Stop Amnesty Now!
The American people once again need to step up and rebuke the political and chattering class in Washington, DC. But you need to take action NOW to stop the Senate Amnesty For Illegal Invaders Act of 2007.
Send a FAX to your Senator NOW via NumbersUSA to urge them to VOTE NO on the entire Amnesty legislation.
Meantime, in a rare and stunning move, House Republicans discovered a backbone today…
Immigration Reform Caucus Chairman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) joined Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, to unveil two new border security and immigration initiatives—a comprehensive border security and immigration reform bill as well as a resolution calling for full enforcement of all current immigration laws. The two new measures represent a strong ‘Security First-No Amnesty’ alternative to the Kennedy-Bush Senate Amnesty bill.
“We decided to take action today rather than wait for the Senate to pass an amnesty bill the American people clearly do not want,” Bilbray said. “There is no reason why Congress shouldn’t take immediate action to secure our borders, strengthen our immigration laws, implement true interior enforcement and establish a working employer verification system.”
The Secure Borders FIRST (For Integrity, Reform, Safety and anti-Terrorism) Act of 2007 will mandate operational control of all our borders and ensure better enforcement of current U.S. immigration laws.
Hallelujah!
Whatever you do on Wednesday and Thursday, take time out to get involved in the future of your nation. Call your United States Senators and tell him or her to VOTE NO on the Senate Immigration bill. No Amendments! No Passage!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
36 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Should this bill pass into law, the citizens of this country will witness an economic, social, and demographic experiment unlike any other. The outcome of this experiment may well mean doom.
Bush and his pals in the Senate want to shove this down our throats whether we want it or not.
Enforcement of existing laws first… then we can look at the rest.
Comment by Robert — June 19, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - June 19, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Stop Amnesty Now! — June 19, 2007 @ 10:18 pm - June 19, 2007
One good piece of news from this whole mess is that it appears to have killed McCain’s presidential campaign. It would be interesting if it turns out that the House ends up blocking this because the Democrats strategy of using Blue Dogs in Red States to gain seats backfires on them.
Comment by John — June 19, 2007 @ 10:44 pm - June 19, 2007
NO AMNESTY!!!!! For Libby either!!!!!
Comment by sean — June 19, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - June 19, 2007
#4
Oh GOD no! Can’t have a political witch hunt with no results. Gotta justify that Fitz-fong expense account too.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 20, 2007 @ 12:45 am - June 20, 2007
Maybe our elected officials are feeling a bit of the heat finally! I expected to have more support from the Congress as opposed to the Senate. Shorter terms mean they are much more in touch with us working folks, lol.
Comment by Rico J. Halo — June 20, 2007 @ 1:19 am - June 20, 2007
It would be interesting if it turns out that the House ends up blocking this because the Democrats strategy of using Blue Dogs in Red States to gain seats backfires on them.
You’re close, John.
In Nancy Pelosi’s House, there is no such thing as a Blue Dog; she pruned anyone with a modicum of independent thought a long time ago. What the Dems did was simple; they lied to their constituency and pretended to be “Blue Dogs”.
That’s why the immigration issue first came up in the Senate; if they killed it off there, the electoral impact would be minimal. The Democrat strategy has been to avoid at all costs votes on issues like immigration, where the public is adamantly opposed to their position.
These Reps made a brilliant strategic deduction — by simply realizing that Nancy Pelosi’s position, which she would force on the rest of the Democrat caucus or risk seriously weakening her power, is completely opposite to what most Americans want.
And by the time this is over, those so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats will be on the record as having voted against enforcement of immigration law, voted against penalties for forging identification documents, and voted against any real benchmarks and enhancements for border security.
That should play well to an electorate that, by overwhelming majorities, wants all of these.
Make sure, my friends, that everyone knows that story I cited above, clearly outlining that the Democrat Party — and its leftist gay puppets — OPPOSES any and all enforcement of immigration law.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2007 @ 3:17 am - June 20, 2007
I can live with Bush pardoning someone caught up in what turned out to be a non-crime (i.e. the so-called “Plame Affair”). It certainly beats Clinton’s pardon of Puerto Rican terrorists.
