Posted on 07/26/2013 10:55:04 AM PDT by Windflier
I received this in email this morning from the North Texas branch of The Common Sense Citizens Network:
Fellow Patriots:
A group of approximately 15 constituents met on the morning of July 24th in Dallas with Mr. Taylor Bledsoe, district staffer for Congressman Pete Sessions (TX CD 32) to discuss immigration. A summary of the meeting is included below.
Many of the questions and comments directed to Mr. Bledsoe related to the legislative process within the House. In general, there was a sentiment that Rep. Sessions has not been a leader on pushing border security, that there is little, if any, trust of Rep. Sessions on this issue, and there is a concern that the House could easily be swept up in the Gang of Eight plan, either unwittingly or by design.
Key take-aways:
Rep. Sessions is the Chairman of the House Rules Committee and will determine what immigration bills, if any, are considered by the House.
As Rules Chair, Rep. Sessions is planning to allow one or more immigration bill(s) in the House.
Rep. Sessions does not expect House immigration bill(s) to go to conference to be merged with Senate immigration legislation, but could not guarantee that would not happen. That will primarily be up to Speaker Boehner, but Rep. Sessions will have input.
Rep. Sessions' underlying rationale, if any, for passing House immigration bill(s) at this time was not particularly clear to the constituents.
Generally speaking, the constituents were not at all in favor of Rep. Sessions taking his cues from the Gang of Eight, did not see any logical rationale for the proposed course of action, and wished to warn Rep. Sessions of the huge risk being taken by passing a House bill.
At the close of the meeting, the constituents unanimously urged Rep. Sessions to not allow any immigration bill to proceed through the House in this environment.
Rep. Sessions' Position*:
Mr. Bledsoe informed the constituents that Rep. Sessions would be placing a House immigration bill on the calendar sometime after the August recess. Bledsoe explained that he did not believe the House will pass the Gang of Eight bill, or any other single comprehensive immigration reform bill. Instead, he expects a series of bills, each directed to various aspects of immigration, specifically including interior enforcement. He was not sure whether there will be a bill specifically directed to border security.
With respect to the rationale for a House immigration bill, Bledsoe explained that the Obama Administration has presented legal justifications for all the laws that it has ignored. Thus, there is a need to revise the existing law to remove the Obama Administration's legal justifications. He also suggested it was necessary to clearly instruct the Obama Administration to follow and enforce the law.
Mr. Bledsoe also explained that the House leadership is hopeful that the Senate will take up an interior enforcement bill if prodded, and Rep. Sessions believes passing a bill in the House would be at least somewhat likely to spur the Senate to take action on interior enforcement, specifically.
With respect to any risk that a House immigration bill would go to conference and be merged with the Gang of Eight bill, Bledsoe noted that a House bill won't be sent to conference without the assent of John Boehner and the House Republican leadership. The fact that a bill is passed in the House doesn't necessarily mean that it will go to conference with the Senate's Gang of Eight Bill.
Although Rep. Sessions won't make the unilateral decision on whether a House immigration bill goes to conference with the Gang of Eight Bill, he will have input as a member of House leadership.
In response to questions raised about Sessions' position on "amnesty," Bledsoe stated that Pete Sessions does not support "amnesty" for illegals. As to "legalization of illegals" and a "pathway to citizenship for illegals," however, Rep. Sessions' position is still not 100% clear. There was not an explanation of the difference, if any, between "a path to citizenship for illegals" and "amnesty for illegals."
Constituents' Comments and Questions:
Constituent Del Parker of North Dallas expressed the concern that the Gang of Eight bill may very well be a smokescreen or diversionary tactic. He believes that NO House bill would be appropriate at this time. In his view, Congress is not to be trusted to craft any House bill on amnesty or immigration, especially when it would almost certainly be ignored or rewritten by the Senate. In his opinion, the only way to prevent a dangerous amnesty bill from proceeding through the system is for Rep. Sessions, as Chair of the House Rules Committee, to kill any immigration or amnesty bill in the House.
