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?