Comment by John — June 20, 2007 @ 6:11 am - June 20, 2007
I have no doubt that such did occur last year, but they’ve already been flexing their muscles on some things like Iraq. Blue Dogs may be more tolerable than your average Democrat but are still Democrats so don’t miss them by comparing them to a Republican template. At any rate, whether by conviction or fear of losing power on this issue I’ll take them however I can.
Comment by John — June 20, 2007 @ 6:15 am - June 20, 2007
Amnesty Yes!
Comment by arturo fernandez — June 20, 2007 @ 10:30 am - June 20, 2007
#10 - Libtards NO!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 20, 2007 @ 11:44 am - June 20, 2007
I still do not buy the argument that what is proposed is “amnesty”. It may not be harsh enough, but amnesty implies a fairly-passive obligation on the recipient; and paying back taxes, fines and going to the back fo the legitimate-line seems onerous to many..especially for those who have worked low-income jobs over the years. Should the fines be stiffer? Perhaps.
The part I just don’t see as pragmatic-enough is the requirement to return home and file the paperwork there. Why not at the Consular facilty here? What proved by their traveling home, when they also will have the right to return immediately? Is it there just to make you…the anti-immigrant…happier? Exact a pound-of-flesh?
Seems to me that getting everyone out-in-the-light now; paying their taxes; driving our roads legally with insurance; and regularizing an efficient guest-worker program would make regaining control of the Border easier by reducing the hydraulic pressure behind the border. …Not increasing the pressure by encouraging those thinking about immigration to get moving now BEFORE the documentatin-phase starts.
Want to do something right now? Start arresting employers and managers not enforcing current law. Make the penalities for employing the undocumented much harsher. Crack-down on the abuses of technical and professional-skills visas that allow whole clans to enter America because we “need” one particular worker. Start throwing “white people” into jail and you will get faster results in reducing illegal employment than deporting the undocumented “brown”.
My apoligies for using the stereotypical “broad brush”, but I think you’ll get my point.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 20, 2007 @ 11:54 am - June 20, 2007
Start arresting employers and managers not enforcing current law. Make the penalities for employing the undocumented much harsher.
Not until the penalty for forging identification documents is made much stiffer and a database is put in place that allows instant checks of Social Security numbers.
Here’s the reality I see every day, Ted — literally, since this location is on my way to work.
On a typically bright and sunny day on the corner of 24th and Mission in San Francisco, the trade in forged birth certificates and Social Security cards flows with the same efficiency as the burrito shops that surround the BART rail station. On this day I watched three people order or pick up their papers in the period of an hour, none of them appearing concerned that he or she was breaking the law.
And here’s how good they’re getting:
Nelson took off again. In front of West Coast Growers, she dropped a wallet into an abandoned shopping cart. Lodrick, still after her, picked up the wallet — also Prada — and found an entire set of identification, including credit cards, a Social Security card and a debit card all in the name of Karen Lodrick. Later, when she returned to the bank that had been her original destination that morning and took possession of the lost driver’s license, it was a perfect forgery — with a hologram and a California seal — and it had Lodrick’s name but Nelson’s photo and physical characteristics.
“You can buy the technology (to add marks and holograms) on your computer from companies that have legitimate government contracts and then make a lot of money selling the technology to people they must know are not legitimate,” Fairbairn said. “Millions and millions of dollars.” The black market, he said, is “a growth industry.”
The reason Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy oppose enforcement of and cracking down on identification forgery is simple; the forged documents you need to get a job in the United States — a driver’s license and Social Security card or birth certificate — are the same as the ones you need to register to vote. And illegal immigrants, especially since so many of them are illiterate and desperate, are a ready-made population for Dems to exploit for voter fraud with cash, as they have with the black community for years.
Crack-down on the abuses of technical and professional-skills visas that allow whole clans to enter America because we “need” one particular worker.
Why on earth would I do that?
Do you have any idea how many of the kids of employees my company brought over on visas a) have become naturalized and b) are graduating from good colleges with technology degrees and developing innovative ideas for US firms?
Realize, Ted, that here in California, leftist lesbians like Sheila Kuehl oppose mandatory teaching standards and testing for math, science, and English — but support both for lesbian sex education and gay history. Thus, I have a choice for my global business in a very cutthroat industry of bringing in skilled, bilingual workers with master’s degrees and a work ethic or liberal-educated “college graduates” who can’t read or spell their own language, but can tell me all about the importance of cunnulingus.
