Skip to comments.Trey Gowdy: House Canít Just Defend the Status Quo on Immigration
Posted on 07/15/2013 3:41:50 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
"The House should pass legislation on the issue, but that doesnt mean you go to conference with the Senate, he explained. (Conservatives have argued in recent weeks that taking House and Senate bills to conference would produce something much more similar to the Gang of Eight bill than whatever the House passes.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The House should pass legislation on the issue, but that doesnt mean you go to conference
How exactly are they going to prevent it from going to conference, other than letting it die of old age (and if that is their plan they can't admit it in public)? I have not heard one of them answer that question.
And if it doesn't go to conference, where does it go? If the House passes a Comprehensive Immigration Whopper with amnesty, like the senate bill but with a little more "Border Surge," the senate Dems might just vote to approve it without a conference.
But Gowdy should know House Dems will not vote for that any bill without amnesty for at least the Dreamers. All they need is for some GOP House members to cave.
Look carefully at 2 articles 10 days apart about Goodlatte, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which oversees immigration:
July 11 ...he could see a plan in which adult undocumented immigrants are given a temporary legal status and could later apply for green cards and U.S. citizenship.....After attaining that status, Goodlatte said, they could then apply for legal permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship through avenues that are already available to foreigners: marrying a U.S. citizen, having a U.S. citizen relative petition for them or having a U.S. employer sponsor their application.
That last sentence is crucial. Goodlatte could argue that it's nor a "special" pathway-to-citizenship (Is he trying to have it both ways?). Today, any illegal alien can marry a US citizen and apply for green card->citizenship unless they have a criminal history or are a member of some dangerous group. Likewise, today employers can sponsor alliens, with some restrictions, supposedly.
The House could create a bill that makes it harder or easier for former illegals to become citizens, but with Obama, and another Dem or squishy R as POTUS in 2017, it may not matter. They would be here indefinitely, with the Left/media/rogue judges/Eos/sympathetic bureaucrats to help them get from 3rd base to home plate.
Where’s the fence?
There’s supposed to be a fence. Where is it?
The status quo is non-enforcement.
ENFORCE EXISTING LAW.
Mr. Gowdy, you and you ilk are not trusted to do anything.
Shut up and stop enabling the commiecrats, or you are no better than them.
When was the last time we fought on a field of battle of our own choosing?
ENFORCE EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW.
If you are not going to enforce existing law, there is no reason to believe you will do anything other than cherry-pick a new law and enforce the new things you like and ignore the new things that you don't.
Why do we ever need reform, i.e., legislation ?
Just check the landscaper, restaurant, etc., businesses for illegals. You know, like we used to see happening on a normal ongoing basis.
The only legislation we should have is to DECREASE the numbers permitted to immigrate.
We have 300+ million people and not enough jobs for them.
Allowing ANY immgration is simply idiotic at this point, unless one is thinking from the globalist/transnational financial oligarchy viewpoint.
If you are a constituent of Gowdy or Goodlatte please call their office!
I called my congressman’s DC office this morning, and asked (after many calls with the same request) to speak to someone who knew something about immigration. I finally got to speak to one. He assured me that my congressman would not vote for a pathway-to-citizenship. Whew!
That's what I told my congressman's office. If We could pass a bill that really enforced the border better without giving the Dems something more important, that would be OK, but it will never happen.
Another one bites the dust. Damn. And I had hopes for Gowdy.
Just enforce the law. What can possibly be so hard for these guys to understand?
My congressman is supposedly a great conservative Texas Congressman too, and therefore we should be able to count on his vote. Unfortunately in his old age he is also a quiet little mouse on all important issues, and will do whatever the hell John Boehner tells him to do. So I want to see no immigration bills at all in the house. They WILL screw it up.
One of the most interesting things for me about this whole topic is how they talk about; jobs Americans won’t do, teenage unemployment, etc.
Well, i’ll go out on a limb and say that more than a few of the folks that read this site have had jobs in the service industry, washing dishes, mowing lawns, doing construction. Lots of them when you were on summer break from school. And then, if you were lucky, you were able to get a job bussing/waiting tables while school was in session. I loved being able to make my own money when I was a kid. Didn’t have to hit up my folks for any. Nor could they say a whole lot about what I spent it on.
And it taught me a work ethic. Something missing from a lot of todays younger generations that don’t know what its like because everything has always been handed to them.
If someone like Gowdy folds on this, especially with all the hype that surrounded him during some of the recent congressional hearings, than that’ll prove just how corrupt DC is. And the need for any/every incumbent to be voted out of office.
So what is your definition of amnesty?
Good question. He wants more "guest workers," maybe something beyond that.
