2007 June 13 Wednesday
Senate Might Resurrect Immigration Amnesty

We need to start with more calls and emails and faxes to US Senators against immigration amnesty.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Key Republican and Democratic senators are reaching for a deal to resurrect their stalled immigration compromise by requiring that some $4 billion be spent on border security and workplace enforcement.

The mandatory security funding is part of a plan to attract more Republican support for the measure, which grants legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants.

In private meetings Wednesday, the bipartisan group that crafted the delicate compromise was hammering out a plan to allow votes on a limited set of Republican- and Democratic-sought changes in exchange for a commitment from GOP holdouts that they will back moving ahead with the bill.

Republican architects of the measure, which grants legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants, expressed confidence that such an agreement was possible as early as Thursday.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) says S.1348 would reduce the rate at which people enter and stay illegally by only 13%.

Everyone becomes legal at once under this bill and stays there, no matter what happens. But even the new reforms in it take place — according to the Congressional Budget Office, we would only have about a 13 percent reduction in illegality. So that's just not sufficient. I mean, I think most American people think we'd have a dramatic improvement in reducing the flow of illegality if we have, as this bill does, a substantial increase in legal immigration.

Meaning that you think there will still be illegal immigrants coming across the border?

Oh, absolutely ... They predicted that we'd have a 25 percent reduction in illegality at the border. But we would have a substantial increase in visa over-stays, because we have a lot more people coming to the country on temporary visas.

13%. What a joke. It is an even bigger joke when we look at just how much worse the illegal immigration problem has gotten since George W. Bush took office. Ed Rubenstein has the facts:

  • The illegal alien population grew by 5.3 million, or ABOUT 79 PERCENT (!!!), during the first six Bush years.
  • The legal immigrant population increased to 37 million, or by about 20 percent, during the first six Bush years.
  • Nearly 2 million children were born to immigrants (legal and illegal) that entered the U.S. since Bush became President.
  • Interior enforcement has been quietly abandoned

But Steve Sailer says the masses have one big thing going for them in their battle with the elites on immigration: the internet lets us communicate and learn about whatever the Washington folks try to do outside of our sight.

Fifth, the Achilles heel of the Axis of Amnesty’s putsch was that the bill had to be posted on the Internet.

The legislation was written in secret. Committee hearings on it were blocked. It was far too long for many busy Senators and their staffers to read.

But networks of highly intelligent citizens examined it carefully and emailed each other with what they found. For example, Thursday's VDARE.com article, Ten Reasons The Amnesty/Immigration Surge Bill Is Appalling, by 'An Economist,' grew out of an email list utilized by a brilliant economist-turned-highly successful businessman, who has been devoting a lot of his extraordinary energy to immigration.

Contact your Senators and tell them to stop illegal immigration and slash legal immigration.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 June 13 11:25 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
John S Bolton said at June 14, 2007 12:58 AM:

Since there is no convincing argument for greatly increasing the power of officials,
a tempting alternative for the power-greedy is to make the country democratically-ungovernable
through mass immigration of hostiles and those most likely to come into conflict
with other groups in the country.
While pretending to be compassionate to the poor of the world,
and smearing all opposition as representing only racial and ethnic hatred,
officials get to win the dictatorship itself.
If this be the motivation of some, others may be cowed, and many others just go along to get along.
Whatever the motivations behind these moves,
a disinterested public, which can have token enforcement
promises legislated and put over as meaningful,
is helpful.
An alert and highly suspicious electorate which badgers
them and flashes light on the quick dirty moves in the dark
of indefensible legislative activity,
is good for retaining freedom-from-aggression.

Denny said at June 14, 2007 3:30 AM:

Anyway,
the Bushites want their 'New World Order' that Bush Sr. talked about while he was president that nobody back then, until recently, understood. Bush wants a partnership with Mexico and Canada that is totally unconstitutional and puts America at risk of dangerous levels of possibly permanent sovereignty erosion. With the McCain/Kennedy Senate 'comprehensive' amnesty bill passed by Congress and signed by the president, his ultimate plan for a North American Union would be greatly furthered. The Bushites need the cheap labor for their big business interests and the Democrat party needs more votes for their socialist welfare state. An odd coalition of disparate interests have organized together to move beyond 'borders' and into the realm of some kind of a North American Union mega-state similar to the European Union.

George Washington fought against the British because Britain finally governed them too harshly for them to bear any longer.