Furthermore, if people are coming in on visas, that means the government knows exactly how and when they got here, what they’re doing, who they’re working for, what they’re being paid, how many came with them, and how long they can stay.
Can you imagine how nice it would be to have that for EVERY immigrant?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - June 20, 2007
Ted-
I’d suggest asking anyone who is following the rules and trying to become a citizen legally if THEY think the Senate bill is amnesty for those who came here illegally.
Comment by GayPatriot — June 20, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - June 20, 2007
Bingo, GP.
Why should people pay for the entire visa process, endure the full background check, AND wait for years…..when they can sneak across the border and get all of the above immediately?
Better yet, why should people pay for a visa at all…..when they can simply forge documents giving them the full rights of a US citizen without having to worry about being caught (since Dems oppose enforcement of immigration laws), punished (since Dems oppose criminal penalties for document forgery), or deported (since Dems oppose deportation of illegal immigrants), and keep the money they would have had to spend on a visa or income taxes?
The 12-million-ton elephant in the room that far too many people are dodging around is that nothing — the guest worker program, the Z visa, Real ID — will be effective until people realize that, without any of the above, you will be imprisoned and deported, with no chance of return. Period.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - June 20, 2007
You will NEVER deport 12-million illegals. Half of the threat is moot when the country of origin refuses to cooperate in the first place. Are you willing to accept house-to-house searches? Random car-stops? Wholesale round-ups? Where are you going to ship them?
Go after the employers. It’s jobs in America that attracts them. You are dealing with an employment-powered vacuum, not a economic or political pressure to cross the border. Jail the managers, confiscate the business assets, fine the owners; choke-off the reason they are here in the first place. Follow the money….
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 20, 2007 @ 6:15 pm - June 20, 2007
Ted, I completely agree. I have no problem with a REAL and aggressive employer crackdown to dry up the reasons illegals are coming here.
By the way, why are the unions so quiet on the topic when it is their consituency that is most economically harmed by an influx of illegal, cheap labor?
Comment by GayPatriot — June 20, 2007 @ 7:31 pm - June 20, 2007
Jail the managers, confiscate the business assets, fine the owners; choke-off the reason they are here in the first place.
Which ones, Ted?
The ones who are prohibited by law from firing employees because their Social Security numbers don’t match their records — which you can’t determine until months after you’ve hired a person?
The ones who don’t have the capability or means to determine whether or not identification documents are forged — because there is no uniform standard for IDs in the United States?
If you want to follow that route, there are three places you should really target; the government-sponsored day-labor centers that shelter and shop out illegal immigrants, the front of Home Depot and Lowe’s, and labor unions. Indeed, if you wanted to make a serious dent in the places most likely to “hire” illegal immigrants, pass a law requiring that union membership be subject to the same right-to-work document requirements as employers.
And the very ironic thing is this; the more illegal immigrants you deport, the more disruptive it is to the business of those who hire them. Just as you wouldn’t want to hire an employee who you expect to ditch you in a matter of weeks, deportations are a powerful incentive to make sure that your workers have the right to be in the United States — since it vastly increases your odds that they’ll show up for work tomorrow.
Are you willing to accept house-to-house searches? Random car-stops? Wholesale round-ups? Where are you going to ship them?
House-to-house searches are mitigated when you pass laws forbidding anyone who is in the country illegally to purchase or rent housing (which, ironically, would be the same law as Mexico)
Random car-stops are what the police SHOULD be doing, because virtually every illegal immigrant is driving without a license.
Wholesale roundups are what you get when you conduct immigration raids against the business owners you want to punish.
And where are we going to ship them? Their home country. Personally, I’m all for the government establishing immigration ports on both coasts, buying a few dozen cruise ships, returning people to Chiapas or Cancun, and bringing back LEGAL immigrants.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - June 20, 2007
By the way, why are the unions so quiet on the topic when it is their consituency that is most economically harmed by an influx of illegal, cheap labor?
Because, GPW, union dues do not necessarily fluctuate with salary, and the more people you can conscript into a union, the more dues you can collect.
Leftist Democrats know a bonanza when they see one; they simply conscript immigrants, most of whom are barely literate and are used to paying kickbacks to bosses for arranging work, into union membership. They know these people will pay their dues and do as they’re told — and if they don’t, the union will out them to la migra.
