Skip to comments.Why the Railroad Effort on the Amnesty Bill?
Posted on 06/16/2007 8:02:53 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
We can all understand the push by big business to keep their steady flow of illegal laborers coming in, strengthening their bargaining position against blue-collar working class Americans. Then again, they already have that today in droves. Why the sudden balls-to-the-wall push to get it all "kosher" right now? Mickey Kaus forwards a theory:
Chertoff and Kyl both seem to have answered that question recently, Kyl in his Wall Street Journal interview and Chertoff on Fox News yesterday: because businesses are starting to worry about efforts to enforce immigration laws at the local level. One state in the vanguard of that effort is Kyl's (and McCain's) home state of Arizona, where the legislature has passed numerous laws (usually vetoed) on the issue, and where the public voted for Prop 200 back in 2004.
To me that says something far more ominous than that Congress is being disingenuous or naïve on the matter. Far from simple being empty promises, this amnesty bill is actually a blatant attempt to head off any attempts at enforcement at all.
I think this is probably right. I think big business realizes that voters are going to extract some very explicit and unequivocal promises from their candidates next year. I think they realize at this point that a number of their champions on this bill are not coming back to Washington after the next election.
Big agriculture and big construction realize that they'll be faced with a new Commander-in-Chief, Democrat or Republican, who will likely have made a list of unequivocal promises to the voters during the campaign. Given the opportunity to build up public goodwill with a series of big, high-profile immigration busts in her first six months of office, does anyone think that President Hillary would pass it up? If she's anywhere near as calculating as her reputation suggests, there's not a chance she'll pass up that opportunity.
A Republican President would feel less need for high-profile token efforts, but may bring in a Justice Department that actually cares about national security. (How crazy would that be?) If you're an employer who's been skirting the law for years with a wink and a nod, this change in the winds has to be keeping you up at night--with good reason. Some CEOs looking at public opinion polls and knowing their employment rolls haven't been even close to right with God, have to be dealing with some serious heartburn at the thought of angry villagers at the corporate gates demanding massive fines and/or a few years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
If the employers can just get across the line on this, they've significantly reduced their exposure. This Amnesty Bill represents a sort of "get out of jail free" card for these executives. Whether it'll actually work out that way is another matter. They see the writing on the wall, and they're pulling out the stops to protect their own hides, even if they have to wreck their own country to do it. Of course, jamming this piece of sh*** down our throats only adds to the long list of reasons we're already pissed as hell at the employers and their elected cronies.
This may be your time, fellas. You may have the upper hand now. The men in power are your boys, and you may get them to vote how you like, even against the clear will of the people who sent them there. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't forget it for a second: our time is coming. You have the cash, but we have the numbers. A whole lot of us have damn long memories. We're gonna remember every bit of this sordid ordeal. And payback, as they say, is a bitch.
"Ted, your 'Amnesty, Disease and Felon Importation Act of 2007' to Chappaquidick America was brilliant.
But your latest idea of using HAMAS from Gaza to replace TSA Inspectors is truly inspired."
I love that picture of the terrorist on the airport xray. Coming to an airport in your country soon...
All the talk about the importance of "the Hispanic vote," and even about business wanting a slave class (which indeed may be true), is secondary...it's the NAU promise that is driving this insanity.
JMO...but by George, I think I've got it.
I think it has more to do with the CFR push to integrate Canada/USA/Mexico into one political unit.
I just think our elected officials have been making a lot of self serving dirty deals with business interests and foreign governments. They laid down with dogs, woke up with fleas, and expect us to itch for them.
I say they’re on their own when it comes to explaining breaking deals that we the people didn’t approve. They made their bed and they can lay in it.
The two goals are not all that mutually exclusive.
Why now? Because neither Republican voters nor Democrat voters want it. Opposition to the bill is in the neighborhood of 80%, which probably includes most blacks, union workers, and even legal Hispanics.
A Republican president was unable to get amnesty through a Republican congress. A Democrat president, supposing hillary is elected next year, will be unable to get it past the labor unions and the blacks without mortally offending them. Each party needs the other to blame the fallout on.
That’s why Harry Reid insisted that this is Bush’s bill, and why Bush needs Teddy Kennedy to take charge of it.
Ironically, IF WE MANAGE TO SHOOT THIS ABOMINATION DOWN, the businesses that hire illegals will be screwed, because the people are waking up to what is being done. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win in 2008, they will be pushed very hard to enforce the law. So they need to make all these people legal NOW.
It’s now or never for both sides. Call your senators and everyone else who has any influence on this, including local politicians and newspapers.
“... the businesses that hire illegals will be screwed...” because it will harder to force us to subsidize their cheap labor.
I think at the highest political levels, i.e., the Bushes, Clintons, certain Senators, and the oligarchy of Mexico it is about creating MexAmeriCanada. Beneath that level, there is an unholy convergence of interests driving this. Business and agriculture want an endless, cheap, easily exploitable source of labor. Both political parties think they’re getting voters, although by and large only the Dems are correct about that. A few bleeding hearts think it’s the nice, compassionate thing to do. A few other misguided souls think this is the way to save Social Security. A few complete and total idiots on Capitol Hill think this is McCain’s path to the Presidency. Pro-Hispanic racist groups want many more Hispanics in this country to expand their power base.
And us poor citizens and legal immigrants just want to keep our security and sovereignty.
For Republican congressmen to risk the elimination of their party the way they are tells me that there is a mindset and an agenda among these people, of both parties, that has taken into account the reality of a new, one-party system in this country if this bill becomes law and the apparent approval of that new system by the entire political class.
I just think that there are too many missing pieces to this puzzle. I know we are not being told everything, I know that if this bill was legitimate there wouldn't be the rush to pass it, there wouldn't be the cloak-and-dagger, underhanded deal-making, and there wouldn't be the President of the United States, in a fit of sanctimonious anger, calling opponents of this monstrosity racist and xenophobic. There is something about this so important to these people that they are willing to do anything to get this enshrined into law.
Hmmm. So it all makes sense, except that it doesn't.
The posit here is that "amnesty" is really not directed at the mex's themselves, but amnesty for big-biz to protect them for when the ultra-antibiz Hillary sweeps all these pro-amnesty congressmen out of office in 2008.
Which, of course, means that Prez-2008 will have the oppty to crack down on illegal-supporting big-businesses even more. Give 30Million mex's amnesty, and there will always be another wave of subsequent illegals to prosecute over.
Supposing Jawa is correct, then he undercuts his own premise right there.
If you're an illegal hiring big-biz owner, then you DO NOT want an amnesty bill. Amnesty gives your existing cheap labor rights to min wage etc. And Amnesty doesn't indemnify you from the Hillary Federal Govt coming down on you in 2009, it makes it worse.
If you're an illegal hiring big-biz owner, you want to keep illegals illegal and cheap, and you want to keep your protectors in congressional seats continuously.
A law cannot protect you because it can be overturned at any given time.
The headline is a good question. The body of the essay may be ignored. There is a severe lack of explaining going on in DC. They may be in the phase where Marie Antoinette commented on the lack of bread.
I also think you’re right.
Sadly, 9/11 is a distant memory for most Democrats, and most Beltway politicians. How else does one explain the unwillingness to enforce our borders?
The link between massive illegal immigration and terror by Arabs is weak. Twenty or thirty million illegal alien Mexicans wandering around is the problem. But, why is that a problem? and terror isn’t it.
Except that the bill ensures the status quo of continued taxpayer subsidies for the employees of the businesses employing illegals, in fact, it writes such subsidies into law.
Without a doubt.
And this particular nut is getting pretty damn big.
The invasion of illegal aliens across the Mexican border amounts to a massive demographic population shift. Our own government is not only encouraging this invasion but will do nothing to protect America against its ravages.
The solution is simple:
1. begin immediately to deport all illegal aliens as they can be caught and apprehended.
2. Impose heavy fines against anyone, person or business, who aids and abets the crime of illegal immigration.
3. Deny any Social Security or Welfare State benefits to non-citizens of whatever national origin.
4. Build a sufficient barrier along the border to keep illegal aliens out of the country.
5. Enforce all immigration laws now in effect.
6. Issue an ID card to all non-citizen.
7. Halt all immigration for 75 years.
8. Allow a time limit guest worker program with proper registration and monitoring systems.
BTW, it’s not true that illegal aliens take jobs Americans will not take. It is true that Americans will not work for the low wages illegal aliens will work for.
Yes, you nailed it. Everything is supposed to be up and functioning by 2010, so this is their opportunity if the trains are going to run on time.
That pic sure says it all.
Ihre Papieren, Bitte!
Don't have papers.
Oh, in that case you're okay. Go ahead.
Speak for yourself. I read the thing, and I read the Congressional Budget office report on it, as well as Rector’s analysis. And I’ve been trying to get ahold of the amendments Dirty Harry agreed to allow to be debated next week. I agree with your solutions.
