Posted on 09/09/2006 2:09:41 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Chicago activists marched 50 miles to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's house last weekend to protest congressional inaction over reforming immigration laws and what they say is his anti-immigrant stance. In Phoenix, protesters rallied at the state's Capitol, also to highlight the stalemate in Washington.
Bob Johnson is equally exercised. The structural engineer from Buffalo Grove, Ill., argues the other side of 2006's Great Immigration Debate - that the US needs to send home illegal immigrants and gain better control of its borders - but he says he cannot believe Congress is punting on immigration reform. He's been writing letters to his congressman and senators and says he may not vote in November or he may vote for a third-party or write-in candidate.
The decision by congressional leaders not to try to bridge the big gulf between the House and Senate versions of immigration reform, at least not before the November midterm elections, is touching off a backlash that may deliver a sting to some incumbent lawmakers.
How big the backlash grows may not be known until the day after the election, but it's surfacing in blogs, letters to the editor, and record-low approval ratings for Capitol Hill.
"When you have both Bob Novak and David Broder writing the same column about Congress's failure to act on immigration, you know something is wrong," says Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, referring to two well-known columnists who typically have very different views. "People on both the right and left will see it as a huge failure" if Congress ends its term without a bill.
Certainly, many Americans are worked up over immigration. The issue sparked huge rallies and marches in the spring, and has been the subject of endless Lou Dobbs reports. Over the summer, House
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Tom Tancredo is an incumbent. You say we should vote him out too? The only structured opposition to the amnesty in the congress originates in the House, all of whom are up for re-election this year.
A little better plan that "throw all the bums out" is needed.
Throw the bums out. And then throw out the next batch. They'll get the message sooner or later. We have to stop thinking its us vs. them (Reps. vs Dems) instead of what it really is: us vs. them (Ordinary Citizens vs. Politicians).
Why is Denny Hastert, and the Pubbies, so STUPID on this issue. It's almost like they want to lose control of the House.
The Dems are going to be in for a rude shock this November I think. I've gotten over a dozen pieces of mail from the RNC regarding Tammy Duckworth and her support for amnesty.
Amnesty for lawbreakers don't play well around here.
L
Time to Freep Congress…
As you know our spineless Congress is getting ready to take a break WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROBLEM!!!
There are many things that could be done.
Granting citizen status to children born here is a big incentive for illegal crossing.
A national database for use by school districts, hospitals and law enforcement to file claims for costs associated with illegal immigration to recover some of the financial costs DEDUCTED FROM US aid to Mexico would not be costly and finally give the Mexican government some incentives to help with the problem as well.
Please take the time to contact your congress critter on this huge problem before it is too late.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
"What possible excuse can congressmen bring to the public to justify their lack of action on securing the borders?"
I have a theory that I would like to test in this forum, to see how many holes can be shot in it.... It goes something like this:
Illegals score bogus Social Security cards to gain employment in the US. Their employers collect the requisite funds from the illegal's paycheck each week, and send it on in to Uncle Sam. So, we have a bunch of cash streaming in to the Social Security fund from illegal immigrants using bogus numbers. However, those same illegals will be unable to claim their Social Security when they retire, as Uncle Sam will determine the number was bogus. So, our elected officials are able to prop-up Social Security for a little while longer.
I've been trying to come up with some reasonable explaination for why my party is party to the amnesty (oh, I forgot, it isn't REALLY amnesty) proposal - this is all I've come up with. What do you think?
The Christian Science Monitor is not the "go to" illegal immigration publication.
Considering the illegals usually work for far less than Americans, I don't know how much we would collect. Remember too that these workers usually don't receive any benefits, they will be using local, state and federal services.
I don't see how we can win.
I think incarceration of employers that hire illegals is a far better idea.
I agree with you to a point. But, if what I have read is true, the Senate bill of immigration reform will allow a "grandfather clause" that enables illegal workers to collect SS benefits. Of course, this has not yet passed.
The thing that has come to my mind is this. A large number of American citizens (both naturalized and native) are on the verge of retirement. EVEN IF we have SS benefits, most of us will have to work at jobs we didn't work at in our productive years to supplement our income. Will those jobs "Americans Won't Do" be there when that time comes?
....funny post #18. I'd rather be "always angry"....regarding immigration / border policy than always wrong, like you.
Well, I'm going to vote for a candidate that supports the drilling for oil in the US, who supports Israel and supports the war against Islamofascism, and who wants to enforce the existing immigration laws.
And if the Republican candidate doesn't fit that bill, then I'll find a candidate that does. The Constitution party is looking like the closest fit as of now.
(It would be nice if the Republican Party of Florida would actually lend it's support for drilling and for the enforcement of existing immigration laws.)
The Dem won.
You betcha' all the other politicians saw that.
I know something is wrong when they cite Novak for the "right's" opinion.
Is there a backlash? Hell yeah. It's been happening all year. Remember Hazelton? Remember Bilbray? Remember osbourne? remember my own state party in WA of all places adopting hard approaches in their platform to illegal immigration? Remember liberal Shays coming out for enforcement in Conn? remember cannon being forced into a runoff? Yeah, he won, but most people don't have to suffer the "indinity" of a runoff. That was significant. Remember Gerogia's new laws, and Colorado's. Scwartz was knocked off because he was an all around liberal, and one of those issues at play was his acceptance of amnesty. Not the sole reason there, but a factor. As was spending and pro-life issues. Remember santorum's recent accreditation to his tough stance on the borders for his momentum in Penn. I could keep on but, yeah, there is a backlash.
But the backlash isn't that Congress grant amnesty or write new laws. We could use the ones we have. No, the backlash is that we want the borders secured. If the fools think they can compromise our soveriegnty and our borders by allowing amnesty they'll get what they deserve. Are you hearing me Pence? Hutchinson?
If they stick strictly to security they'll benefit.
Nelson in Nebraska has a better record on the border then Hagel, and is taking a stronger position then his Republican challenger.
That's why he's one of two Dems I'm supporting this year. The other being Leiberman because of his stance on the WOT.
But, yeah, you are right. Most of the Dems stand for more votes. And amnesty to liberals from Mexico accomplishes that. There are a few Dem exceptions in the House on amnesty, a few in the Senate, only because of the states/districts they reside in but the vast majority are lined up for amnesty.
And I agree tossing incumbents for the sake of tossing incumbents is stupid. Though if Republicans passed amnesty, then I really wuldn't give a damn what happened to any of them. At that point we'd have bigger problems, and I'd probably have the attitude "Screw you" directed towards D.C. without discrimination.
For right NOW, however, if your Congressman stands against amnesty and most of them do, though mine doesn't and is NOT getting my vote, they don't deserve scorn, ridicule, or a throw the bums out rhetoric. Nor do those serious about enforcement need people involved in fighting amnesty that are incapable of discriminating between our enemies and our allies here.
If people want a target direct your attention to Johnny McCain. back off Hastert and the House until they earn scorn on this issue.
If "the ONLY people who have been consistently tough about Border Enforcement (US House GOP)" had been truly "consistently tough" we wouldn't be in this situation.
Our consistently compassionate President is the one man you can thank for getting us into this mess. I imagine in your mind it's a shame we can't re-elect him, isn't it?
The existing laws were mostly toothless, inviting abuse. Illegal entry into the U.S. is, for instance, classed as a misdemeanor. The workplace enforcement laws are similarly diluted. Nor were enforcement attempts adequately funded.
The House bill is designed to eliminate these flaws -- make the penalties mean something and fully fund enforcement, on both the border and the workplace.
Good point. Maybe we'll have to buy our semi-retirement homes in China or India?
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.