Skip to comments.US Senator Norm Coleman Responds to my Email
Posted on 06/22/2007 2:59:56 PM PDT by lesser_satan
Earlier today, I sent an email to Senator Norm Coleman regarding the immigration bill. Me email and his response:
Dear Senator Coleman,
I understand another effort is being made to bring the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill up for cloture.
Without indicting the motives of those promoting this piece of legislation, I would like to present my arguments for why this bill should be rejected:
1) Federal Government has no credibility when it comes to border enforcement
We were promised increased border security after the 1986 amnesty, and very little was done to fulfill this promise. To make matters worse, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 promised us 700 miles of secure fencing, and to date, about thirteen miles have been completed. The entire premise of the current bill is based on the assumption that the government will do what is necessary to secure the border, something at which it has failed repeatedly in the past. When laws we already have are being ignored, what good will new legislation do?
2) The proposed Z-Visa system is both unworkable and unfair to prospective immigrants
The number of illegal aliens in the country is estimated to be twelve million, with some estimating the number as high as twenty million. As I understand it, the Z visas would provide the holders with travel and work privileges within twenty-four hours of the application being submitted. I have very little faith in the DHS bureaucracy's ability to process these applications with due diligence, and I have reservations about the cost to taxpayers to implement such a massive program.
Also, it's my understanding that many of the illegal aliens in the country came here legally on visas and overstayed those visas. If we can't keep track of and enforce the visas we've already issued, how are we going to deal with twelve to twenty million more?
In addition to feasibility problems, I believe the Z-visa program is a slap in the face to the millions of people around the world who are respecting our laws and patiently waiting their turn for a chance to work and live here in the United States, as well as those who have already become citizens or visa holders by legal means.
3) What will be done to ensure those being granted amnesty would be good citizens?
I'm deeply concerned about who, exactly, would qualify for the Z-Visa program and/ or citizenship. It would, in my opinion, be unacceptable to allow illegal aliens who are felons, drug addicts, gang members, sex offenders, the mentally ill, or the chronically unemployed to remain in the country under any circumstances. Will prospective visa holders/ citizens be required to demonstrate proficiency in English and knowledge of American history, culture, and civics? Also, communism is again rearing it's ugly head in Latin America. What will be done to ensure prospective visa holders/ citizens are not here to act as agitators for Hugo Chavez or other communist elements? Will there be any special provisions for other-than-Mexican illegals from countries with known jihadist networks?
4) Political concerns
The following is excerpted from the Rasmussen Reports website regarding a poll taken June 11th and 12th:
"Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration." Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party."
"Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach."
"Just 30% would favor legislation that focused "exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States." Fifty-seven percent (57%) oppose that strategy, including 63% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats, and 55% of unaffiliated voters."
"Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor a proposal giving "all illegal aliens up to three years to leave the United States. After leaving, the illegal aliens would have to get in line and wait their turn for legal entry into the United States." Support for that concept comes from 67% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, and 56% of unaffiliated voters."
As you can see, support for this bill is coming mostly from special interest groups, with very little support from the populace. The Republican Party has a golden opportunity to seize this issue and champion an enforcement-first approach, and this would surely pay dividends in the '08 elections.
The President and some of your Senate colleagues have characterized those who oppose this bill as bigoted, nativist xenophobes. This is not the case. I would like to say that I am in no way opposed to legal immigration, which should be increased if we truly have a labor shortage. Many of our best citizens are immigrants who have come to this country legally. However, making it easier for illegal aliens to obtain visas and become citizens than it is for those who are trying to do it the legal way is both an affront to the rule of law and deleterious to our national security.
I know you and your staff are very busy, and I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this.
Spring Park, MN
Dear Mr. xxxx :
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding immigration reform. I believe the current immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. I look forward t o voting for a bill which will provide for real border security, will eliminate the lure of continued job opportunities for illegal immigrants, and will provide a program that would have helped identify illegal immigrants in this country with their continued presence conditioned on learning English, paying taxes and being employed.
I could not, however, support the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) in its current form. S. 1348 was never considered by a Senate Committee and was brought directly to the floor before most of us had a chance to fully review it. Senate leadership blocked many amendments, including my own, that would have improved the bill. The repercussions of this bill are too great, and I could not in good conscience support moving forward with legislation that is incomplete and unfinished. For this reason, I voted against a procedural motion on June 7, 2007 that would have pushed the bill forward without further debate.