Hey Trey, how about forcing the illegal immigrant usurper in the white hut to uphold and enforce the laws of The United States already on the books like he swore to do! We don't need any more laws, and we sure as hell don't need or want AMNESTY, we need enforcement and a damn WALL!
The solution is really quite simple. Well, part of the solution.
NO MORE FREAKING WELFARE FOR ANYONE.
And then Americans will be overjoyed to pick blueberries, or anything else.
(And enforce existing immigration laws.)
Also insane over regulations need to be thrown away.
All this will have to happen sooner or later anyway. Might as well start now, or it will happen the hard way, which will be a lot less pretty.
Mine is this:
Any legislation that suspends, lessens, cancels or forgives any legal consequences for a person or persons that have committed an illegal act... is by definition... amnesty. I call a path to citizenship for entering our country illegally and breaking any number of laws while working and living here in America... well... I define that as treason.
I think the most common meaning is a NEW-DIRECT- SPECIAL-FOR-ILLEGALS "pathway to citizenship." As I posted above, unless you specifically exclude citizenship in the text of a law, simply giving to right to stay and work without mentioning citizenship may not be sufficient. That sort of "reform," although not defined as "amnesty," may produce the same result eventually. See Goodlatte's last sentence above.
In fact, even if you explicitly prohibit citizenship in the text of a new immigration law, there are rogue judges/EOs/corrupt bureaucrats/future congresses to worry about.
Yes, extremely disappointing.
If I start thinking about Congress for more than a minute or two I know I’d develop nonstop vomiting.
Hopefully, what he means is that the House can pass a good bill, full of enforcement and penalties and so on, and then send it to the Senate. The Senate can either accept the House bill or not. There is no requirement for a conference to hash out differences.
Another one bites the dust. Damn. And I had hopes for Gowdy.
Just enforce the law. What can possibly be so hard for these guys to understand?
= = = = = =
Lord have mercy, Trey Gowdy?
upchuck, please ping the Gowdy list.
We must call him!
After the immigration expert in my congressman’s office said he will not vote for a pathway-to-citizenship, (this agrees with his “Where I Stand” section on his website). I stressed that I take that promise very seriously.
WRT “Working with Dems” I told him, “Who sups with the Devil needs a long spoon.”
Some welfare is what a compassionate society does....but to be where we are now is insane. Food stamps/EBT cards should be rare not as common place as they are.
It has to be much more than lack of understanding what we want and need.
You are correct. Any legislation that allows the lawbreaker to stay and work here is amnesty. A path to citizenship is just the cherry on top.
The "most common meaning" is the wrong one put forth by those who try to disguise what amnesty really means. Once you legalize the status of the lawbreakers and allow them to stay and work here, it is an amnesty. You don't need a path to citizenship nor do those who receive permanent legal status have to apply for citizenship. We have 10 to 15 million green card holders in this country who don't want to be citizens.
I posted above, unless you specifically exclude citizenship in the text of a law, simply giving to right to stay and work without mdentioning citizenship may not be sufficient. That sort of "reform," although not defined as "amnesty," may produce the same result eventually. See Goodlatte's last sentence above.
You are falling for this Orwellian use of language by the left and the RINOs. Of course this is an amnesty. The RPI visa under McRubio-Schumer is the same as the McCain- Kennedy Z visa. These people will be given work permits, allowed to travel freely in and out of the country, and bring in their wives and children, etc. Don't be so easily fooled any more than Rubio claiming that their plan is not an amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship by paying a fine, getting to the back of the line, learning English etc.
Ed Meese, Ronald Reagans Attorney General, commenting upon the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill as compared to the 1986 amnesty in a New York Times op-ed entitled, An Amnesty by Any Other Name said,
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
I don't know who your Congressman is, but I would be very wary about his statement. If he were truly on our side, he would say that he is against legalization of the lawbreakers period. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.
If those statements are accurate, he'll catch hell walking them back, to me anyway.
He's way too smart to make dumb-ass statements like that and be that far out of touch.
Lawyer. Just another damn lawyer— no honor, no conscience.
Same here. I thouht this guy was with us. He sounds so out of touch on this issue. What do they not understand about the fact that the USA can’t endure having over 50 million immigrants being dumped here in the next 10-20 years without the country imploding ?
Come on now, just 90% of them give the rest a bad name :)
I cannot agree at all. The federal government should not be in the charity business. Help for the deserving poor should be either private or local. The fedgov’s duties and limits are clearly stated in the Constitution.
Welfare has RUINED at least 3 geneations of black people and more than enough white people. Ruined their sense of personal responsiblity, humilty, willingness to work, to be thrifty, to get married and have an actual family.
