Posted on 6/21/2006, 8:29:59 PM by Drew McKissick
Thank goodness for the House of Representatives. Specifically, the conservative Republican contingent. Faced with pressure from the White House, the Senate, the business community and the media to support legislation that would result in amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, and open the door to tens of millions more in coming decades, they have wisely opted to stick with the people that put them in power. Namely, conservative Republican voters.
While it is not official yet, and keeping in mind that bad ideas in Washington are harder to kill than Dracula, the amnesty ridden version of immigration “reform” appears to be just that – dead. Why? For lots of reasons.
First, thanks to the overwhelming opposition on the part of grassroots conservatives all across the country. Their voices have been heard and their position was unmistakable. And the political implications of ignoring their position became equally unmistakable, at least to House members.
Also, thanks to the legal and illegal immigrant street protestors that paraded through our streets in favor of amnesty. Specifically, those that insisted on waving Mexican flags, flying the American flag upside down, voicing opposition to making English the official language and openly speaking in favor of a demographic “re-conquest” of the American South-west by Mexicans.
Then there was the bill itself and the amazing provisions it contained, such as: • Granting amnesty for those that have been here illegally, then giving them a fast track to permanent resident status and ultimately citizenship • Making illegals eligible to receive Social Security benefits for the work they have done while here working under fraudulent documentation – including fake or stolen social security numbers • The mere two-thousand dollar fine each illegal would be assessed to take advantage of the program • Granting complete amnesty to the businesses that openly flouted the law and hired the illegals in the first place • And requiring the US to coordinate with the Mexican government before any fence or other barriers could be put in place along the border
The long term demographic repercussions of the bill’s guest worker program were pointed out by a Heritage Foundation study, showing it would lead to more than an additional sixty-six million immigrants over the next twenty years. This was in addition to the ten or twelve million illegals that would be granted amnesty in the first place. Add to that allowing them to legally bring in many of their immediate family members, and the bill was shown to be the most drastic change in American immigration law since the days of Ellis Island.
Then there was the fact that it attempted to force those who wanted only to strengthen our border security to accept all these provisions as part of a “comprehensive reform” bargain. Not to mention that we’ve seen this movie before. Specifically In 1986, when immigration “reform” granted amnesty to millions of illegals in exchange for the political tradeoff of increased border security that never materialized. This time conservatives said “no thanks”.
And let’s not forget the Democrats, such as Harry Reid, who wanted to prevent Bush and the Republicans from achieving any notable legislative victories prior to the election. (note to self: send thank-you card to Reid) As a result, they have only succeeded in saving the Republicans from themselves and improved the odds that the GOP will retain both chambers of Congress this fall.
Add to that the recent letter to Bush and the GOP leadership signed by dozens of leading conservative intellectuals, authors and assorted activists which called the bill what it was, an incredibly bad idea. Then last, but certainly not least, was the recognition by the House GOP leadership that the bill was as a demographic, social and political time bomb.
The nail in the coffin appears to be the House leaders’ move to hold “field hearings” on the legislation in areas all over the country. In other words, air the bill’s laundry back home and let the locals do the dirty work and rip it to shreds. That plus a hearing schedule that doesn’t get under way until well into the campaign season tells me that the bill is dead.
But somebody get a wooden stake and let’s be sure.
My Rep (R) John Culberson here in Texas that if I see his name and a vote YES on any bill with amnesty then he'll never get my vote EVER AGAIN.
He wrote be back and said that the House will NOT pass any bill with amnesty in any form.
Would you go for any type of Guest Worker program, say one with a ban on applying for citizenship while in the program and no preference for legal immigration over any other applicant in line once they return to their country?
What provisions of a Guest Worker program would make it acceptable to you?
Security and criminal screening of applicants?
Biometric identification cards?
Tracking and verification of workers leaving country after limited number of years allowed to be in the program?
Only jobs advertised and not filled by American workers would be legal for employers to offer to Guest Workers?
The problems seems to be that Hastert is pretty certain that if the house and senate bills go to conference the Senate bill will win. If he thought the house bill would win then he would appoint house members to the conference committee and they would either return with no bill or the house bill.
That tells me that some house members have changed their minds since the house passed its bill. Hastert has to know that there are NOW more house members in favor of amnesty than are not.
When a bill goes to conference, the house has one vote and the Senate has one vote. If a majority of the house members and a majority of the senate members of the conference are not in agreement, then the conference committee does not return a bill and the bill is dead. But if a majority of the house members agree with a majority of the senate members then the bill they agree with is returned from conference. If both houses then pass the bill returned by the conference committee the bill goes to the president for his signature or veto.
Hastert has to believe that the senate bill would be returned by the conference and that bill would pass the house. Why else would he want to keep the house bill from becoming law? This screams the Senate bill has the support needed to become law.
That is why he is taking the route of holding hearings in congressional districts. Hastert needs to convince the congressmen that the constituents in his district want the house bill. Right now I would say most congressmen are in favor of passing the Senate bill and his district hearings will at best produce a mixed bag.
It tells me that when the house members heard from the people in their district, they favored amnesty. Hastert is trying to convince some congressmen that they have read their voters wrong.
There will need to be some form of guest worker program. It doesn't need to have any path to citizenship whatsoever, but to ban all migrant farmworkers would kill the Republican party as quick as an amnesty plan would.
That fact alone would go a long way towards keeping new illegals out of the country. Do all this and them I might consider some type of very carefully controlled guest worker program, NOT amnesty under any name.