I believe that improving our border enforcement capabilities must be central to any immigration reform legislation. Our unprotected borders are unacceptable and represent a crisis which must be dealt with decisively and without delay. I am pleased that S. 1348 would require hiring more Border Patrol officers, constructing vehicle barriers and fences on the Southern border, monitoring the entire border electronically and ending the catch-and-release system that leads to many illegal aliens remaining in the United States, and that such improvements would have to be enacted before any permanent benefits would be given to the current illegal population and before any new guest worker program would start. This bill would also increase the penalties for many immigration violations.
I strongly oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Any legalized status for people already here must not be a blank check that will encourage more people to enter this country illegally. In order to be here, I believe that immigrants must undergo background checks, demonstrate proof of employment, possess English proficiency and an understanding of civics, and pay a monetary penalty if they entered illegally. S. 1348 would do much of this, but I would have preferred more stringent policies in some of these areas. I would have supported more rigorous background checks than currently in the bill and stricter workplace enforcement if given the opportunity to amend the bill. I am pleased that under S. 1348 illegal immigrants would not be eligible for Social Security benefits accrued using a false number.
You may also be interested to know that I introduced amendments that would have ended the policy of sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are cities where local law enforcement is barred from so much as asking the people they come into contact with about their immigration status. As a consequence, these cities are able to evade their legal responsibilities to share such information with federal authorities. This is a gag order, and it essentially means the rule of law does not apply in these cities. My amendments (S. Amdt . 1158 and S. Amdt . 1473) would lift that gag order and allow law enforcement officers in these cities to inquire about an individual's immigration status and share their findings with the Department of Homeland Security.
While immigration reform must reflect the American values of fairness and opportunity, it must also show respect for the rule of the law. It is my hope that proper debate on a border security and comprehensive immigration reform can be held in the Senate, and the result will be legislation that provides for a safer, more secure and prosperous America .
Thank you once again for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate hearing from you and I value your advice.
United States Senate
Sounds like he is a ‘YES’ Vote on CLOTURE.
Therefore, he is a weasel.
You all need to gin up some calls to him so he feels the pain in store if he votes for cloture. He has a large number of Mexican constituents, and needs to hear from the other side.
I'm not saying he is or isn't, I just can't discern from where he implies he is.
How did you deduce that?
If we can't keep track of and enforce the visas we've already issued, how are we going to deal with twelve to twenty million more?
With YOUR tax money!!
I’ve seen this letter from Coleman. A guy I work with got the same one.
They may have registered your letter as received and being against cloture, but they didn’t read it.
Thanks, that’s good to know.
“”You may also be interested to know that I introduced amendments that would have ended the policy of sanctuary cities.””
Blah Blah Blah.
With passage of the bill the immediate mass legalization of tens of millions of illegals will make “sanctuary cities” pointless. The whole country will become a sanctuary.
All enforcement will cease as meaningless.
Looks like a NO on cloture. He can’t support the act currently before the floor is what I think it said.
“He has a large number of Mexican constituents, and needs to hear from the other side.”
Those must be illegals. All MexAmericans I know don’t want amnesty, but some concern about “family reunification” changes.
And, I can guarantee you that my friend wasn’t anywhere near as cordial as you were. He lit him up pretty good.
Thanks, that seems to be consistent with what his email said.
“Looks like a NO on cloture.”
He’s a “YES”
He’s looking for a fig leaf — his “sanctuary city” amendment. If it fails he’s still wobbly. If it passes he can say “I’m tough on enforcement”
As I said earlier, I think the “anti-sanctuary city” bid is a canard. The bill would turn the whole country into a sanctuary. Enforcement will end. Big Business/ACLU will be instructing all persons when challenged to say, “I have been in the US since December 31, 2007”. That will terminate enforcement.
Start here and go to Paragraph 902 (near the end). Read closely the content on the European people.
You can read through the thread at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1853615/posts to pick up Freeper comments.
Some claim Coleman is behind this one.
There are those who might well disagree with the idea of forming a Commission to study the question of whether Nazis and their families should get in line for payoffs from the United States.
I think these guys thought they'd padded this one so well with the Jewish Refugee Commission material that no one would catch on to what they were doing.
Coleman has a horse in this race. Not one I'd ride of course, but there it is.