We need to tell our Senators and the president to follow Mitt Romney's suggestion that the Z-Visa be TEMPORARY without ANY governmental benefits of ANY kind bestowed to illegals that they are not legally able to get right now. Mitt suggested that the Z-Visa holders should NOT be given ANY advantage by breaking the law against those who are currently following our immigration laws. Romney also rightly suggests that we fulfill the 1986 agreement that president Reagan signed that was supposed to give us border security and and a tamper-proof employee verification system that actually worked. Romney has suggested a biometric card that cannot be duplicated so that the major magnet of employment for illegal immigrants will be eliminated once and for all.

In the final analysis, why should the America taxpayer (our children will pay this) have to pay (net estimated cost to American taxpayers is $2.9 trillion) for what Bush and the Democrat party have allowed from the beginning of his Bush administration and since the Reagan amnesty bill?

The G.A.O. recently reported that even if the Senate amnesty bill were passed illegal immigration would only fall by a mere 25% or so.

So they shove this one down our throats and then they will be able to do it all over again and again and again till we can't recognize America any longer.

tommy said at June 14, 2007 7:21 AM:

"Comprehensive" used to mean 100 percent. Now, according to Banana Republicans, it means something between 13-25 percent. If that's the case, then by all means, Republicans voting for this bill deserve comprehensive support from their constituents when they are up for re-election.

Bob said at June 14, 2007 9:12 AM:

On the topic of so-called "immigration reform"...

I shop at my neighborhood Wal-Mart store at least once a week and have yet to join the liberal, anti-Wal-Mart chorus on issues such as labor practices and monopolistic business practices. Today, however, I must chime in with an observation: It appears the world's largest retailer has adopted the federal government's half-hearted approach to border security for use in its stores nationwide.

I learned about this phenomenon via an Associated Press article, Theft Rising at U.S. Wal-Mart Stores, published this morning. In the article, writers Anne D'Innocenzio and Marcus Kabel point out that Wal-Mart's recent public disclosures include data that shows the company is experiencing an increase in losses -- more than $3 billion worth -- due to "shrinkage" (i.e., a combination of inventory losses due to shoplifting, employee theft, paperwork errors and supplier fraud) at its U.S. stores.

Two of the root causes behind this increase in shrinkage, according to experts cited in the article, prompted me to write this post. Those root causes are:

Wal-Mart's highly-publicized decision last year to no longer prosecute minor cases of shoplifting in order to focus on organized shoplifting rings; and

Reduced staffing levels, including security personnel.

Sounds similar to the federal government's strategy -- or lack thereof -- for safeguarding the nation's borders:

Congress authorizes construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border and then approves separate legislation to ensure it will never be built, at least not as advertised. [Source: An Oct. 6, 2006, article in the usually-liberal Washington Post]; and

In addition to ensuring the U.S. Border Patrol remains understaffed, ill-equipped and hamstrung by rules of engagement that favor illegal aliens, the federal government unjustly convicts two U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, and sentences them to a combined 23 years in federal prison for simply doing their jobs

[For more info, read this Bob McCarty Writes™ post].

Note to readers: If you own Wal-Mart stock, you might want to consider selling it -- NOW!*

*No data or statement contained in the post above should be construed to be a recommendation for the purchase, retention or sale of the securities referred to herein, and Bob McCarty Writes™ accepts no liability for the consequences of your reliance on this data.

Hal K said at June 14, 2007 12:32 PM:

Denny:

It's a great idea to make the Z visas temporary, especially if further legislation is required to extend the visas after they have expired. If they expire after, say, 3 years, then after those three years the public will be able to have a say in whether the government has lived up to its end of the bargain and improved enforcement before the Z visas are extended. The number of Z visas should also be capped numerically, and, of course, there should be a limited window of time in which people will be allowed to apply for them.

This is more like a real compromise.

Mark said at June 14, 2007 4:31 PM:

Latest from CNN:

Senate supporters of a comprehensive immigration reform bill reach a tentative agreement to revive the measure, senators involved in the talks told CNN.

I want a competitive third party to vote for. Hopefully, after the Republicans are no longer a viable party due to the massive number of new Democratic voters that will be added if this passes, a new third party that is better than either of these two will emerge.

Denny said at June 14, 2007 4:35 PM:

Hal K,
I agree with you.

It will be interesting to see if an amendment is offered making the Z-Visa temporary.

Mitt Romney's suggestion of a biometric employee verification system and his novice concept of enforcing CURRENT immigration law is refreshing.

Plus, the previous amnesty bill gave illegal immigrants who arrived before approximately 2004 a free pass but this bill dates it at January 1, 2007. That is NOT right and stinks badly to me.

Bob Badour said at June 16, 2007 7:50 AM:
This is more like a real compromise.

If it hasn't occurred to you yet, the core issue of border security and immigration is the sovereignty of the United States of America. Why exactly should the US compromise its sovereignty?


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 ©