2006 July 01 Saturday
Senate Moving Toward House Position On Immigration

The Washington Post says the US Senate's Republicans are talking about passing an immigration bill that contains only enforcement provisions. Mind you, the Senators are hoping that if the House would enter negotiations then the Senate could manage to slip in some stealth amnesty provisions.

House leaders appeared to be winning the standoff. They announced this month that they would hold field hearings on immigration throughout the summer, all but guaranteeing that a bill could not be completed until after the election.

But in recent days, senators and the White House have dropped hints that they are willing to move closer to the House's position -- perhaps by agreeing to a two-phase plan that would begin with construction of triple-layer walls, deployment of surveillance aircraft and other means of tightening the border with Mexico.

It is time for the House Republicans to pass a bill that calls for a complete wall along the entire US border with Mexico. The Senators are feeling the pressure on immigration. Therefore it is time for the immigration restrictionsts in the House to move the center of the debate even further in the restrictionist direction.

No bill should contain provisions for a second phase where any restrictionist measures get undone. You can't trust the Congress to do real enforcement. Too many of them will wait till attention shifts away from immigration so that they can start undermining enforcement.

Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer of New York claim that the Republicans are at fault for the collapse in immigration law enforcement.

For instance, according to statistics cited by the Democrats, the number of border apprehensions has declined by 31 percent since Bush took office, to an average of 1.05 million cases per year between 2001 and 2004, from an average 1.52 million cases per year during the late 1990s. The number of illegal immigrants caught each year inside the United States also declined by about a third, to about 25,901 on average between 2001 and 2004, from an annual average of 40,193 in the late 1990s.

"That is a joke," Schumer said. "It's also a political billboard."

Schumer helped to create the joke which passes as US immigration law enforcement. In their attempt to blame Republicans on the collapse of immigration law enforcement the Democrat in Washington DC are lying. Congress critters and Presidential Administrations of both parties presided over the collapse in interior immigration law enforcement. Edward Rubinstein published the details in a table showing the frequencies of a few categories of immigration law enforcement from 1992 to 2005 The peak of "Notices of intent to fine" employers for hiring illegals was under Bush Senior in 1992 at 1461 and by the last year of the Democrat Clinton's Administration the "Notices of intent to fine" had declined to 178. This trend continued under Bush Jr collapsing even further to 3 in 2004. Worksite arrests peaked at 17,554 in 1997 and declined under Clinton to 953 in 2000 and further under Bush to 159 in 2004. Again, the two parties both scaled back immigration law enforcement.

US Senators are a deceitful bunch. Do not trust any claims they might make about their intentions on immigration. We need a border barrier wall and vigorous interior enforcement of immigration laws. I expect many Senators to try to build support for the Pence Plan which pretends to be a reasonable compromise between House and Senate immigration bills. The House shouldn't give an inch. The majority of the public wants immigration restriction, not amnesty.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 July 01 10:25 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
John S Bolton said at July 2, 2006 3:03 AM:

It is also good politics for the House Republicans to appear intransigent on this issue. They stand to lose the Reagan Democrats, a group which is impressed by indications of loyalty and patriotism; but not by liberalism, compassion for criminals and hostiles, or deal-making with extra input from special interests. These are the swing voters with the largest numbers.

NewsVeiws said at July 2, 2006 3:09 AM:

Personally, I can't stand NY Senator chucky scummer either.
That said, I have no choice but to agree with him:
''Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer of New York claim that the Republicans are at fault for the collapse in immigration law enforcement.''
The problem is he's correct.
Mind you, I'm not saying he or any other democrat could or would do any better than the republicans when it comes to immigration but I CAN'T DISAGREE with his statement either.
The liberal scummer or THE LIBERAL Bush what is the difference? I can't see one.
That is what makes it so tragic.
Very few of us will be immune from this LIBERAL republican train wreck coming at us.
Conservitive=Republican? Only those whose employment depends on that piece of fiction can support THAT anymore...
P.S. I have a blog of my own, and this will be a post there...

CASpears said at July 2, 2006 9:41 AM:

I think this issue more than any shows the disconnect between the voting population and our supposed representatives. Our politicians are in the pocket of pressure groups and big business...

Rick Darby said at July 2, 2006 12:22 PM:

The question is: are Senators finally seeing the light? Or is this a new strategy, namely, just to carry on with the status quo for a few more years? After all, what's happening now isn't nothing; each year brings a few million more illegals across the border. Maybe the Bush gang figures that the tide is running their way anyhow, and the longer the non-enforcement goes on, even in the absence of an amnesty, the more pressure for open borders there will be.

We need to be aggressive. We can't just figure we're winning as long as the so-called reform doesn't pass. And we need to make a lot of noise about the laws ensuring an oversupply of legal immigration, which is just as significant as the border jumpers.

Engineer-Poet said at July 2, 2006 3:24 PM:

More and more, I'm basing my appraisal of a legislator's legitimacy by his willingness to impeach George W. Bush.

My US Congressman's position on immigration is good, but he's unwilling to do anything to rein in King George on any of the republic-destroying things he's doing:

  • Wiretapping and other surveillance without warrants or oversight.
  • Massive non-feasance in enforcement of immigration (and other!) laws.
  • Refusal to do, or even say, anything remotely productive about our energy situation for the first five years of his administration.

Republicans were among the people most outraged by Nixon's wiretapping, and many would have voted to impeach; unfortunately, the GOP of 30 years ago has misplaced its spine (osteoporosis?).  Had Bush asked for authorization for wiretapping, data mining, etc. he could easily have gotten it... with proper safeguards.  Instead he decided to just run roughshod over the law.  If the Republicans will not do the right thing, I'm forced to vote for the only party which will bring a halt to his misdeeds... even if they're badly wrong on many issues.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright