Skip to comments.Nelson: 'Do Everything' Approach Won't Fix Immigration Woes
Posted on 06/05/2007 12:17:09 PM PDT by Between the Lines
The latest proposal to deal with illegal immigration puts the cart before the horse. Our borders must be secured before we deal with those who are here illegally. Unfortunately, the emphasis in the amnesty-based bill that was introduced is on those who are already here. This is the wrong approach and I cannot support it the way it stands.
I voted to allow debate to proceed on this bill, but I do not support the underlying bill. Instead, I hope we
can improve it and put the focus where it needs to be -– on securing our border first.
And judging by the hundreds of letters and phone calls I get, I believe I represent the vast majority of my fellow Nebraskans who oppose amnesty and want to secure our borders.
Do-Everything Approach is Wrong
This legislation is yet another attempt to do everything, that in the end will likely make the immigration problems we have now worse. I still do not understand why some are pushing for amnesty when our borders are not yet secured.
When the Senate debated amnesty last year, illegal border crossings in some areas went up by more than 26 percent. That's because people wanted to get here before the bill was finalized in hopes of benefiting from amnesty.
We can't solve a problem by making it worse.
A 3-Step Process
We need to pursue a three-step approach. The first step is securing our border. At the same time we need to do more to enforce workplace restrictions on employing illegal immigrants. The goal here is to make illegal immigration a less attractive option.
The second step is to reform the legal immigration process, make that a more attractive option so that we are opening the front door to legal immigration while closing the back door to illegal immigration. And we can do this second step while securing the border.
The third and final step is to deal with the individuals who are here illegally. But we can't deal with them now or else we'll simply be encouraging more illegal immigration.
I will support amendments that put border security first, but I will not support any amnesty-based reform.
Border Security Report Card
After visiting the border in Arizona last February with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, I can report to you that we are really making some good progress in securing our border. There are increased patrols, physical barriers and, of course, the virtual fencing that takes advantage of technology such as radar sensors and aerial patrols in the more remote areas but more remains to be done. Until the border is secure, we simply cannot encourage more illegal immigration by talking about amnesty.
Sincerely, Sen. Ben Nelson
Someone is getting the message!
Yes, I’ve written this before. Nelson, Byrd, Webb, Dorgan and perhaps Landrieu are with the good guys on this. Hopefully Landrieu, Johnson and Baucus will be retired next year as well.
Byrd?...really...I’m dumbfounded...I’m not doubing you, but can you give me a link that supports the statement that Byrd is against the bill?
I read last week that Byrd was voting against it as well.
He-’s been all over the p=lace against it. typ=e his name and _”immigration bill_” into any search engine. Oh, and the old coot was against last year-’s bill, too.
Pretty much covers it.
But that won't impede terrorists at all.
(Rio Lindians: Plutonium = hyperbole.)
Wow from a Democrat, times maybe a changing
...... As of late Friday, the actual text of the grand compromise had not yet been published. Major questions remain about details of the plan, and how it would work. We believe the bill which was negotiated privately deserves a full public airing before its considered......
Some of our colleagues, sensing the fragile nature of the proposed compromise, want to rush it through the Congress immediately. This would be a major mistake. It is too important and too complicated to rush. The legislation requires extended Senate debate, with full opportunity for public input and criticism, and an open process for amendments to strengthen its provisions.....
As the bill reaches the Senate floor this week, our goal will be restoring the integrity of our borders, providing guest workers with opportunity, not amnesty, and preserving our social security for all who legally qualify.
A Dem no less... but the only, half-way decent one they have.
Thank you to the CONSERVATIVE senator from Nebraska. The other one is worthless.
You got that right.
Yep, this bill is so bad that even Dems can see it for the disastrous farce it is.
Hutchinson is a sap. He was against it, then for it, then railed against it, now he’s cautiously for it again.
