement but that we want less illegal immigration.

Without results, we couldn't care less how many Border Patrol or detention beds we have. What we care about is reports that instead of adding a net of 500,000 (official numbers) to our illegal population each year we are adding a net of 100,000 or preferably zero.

None of the triggers are tied to numbers of illegal aliens getting across our borders or overstaying their visas or absconding after a court orders them removed.

The triggers can be met without any reduction in future illegal immigration at all.

Tim - you wrote:

'You get fined, and you have to leave. Under the new law, the penalty for being here illegally is you pay a fine and you get to stay forever. Not exactly tough on crime...'

And the point is they are NOT criminals anymore so than you are when you go 70 miles an hour on the 10. What in the hell is their crime? Wanting to live in America? Since when is that a crime or since when do REPUBLICANS act like that is a crime. Yes we must enforce our laws, yes we are a nation of laws, and yes we shouldn't have amnesty, yes yes yes! But let’s remain pragmatic and reasonable here and lets not come across as rabid xenophobes. Remember the Hispanic vote is one of the fastest growing in the nation. If the loud mouth xenophobes frighten away Hispanic voters for the next generation then you can say buh bye to any possibility of a Republican Congress as well as in the Executive.

Also you are way off in #4. First off to get the V-visa you must pay a $1000 fine and be fingerprinted in order to have a background check. Thus not amnesty. On #5 you are also way off. Over 80 miles of the new fence has been built, the bill contains border security first measures that VASTLY improve the security at our borders that even critics of the bill agree.

From Senator Kyl on Hugh Hewitt:

'Secretary Chertoff and I were down on the border in Yuma, and they are building miles of fences as we speak. We saw them actually pound these great big things into the ground with this big pile driver. I mean, they’re adding fencing, a few miles, every day. They’re up to about 80 miles right now. But you’re correct that they’re…in fact, we just accepted an amendment by Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, that will up the levels of some of the items that have to occur with the triggers, added a hundred miles of vehicle barriers, several more radar, I’ve forgotten the exact numbers, another 2,000 Border Patrol agents, and some other items, before the triggers would take effect, if that amendment was adopted.'

On Prager's show Kyl said that the fences would be located in areas that are populated but that much of the open space desert doesn't need fencing. In fact we will attempt to push the aliens to these regions where we can patrol and easily monitor these parts of the country with radar and other new technologies. Also barriers are being constructed here using old rail ties to prevent coyote vehicular travel.

These are all IMPROVEMENTS to the current system. Is this bill perfect or ideal? Not even close. Is it an improvement of the status quo? Absolutely!

80 miles built, or 80 miles begun? Last I heard 2 miles were completed.

Interesting idea Mark, that they aren't criminals and haven't broken any laws... Of course, if that were true, why would they be paying fines? Hmm... A $5,000 fine for going 70 mph on I-10? I think maybe the parallel you tried to draw isn't very good. Of course they are breaking numerous laws by trespassing illegally, working here illegally, collecting welfare illegally, using fradulent documents illegally, faking social security numbers illegally, and on and on.

You think all of that added up amounts to a speeding ticket for going 5 mph over the posted limit. No wonder you like this bill!

And the "80 miles of fence" is a lie. Rep. Hunter's latest update is 11 miles of ONE fence, not the double fence the bill calls for.

John please read - I didn't say they hadn't broken any laws. I said they aren't criminals anymore so than you are a criminal because you speed, etc.

Again I ask what is the underlying crime? And don’t say crossing our border illegally because we all recognize they broke that law. But for many, and it sounds like for you, the underlying crime is 'those people' will do anything to live in America. I am sorry but that is not a crime and as long as your crowd keeps acting like it is a crime you will never convince a majority in this country to secure our borders, elect Republicans, cut taxes, end abortion, etc. As long as their spirit isn't respected and celebrated in your rhetoric you have lost this debate. This doesn't mean we can not or should not secure our borders, it just means that we do so because of national security reasons and not motivated from xenophobia and anti-Mexican bigotries.

P.S. If this bill is so bad then why is Mexico up in arms over it?

Mark, I don't really disagree with you until your last half-sentence.

Casting my motives as racist, xenophobic or anti-Mexican is beneath you and this debate.

And the idea that I'm a criminal same as they are is ludicrous. Panhandling is a crime. So is rape. So is murder. So is speeding. So is trespass. So is using forged documents. So is welfare fraud.

Yet you would have all of these crimes and the people who commit them equal. Speeding is the same as trespass is the same as panhandling is the same as rape, etc.

No no, you will cry, I never said anything about rape and murder! Good, then you understand that crimes vary in terms of severity and your effort to equate trespass, use of forged documents, welfare fraud, and all of the other crimes they commit, MANY ON A DAILY BASIS, with the crime of driving 5 mph over on I-10, is a farce.

I do not celebrate the spirit and work ethic of gypsies who don't want to earn a legitimate living and who have trained themselves to excel in picking pockets. I do not celebrate the spirit and work ethic of drug dealers who work hard every night, under dangerous circumstances, to provide for themselves and their families. You see? I can make the daily commission of crimes seem noble too.

Instead, I will salute those who play by the rules, abide by the laws, and who will be a credit to the nation they wish to join.

As for your assertion that "it sounds like for you, the underlying crime is 'those people' will do anything to live in America", I cannot imagine how you got that from my post where I specifically pointed to their crimes as "trespassing illegally, working here illegally, collecting welfare illegally, using fradulent documents illegally, faking social security numbers illegally, and on and on."

You are deliberately ignoring my arguments.

Pathetic arguement MARK
"Also you are way off in #4. First off to get the V-visa you must pay a $1000 fine"

A true gift!

Ask people from around the world how much
time and money they have spent in their
desire to enter the US in a legal way?

Should I live so long I will be voting for
a Democrat for the Senate after voting for
Republicans 50 years.

Kyle may win again, but it wont be with my vote!

John said: "Casting my motives as racist, xenophobic or anti-Mexican is beneath you and this debate."

Yet your rhetoric smacks of all of it. They are rapists. They are panhandlers. They are trepassers. That is the implication you make and the judgment you cast on over 12 million people.

Ever stop to consider these people are just like you and me? Trying to do what's best for their families, trying to get the American dream.


Click on the link and sign the petition to stop this bill!

Pathetic Tim, I never said they were panhandlers or rapists. My argument was that not all crimes are the same and I listed many different crimes.

Face it, you've been beaten and outsmarted. You haven't the brains or arguments to win the arguments so you're blowing smoke and trying to make up stuff to seem relevant to this conversation.

Anyone who reads my posts and your posts can see what you're doing. Give it up friend.

Pathetic Tim, I never said they were panhandlers or rapists. My argument was that not all crimes are the same and I listed many different crimes.

Face it, you've been beaten and outsmarted. You haven't the brains or arguments to win the arguments so you're blowing smoke and trying to make up stuff to seem relevant to this conversation.

Anyone who reads my posts and your posts can see what you're doing. Give it up friend.

Hi, It's the second time i'm posting you without a reply. I found your site using Yaehoo, does your site support firefox?

Hi, It's the second time i'm posting you without a reply. I found your site using Yaehoo, does your site support firefox?

The comments to this entry are closed.