It’s not just big business executives who want the amnesty. It’s millions of small business owners. For example, We just had our roof on an 11 year old house ripped off and replaced by “Home Depot”. Now what Home Depot and Loews for that matter hires reputable firms who do good work and charge the buyer extra for guaranteed longer life. It is a small house, 1680 Sq. Ft. on a mountain with lots of wind, but they had two crews of about 15 guys on the roof together, doing the job for in about 5 hours with a guaranttee of 50 years, translating to the next buyer if that should happen. Also, landscape crews headed by small business owners are almost totally in the gardening/landscaping business in two southern states where we do a lot of business. There’s is not question that Hispanics are very good workers and most of them undoubtedly are illegal. We have friends in the road construction/black top business. They do hire illegals, they earn a good salary. live in modern double wides with nice interiors, drive newer cars, and have their children well dressed and polite.
P is for pissant. BTW Jeb’s wife is Columba and her dad was a migrant worker. The Wikipedia entry mentions (LOL!) that neither her mother or father was Mestizo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba_Bush
What is in the bill does not matter a whit to the MOTU. Proof is in the fact that they would not even amend it to exclude criminals and scofflaws. What sane being would not vote for that?
No, I have come to the conclusion that the bill is only a MacGuffin. In a nutshell, this was Alfred Hitchcock's term for weird, obtuse turns in the plot that were completely secondary to his main goal of presenting the visual impact and suspense of his movie. Inotherwords, it was difficult to follow where the money was hidden, where the suspect worked, etc. But Lordy...you sure remembered the shower scene, or Cary Grant being cropdusted!
This bill is only a MacGuffin...it is not the goal.
The agenda is a North American Union.
“I think it has more to do with the CFR push to integrate Canada/USA/Mexico into one political unit.....”
BINGO!!BINGO!! If YOU were a huge corporation...would you rather deal with a few corrupt and readily, cheaply bribed
Mexican-type federale official....or a US congresscritter....
I resent paying taxes to subsidize the employees of small business owners as much as I resent paying taxes to subsidize the employees of big businesses.
Neighbor, I believe you are repeating yourself...
That’s exactly right.
George Bush has had a hidden agenda, on so many fronts, since before he was President.
He is manipulative, disingenuous, and downright sneaky.
And he is a condescending elitist, to boot.
Excellent analysis. Quite logical and believable.
The failure to provide adequate border security really does call into question the premise of the war in Iraq, at least in my mind.
Except that no "bill" can do any such thing. The status quo that's passed today can be quietly amended and reversed as an amendment to some other bill next session.
The author proposes that the biz-owners are rammin this through precisely because the status quo is about to change and, according to the author, they want this passed to protect them from the next Prez and Congress which will sweep away all the pro-amnesty congresscritters.
Thus if the author is correct, and their pro-amnesty protectors are swept out of congress, then the big-biz pro-illegals will be even MORE vulnerable in the next congress because their protectors will be gone, and Hillary is going to find a way to crush their balls no matter what legislation is passed this session.
The supporters of amnesty can be wrong, and also believe that it's the right thing to do at the same time.
The pro-amnesty people may just simply believe that what they are doing is the best compromise they can get before Hillary gets in and they have no say, and that doing nothing is worse.
The author's explanation here for their motivation falls short.
I had to repost it, even though you just said it. It was too good. You are dead on the money.
Whatever it takes people...we've got to stop it.
>>The link between massive illegal immigration and terror by Arabs is weak.<<
We don’t know how many terrorists may be sneaking in among the “gardeners and nannies.” Many of the most potentially most lethal terrorists don’t act until the time is right.
The lack of respect for the law is a big problem, and in my view is a significant security risk.
That alone should scare the bejeezus out of most Americans....this thing has been given status ahead of terrorism (it probably encourages it), ahead of the public will and social order, ahead of (either party's) unity, and ahead of the 'legacy' that other presidents have worried so much about.
Tony Snow has gone from conservative icon to banal mouthpiece in one smooth slide - and he seems content with that. Kennedy and McCain, satire for most of their time in office, have risen to lead the charge - while a president who owes neither any allegiance beats the drum for them. Those in support of this beast seem to have no second thoughts about smearing any and all discontent within their own parties and their own constituencies.
I'm scared just at the thought that it has so much intent and force behind it - and I'm really scared at the thought that politicians, theoretically depending on popular votes for their status, are driven to jam it up our collective throat.
The lack of respect for law is right there in ‘amnesty.’ That might mean we can pick and choose which if any laws we want to ignore, as we already do and we could make quite a list no problem. That is the danger. The security thing is a distraction: if laws mean nothing what is left?
The words of St. Thomas More have been coming to my mind more and more lately:
"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Am I being naive, or should there not be some type of publication of the who’s who of the corporations attempting to get this railroaded through? Companies that are worried about losing customers over losing cheap labor might reconsider this push if they thought it might actually not benefit them in the long run. Or hopefully might damage them in the short and long term. This is getting frighteningly close.
Good one! More joked around a lot, but he was right.