Before AFDC 80% of black children were born to married parents. And 98 to 97% of white children were born to married parents. Now around 75 to 80% of black children are born to single mothers, and IIRC about 20% of white babies. Hispancs are in the middle. That is a national shame and tragedy.
When charity is private and local, there is immediate oversight, no layers of gov employees making their livings off of the entitlement racket and thus with a vested interest in keeping and enlarging the number of recipeients of the gov charity. With private and local charity freed from crazy unnecessary regulations (which needs to happen all across the board) people can use their creativity and think up ways not just to give poor people a hand out but help them get off of charity. Poor farms, for instance - so they can learn skills and learn to grow their own food. Industries set up to employ poor people, etc. The way it’s run now is ruining not just the poor people (and heck, I’m a lot “Poorer” than most people on welfare!) but the rest of us who have to pay for this crap and then live in the rotten society with so many feral ruined people our money has created!
THere should be no foodstamps, no energy assistnats, no free phones, no HUD and whatever else the gov has boiled up in the cauldren of entitlements.
The system of “helping the poor” has turned into a toxic stew that has ruined millions of lives.
The axiom that compassion without intelligence and wisdom is cruelty comes to mind; as well as the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Over 90 percent of the Republicans we elect are business as usual politicians and many fall for the emotional words that come out of their mouths.
Fake conservative words come from this guy, too.
He replaced a RINO named Bob Inglis, who I once considered “conservative” as well.
He represents an area with business interests that are comfortable with “immigration reform” I guess and they are pressuring the elected officials to do something..
NO BILL HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION WHATSOEVER.....
He’ll vote for a “security bill” that will get conferenced into a “pathway to citizenship” amnesty bill and be signed by Barack Obama.
But leaders like Boehner and Reid can’t be trusted.....
Or we could start growing our economy. We need immigrants. We don’t need welfare slugs.
I agree, we should start deportations, fining businesses, and incentifying people to get off welfare.
I agree with most of what you wrote. Charity should be just that, not stealing from one family (taxes) to give to another. I agree it is most effective when it is private and local. Your points about the effect on families are spot on. We agree on this issue, EXCEPT, occasionally there are people who do need assistance - some disabled folks(I mean the truly disabled.) Some cannot fend for themselves and need a helping hand. That is the compassion I referred to.
Gowdy might have said some interesting things in some hearing that had no relevance to anything at all.
But his actions, i.e his support of this push for treacherous legislation, speaks much louder to me than anything he said.
Politicians are professional liars, and Gowdy is a politician.
As long as Obama is _resident he will pick what immigration laws to enforce. Republican politicians are stupid to pass any immigration laws while Dems control 2 branches within govt.
I agree about the truly disabled, and still IMHO it is private charity that would do the best job helping them. Or very local charity. The fedgov needs to shrink tremendously and when it does, people won’t pay so much in taxes and will have more $ to donate to charities that can help others. ANd the red tape is horrible - needs to change.
There is no easy solution - and there will always be poverty and suffering, but the fedgov just increases and perpetuates it. Religious organizations should really be at the forefront of charity.
We don’t need immigrants. We need the US population to get off of welfare (which needs to get eliminated) and there will be plenty of people willing to work.
I read that Gowdy said he doesn’t want to work in Washington for a long time and wants to go back to prosecuting in SC.
Also I think he may have been too nice a person to want to primary Graham.
Sanford was elected despite his flaws opposing amnesty among other issues.
We can do both. We do need immigrants. We have the room, just not the welfare money.
It was normal to have a job when I was in HS. I worked at a garden center for $3.35 an hour. I endlessly worked in greenhouses, unloaded trucks, handled produce, moved products around inside and outside, etc. Built a railroad tie retaining wall with another kid who was twice my size and on the football team. In winter, it was handling Christmas trees, soaked to the skin and outside in the freezing wet weather. It was a great job; the owners were fantastically good guys.
The financial oligarchs keep having their news and entertainment media and their “public” schools preach propaganda to America while they have their “personal” Congress and legislatures continue to make normal life illegal.
I don’t think it’s so much that today’s generation has had things handed to them, it’s that secular humanism - culminating in at least 200 years of effort - has replaced faith in God for far too many people. Even “professing” Christians often do not understand what they say they believe; the corruption of mainstream Churches has increased during that same timeframe.
So “right and wrong” is “what we humans want it to be”; no understanding - groundless, aimless, hedonistic.
And our most intelligent people are too often “wise in their own conceits”, i.e., the “wise” are “fools” and the “simple” are “wise”.
I'd really, really like to know what is wrong with just enforcing the laws on the books.
Want on or off this ping list? Just drop me a FReep mail.