New at Reason

May 29, 2007

Brian Doherty reads the immigration bill so you don't have to.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← But If We Don't Make You… | Main | How Irrational Are Voters? →

See all 10 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|5.29.07 @ 4:11PM|#

I spent (some might say wasted) seven years of my life reading legislation, and briefing state legislators on the bad stuff in it, and that turned me into a hardcore libertarian. If it's too long to read -- and 790 pages ain't going to get read completely, except by the most diligent of staffers -- it's gonna have bad stuff tucked in it, or even larded throughout it, and unintended consequences galore. If a member of Congress resolved to vote "no" on everything that they haven't personally read through cover-to-cover, they'd rarely if ever go wrong.

|5.29.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Soory, but a dozen wisecracks doesn't impress me. If one were to take the implications of Mr. Doherty's remarks literally, one would assume that he wants to eliminate any control of U.S. borders whatsoever. Well, if we wanted the entire populations of Haiti, Colombia, Sudan, etc., to move here (and why wouldn't they?) fine. Otherwise, we have to deal with, you know, reality.

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 4:40PM|#

jh-

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I really think if Congress can't read the whole thing, it shouldn't be passed.

S.A. Miller|5.29.07 @ 4:41PM|#

If one were to take the implications of Mr. Doherty's remarks literally, one would assume that he wants to eliminate any control of U.S. borders whatsoever.

Isn't that the official stated position of reason?

|5.29.07 @ 6:15PM|#

Is it just me or did the reviewer sound snarky when discussing each section?

I understand skepticism that things will get done the way the politicians make it sound, but snarky comments at the end of each paragraph doesn't help people understand. It only muddies the waters as they try and figure out if the writer is being sarcastic or not.

Bret|5.29.07 @ 7:24PM|#

Well, if we wanted the entire populations of Haiti, Colombia, Sudan, etc., to move here (and why wouldn't they?) fine.

Why wouldn't we? I give up.

Mike Laursen|5.29.07 @ 7:42PM|#

Is it just me or did the reviewer sound snarky

This is a blog.

TomHynes@pacbell.net|5.29.07 @ 8:43PM|#

asylees, not asyless

COOP|5.29.07 @ 9:27PM|#

Who knew Doherty was such a dedicated masochist? (I bet his safe word is "TNSTAAFL"...)

What's next, a tour of a sausage factory?

|5.29.07 @ 11:03PM|#

This bill is a complete POS. The link below leads to a more detailed analysis of the bill that makes it clear why this bill is an utter POS.

There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum.

A close read of Title I gives the impression that the drafters understood they'd be better off exhausting the reader with promises and declarations of good intentions before getting to the provisions of consequence.