If I may, security of the border is the #1 issue. Without that, any guest worker program would be useless. I like a lot of what you suggest but, our main goal is to know who's in this country and that can't be achieved at this time.
John Culberson is solid, he is one of our best. My Rep in Ron Paul he is solid too. We's better make damn sure they both get re-elected.
John Culberson, my Rep, in his letter to me said exactly what you just wrote. Secure the border, fine employeers, and enforce the laws we have. Then and only then, once they can gauge the situation after a year or so, then possibly consider a guest worker program.... but still no amnesty whatsoever.
Still, if we enroll a lot of the people who will be sneaking over the border in the future in a Guest Worker program and have they come in a ports of entry, wouldn't that significantly help cut the amount of work our border patrol would be doing along the border catching, transporting, paperworking, and housing them?
If these workers were out of the illegal flow then the numbers left coming illegally would be more easily dealt with, and maybe could be more harshly dealt with.
That, at least, is the idea.
---
"John Culberson is solid, he is one of our best. My Rep in Ron Paul he is solid too. We's better make damn sure they both get re-elected."
---
Yeah I like Culberson. I wrote him some time ago about the H-1B visas and the ever increasing quotas and as soon as Bush took office the Republicans reduced it from a high of 194,000 per year down to the original of 65,000 per year.
Unfortunatley the Senate wants to raise that again. And I have told Culberson if he allows it and votes YES on it, then he lost my vote.
So far so good with Culberson. Yep, Ron Paul and Culberson actually do understand that they work for the people who elected them. They are good guys.
No. Its that simple: NO program at all.
What provisions of a Guest Worker program would make it acceptable to you?
None.
No "guest worker" programs, now or ever. Look what "guest workers" have done for Western Europe. In 3 decades, it won't even _BE_ "Western Europe" any more.
Security and criminal screening of applicants?
No.
No "applicants", period. Once they're here, they won't be going back.
Biometric identification cards?
No.
Tracking and verification of workers leaving country after limited number of years allowed to be in the program?
No.
You, as well as I, know that few - if ANY - will be "tracked" in any way, shape, or form. There aren't the resources and there will not be the political will to do so. As I said above, once we admit "guest workers", they don't "go back". They are not "guests". They are here to stay.
Only jobs advertised and not filled by American workers would be legal for employers to offer to Guest Workers?
No. No "guest workers", period. The term "guest worker" is itself a misnomer, because nearly NONE of them will ever return to their countries of origin. Thus, they cannot be "guests" in any meaning of the word. It is simply an convenient word-play excuse to let them in.
Western Europe faces doom, precisely because they made decisions to admit so-called "guest workers" decades ago. How many of them returned? Indeed, once there, they IMPORTED their familes. How many European "guest workers" made an attempt to integrate into the cultures of their host countries? How many of them - when the time comes - will support the overthrow of the cultural, political, and legal systems of their current host countries, to be replaced by something _else_? (read: Sharia)
If you wish to call me a bigot, you are free to do so.
If you wish to call me a racist, you are free to do that, too.
If you wish to call me anti-immigrant, well, please do.
If you wish to call me xenophobic, go right ahead.
Have I made my position clear enough?
- John
I'd just like to add congratulations to Senator Sessions for exposing this Senate bill as well, and the other Senators that backed him up. They don't get enough credit because they have to share the same breathing space with McCain but I deeply appreciate them.
But this isn't over. The author is right, keep the wooden stake gripped tightly in your hand and continue to write your representatives with the other. No shadow legislation.
My "Profile In Courage" award goes to Jim Sensenbrenner, who has stood firm against shamnesty in the face of literally months of attacks by brown supremacists, RINOs and various and sundry unholy alliances.
Cheers for Chairman Sensenbrenner.
First off, call a spade a spade; no "guest worker" terminology, it is "amnesty".
Second,I would oppose any such plan. What we should do is remove incentives for them to be here...no more tuition waivers, driver's licenses, no eligibility for medicare, food stamps, or any handouts whatsoever. The criteria for any of that should first and foremost be proof of citizenship. If they cannot provide such proof, then tough cookies.
Once there's no reason to be here, then the waves of illegals washing up over the border will subside.
Agree about the amnesty part. But for smoothness of operation and least disruption to our economy, I think setting up the Guest Worker program should go hand in hand with beefing up border security.
After the Guest Worker program is going and legal foreign workers with biometric identification and tracking are starting to fill empty job slots in the economy, then we could start combing the country for illegal workers and deport them when found.
The reason the employer sanctions part of Ronald Reagan's amnesty law failed was because the employers who were being fined would call their Congresscritters and scream bloody murder and the Congresscritters then leaned on the enforcement arm of the government to stop enforcing or get their funding cut.
To make enforcement work, you have to supply employers with legal Guest Workers to take the place of the illegals that are now keeping them in business. And by that I don't mean undercut the wage market for Americans, but I do mean that the employers you penalize for doing that have to be a minority so they don't have so much sway over the Congress.
You may be in a position to withhold your vote for anyone voting for a Guest Worker program now, but is that as influential as an employer who will withhold a large contribution to the Congresscritter's reelection campaign fund if he doesn't vote for some form of a Guest Worker program.
How many bucks every year do you donate to conservative politicians who will hold the line? Are you a one year Charlie, or do you shell out year after year?
The current bill gives a path to citizenship and can be considered amnesty.
But the two terms don't have to be synonymous.
A guest worker program could start fresh with young applicants who are not now and have never been in this country, and who will be tracked and returned to their country after a limited number of years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.