[QUOTE=Warfish;4501518]Not to dismiss your efforts, but I have two brief (for me) points:[/quote]
[QUOTE]1. Why would democrats/the left compromise now, after what can only be viewed as a total victory for them on the issue? The SC in effect struck down the entire deal in AZ (with only a VERY temporary stay on the one portion not struck down, until enough folks complain of being racially profiled). Combine with Obama getting away with choosing to simply not enforce (you say "prosecutorial discretion") an entire swatch of the Law.[/QUOTE]
See above. It's the same reason companies settle litigations they think they can win - risk, certainty, and leverage. A permanent solution is better than one that can be reversed the next time a Republican wins the White House (and since most Democrats are aware that may well be in January, that's not an abstract possibility) - that's the certainty aspect of it. More, if they don't strike a deal now, it's always possible, with just a loss of the whitehouse and a few-senator shift in the Senate, that Republicans will at some point be able to pass their own bill on immigration without needing to compromise - that's the risk aspect. And because they will [B]never[/B] be in a stronger position to negotiate than they are right now (it's all downhill from here) - leverage.
I see no reason whatsoever for them to give an inch now. They've effectively already won.
2. What portion of your listed plan is actually a compromise or bargain for my side? I see nothing in your listed plan that I would or could support.
Think it through. It takes enforcement away from being solely in the control of the federal government (i.e. the people who, in the main, feel the least disruption and are least responsive to local concerns) and gives it back to the states, who can set their own priorities. If the Federal Government is ignoring illegal immigration (and it shouldn't) then Arizona can take steps on its own to make its state less of a destination for illegal immigrants. And while that won't be enough, in and of itself, to end the problem, it will start pushing it from state to state, and either end the problem because once enough states are facing it, the Federal Government will step in (simply as a matter of who gets elected) or end it because the states, individually, will have made it a no-win proposition for the illegals.
In other words, while the Federal compromise doesn't do anything particularly substantive for "your side", it sets the conditions for states to take the very steps you would like to see happen.
[QUOTE]No my friend, the reason some of us are "on the cliff" is because we see how close we to this issue being a total and complete loss for the side of limited, controlled immigration, the rule of law, and any form of real meaningful immigration enforcement. Reform will not correct the problem, anymore than accounting tricks correct fiscal deficientcies. You plan, like most, simply corrects the issue via amnesty (generally) with a few tacked on, never going to actually be enforced, rules after the fact.
The "never going to be enforced" portion is objectively false. Once states are empowered by law not only to refer cases to the Justice Department for prosecution but to prosecute immigration proceedings themselves, enforcement will be backstopped by the states
Just saw the Healthcare decision came out. Stopping to read it