Katrina Pierson of Garland followed up on remarks made by Rep. Sessions at the Garland-Wylie-Sachse Town Hall that Rep. Sessions supports legalization of illegal aliens so long as there is a background check of some sort performed. Ms. Pierson also questioned the rationale for new laws at this time, given that we already have immigration laws on the books. Border security and interior enforcement, in particular, are already the law of the land. She asked why we need a new bill to tell the government to enforce the laws that have already been passed. If that would be the sole content of a House bill, what is the point of of passing a House immigration bill at all?
Ms. Pierson expressed that there is a feeling that the House GOP leadership is making all its decisions based on what the Democrat-controlled Senate is doing or is likely to do. She expressed skepticism that a Democrat-controlled Senate to take up a border security or interior enforcement bill. She noted that the House GOP has passed many bills to repeal Obamacare, but Harry Reid doesn't even give the bills a vote. Thus, it is highly unlikely that an interior enforcement bill would be considered by the Senate. From her perspective, the House strategy appears to be a collection of more political games. She also expressed concern that if the House passes an immigration bill, there is a serious opportunity for the bill to go to conference with the Gang of Eight Bill or something similar and come out as a horrible amnesty plan.
Ms. Pierson noted that, given the near complete absence of any likelihood of any good outcome, and a significant likelihood of a very bad outcome, many people in Rep. Sessions' district, including herself, don't want any House immigration bill at all passed at this time in this environment.
Bill Ames of North Dallas followed up on the question of the pathway to citizenship. He explained that constituents aren't objecting to current immigration laws and pathways to citizenship on the books. They are objecting to new pathways to citizenship for illegals, which are likely to be hidden in the bill in such a way that we don't even learn about them until it's too late. Ames also expressed his opinion that the Gang of Eight legislators and immigration lawyers will begin working to reduce the 13-year timeline as soon as the pathway is passed into law.
Quique "Q" Coleman asked why the House Republicans are even discussing this issue at this time, when there are so many other pressing issues. His position is "N.A.D.A. - No Amnesty. Defend America."
Liz Miller of North Dallas noted that the polls show that immigration is far down the list of issues people care about right now. There is no public support for doing something on immigration right now.
Ken Emanuelson of North Dallas also expressed puzzlement as to the rationale for a new immigration bill. If the bill is simply to reiterate prior immigration law, why is there any reason to think the Obama Administration won't simply ignore this law, in the same way it ignores so many others? Lawyers are trained to find justifications, loopholes and rationalizations in the law. Revising the law with additional or different language will have no long-term effect. The Obama Administration will simply find new justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the law.
There is no good argument for the House Republicans to pass an immigration bill now. Nothing good can come of this. The Republicans scarcely have control of the House, and the Democrats control the Senate and the White House. Why is it the Republicans feel like they have to go along and pass whatever it is Obama and the Senate Democrats decide the Republicans need to do? Why is the answer not simply, "No, thanks"? This is not the right environment for Republicans to pass this kind of bill.
Summary:
The key question, asked by numerous attendees, was this:
what plan, if any, do you have for preventing a House immigration bill from being conflated with the Gang of Eight bill or a similarly bad Senate bill in conference and passed into law? There was no clear answer provided to this key question, despite the question being asked in various ways multiple times.
At no point was a reasonable explanation provided as to why passage of a House immigration bill would be an advisable course of action for the House Republicans at this time. From this, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Rep. Sessions' staff either did not have a logical rationale for proceeding this way, or had some rationale they were unwilling to disclose.
At the close of the meeting, Mr. Bledsoe asked if all the constituents in attendance agreed with the sentiment expressed by Katrina Pierson and others that there should be no House immigration bill advanced at this time.
The constituents unanimously agreed with that position with no dissent, and Mr. Bledsoe agreed to forward that message to Rep. Sessions.
___
* - Rep. Sessions' position has been summarized based on the message as understood by the constituents on July 24. This summary is being provided to Rep. Sessions' staff and will be edited if it is found to contain inaccuracies.
I will back Ted Cruz for president 100%.
As of right now, me too.
or Sarah Palin.
Those few stalwart souls are fighting an evil leviathan which has almost unlimited resources and power. The only power that can match it, are the American people themselves. Too bad they're all sitting at home wondering who's going to fight for them.
Hear, hear!!
That's about it in my view too.
Thanks for the ping!
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.