I can’t wait for the next round of primaries. I’m going to spend every spare moment of my time, and every spare dollar I can muster, to motivate others to kick these bums out of office and replace them with new conservative blood.
Hutchison... stupid fingers!
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) Texas, is a she. In the last two email replies I got from her, indicate she will vote against this. I sent the links to several FR threads and told her to get her staff to check the pulse of the posters on FR.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
The United States Congress should not approve legislation granting a sweeping amnesty to as many as 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said Thursday.
"We should not reward those who break our immigration laws. We should continue to hire more border agents and install the fencing and technology to close the gaps along our land borders. We should encourage employers to hire American citizens and target those companies that hire illegal immigrants," Byrd explained. "And we should not give a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants who want to flaunt the laws of this land."
"This proposal could wave a magic wand and give as many as 12 million illegal immigrants automatic legal status. This amnesty plan is no fairy tale; it is a bad dream," Byrd said. "The proposal is a slap in the face to every immigrant who had to wait abroad to come to American shores, and to every immigrant who had to struggle and work to become a U.S. citizen."
"There is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the 500,000 aliens expected to sneak across the borders illegally this year," Byrd stated.
The White House and several Members of Congress have been in negotiations over the structure of an amnesty plan that could garner the support of President Bush. A central tenant of those discussions has been a one-time waiver of an illegal immigrant's status to legal.
Because of Senator Byrd's work, beginning with funding legislation in 2005, Congress has added 4,000 new Border Patrol agents, 9,150 new immigrant detention beds, nearly 1,400 new detention personnel, and more than 500 new Customs and Border Protection officers at U.S. ports of entry. In addition, significant resources have been added for fences, vehicle barriers, sensors, and other tools.
Last fall, in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, $1.18 billion was added as emergency funding specifically for neglected but critical border security infrastructure activities, such as fencing, vehicle barriers, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, boats, replacement law enforcement vehicles, and border facilities. These funds will also enhance facilities for training new Border Patrol agents. In addition, using the resources provided by Senator Byrd, federal law enforcement officers have significantly expanded their efforts to identify employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. In 2002, federal agencies were involved in 25 such cases; in 2006, that figure grew to 716 cases.
Didn’t even notice the mistake; serves me right for mailing on a blackberry!
Not completely. Steps 2 & 3 are bassackwards.
1) Seal the border.
2) Enforce existing laws and go after employers.
3) Begin deporting illegals.
4) Reform existing immigration laws.
I place #2 before #3 because by going after employers, many illegals will begin deportation on their own. If the jobs dry up, so will the illegals.
Right now I will take RATS like Byrd and Nelson over scum like McCain, Graham and Kyl. Maybe we can trade.
Byrd?...really...Im dumbfounded...Im not doubing you, but can you give me a link that supports the statement that Byrd is against the bill?
IIRC he voted against it last year and voiced his opinion on the floor against it this year. I guess he has his own reasons that may not be the same as mine.
I’ve been away and I am a little confused. Is there more than one bill? Has a bill already passed the Senate? Someone please enlighten me.
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti illegal immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them. This is a bipartisan issue not a Conservative or Liberal issue BUT AN AMERICAN issue.
I just fired off another email to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. I hope she gets the message soon. I sent several more FR thread links.
“We can’t solve a problem by making it worse.”
Ole Byrd knows that he will be drawn and quartered in WV if he votes for this monstrosity. He knows how we feel. I keep sending him letters and calling all the time. Rocky also tells me he is against the bill. I have no proof of that yet.
Ole Byrd is undoubtedly in his last term, however. I wouldn’t be surprised if he votes against the bill, since he’s occasionally reasonable on social issues. As for Mr. Rockefeller, I wouldn’t trust anything he says. He’s a standard-brand liberal, and a standard-brand liberal from West Virginia has probably done a fair amount of lying in his career.
Yes, I’ll give Nelson credit for this. His opposition may prove to be important, too. It’s good news for sure.
More good news. Thanks for sharing it.
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.