This is why I suggested above that probably the most effective employer limitation that could be made is to require people to be able to legally work in the United States in order to join a union.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - June 20, 2007
This business of expecting American Business to police lllegal immigrants is impossible and horribly unfair. As it is, business is expected to be a tax collector for the government. Imagine if the people had to write out checks for sales tax each month like they do a gas or electric bill. Instead they demanded businesses do the job and roll it into prices. Same with this immigration crap. Keep illegals out, have trackable ID cards and businesses can do what they do best…paint houses, manufacture things and serve their customers instead of doing the jobs of government employees. Entrepreneurs are trained to create and manufacture things and services not “police” criminals. When I hire a person we ask for 2 pieces of ID. A birth certificate and a SS card suffice. How the hell do I know if one or both are counterfeit? Unless you want to train business people like we are FBI agents, this is unfair.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 20, 2007 @ 9:42 pm - June 20, 2007
Just read that the Democrat Congress approval ratings have sunk to 14%. Yep fourteen percent. Anyone know if that is an American record? The Pelosi Reid experiment is truly amazing. If we had a parlimentary form of government, we could overthrow the corrupt lying bums and move forward.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 20, 2007 @ 9:46 pm - June 20, 2007
#11 - Peter H, not surprising that you would consider libertarians retards. They do offer the best defense of “illegal immigrants”.
I’m in the western end of the San Fernando Valley, L.A. You can drive around this middle class neighborhood any day and see mexican-looking men in the hot sun keeping homes’ lawns and gardens beautiful for some twenty-five bucks a visit. Every home, almost without exception. It doesn’t take a genius to know these men are illegal immigrants. I’ve met some and they tell me the home owners never asked to see “documents”. I haven’t read all comments here, but most I read wish for a good prison sentence for employers of illegal immigrants. That would wipe-out my neighborhood. I’m for amnesty because I like neighbors, even if they’re republican hypocrites.
Comment by arturo fernandez — June 20, 2007 @ 10:43 pm - June 20, 2007
How sad to see a minority beating up on another minority.
Comment by arturo fernandez — June 20, 2007 @ 10:48 pm - June 20, 2007
A couple of minor corrections. Capitalize Republicans, and add “my” to “I like my neighbors.”
Amnesty Si.
Comment by arturo fernandez — June 21, 2007 @ 12:35 am - June 21, 2007
And, to my point and Peter’s above, this is how endemic document fraud is.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2007 @ 1:57 am - June 21, 2007
#22-23: “Peter H, not surprising that you would consider libertarians retards. They do offer the best defense of “illegal immigrants”. ”
Actually, mi estimado Fernando, I never address libertarians as such. “Libtards” is a conjunction of the words “Liberal Retards.”
That being said, I take offense at being called a “minority.” Being gay does not necessarily mean you are a minority, unless your orientation means more to you than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone who thinks of themselves as a “minority” has some serious victimization issues.
“I’m for amnesty because I like neighbors, even if they’re republican hypocrites.”
I think you just spelled it out for all of us here how your mind works. You are no more different than typical champagne socialists who whine about the plight of the “common man” while dining at a chic 5-star Manhattan restaurant with your diamonds, pearls and Prada chic.
That’s like Ted Kennedy says he supports amnesty because the latina en la cocina tiene tatas grandes. Or better yet, because someone like Barney Frank can hire a hot leaf-blower who (shall we say) can multi-task.
Que lastima.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 21, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - June 21, 2007
Arturo, I would also agree with Peter; my nationality as an American is more important to me than my minority status as a gay person.
And, if I may, when Latino illegal immigrants, as part of their gang initiations, are assaulting and stabbing gay people, your rhetoric about minorities needing to stick together falls amazingly flat.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - June 21, 2007
#27 - Right on, ND30. Call a Mexican a “maricon” and see if you walk away from that. Machismo is still rampant south of the border.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 21, 2007 @ 12:50 pm - June 21, 2007
At least our lower-case-clan friend “arturo” admits the Senate legislation IS amnesty!
Comment by GayPatriot — June 21, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - June 21, 2007
I’m happy to report that the senior senator from my home state of Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), has publicly announced that she will vote NO on bringing the bill back to life.
The lady can teach the waffling gentlemen on her side of the aisle a thing or two about being a “steel magnolia.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 21, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - June 21, 2007
You guys are waaay overcompensating for the image of the homosexual outsider. Intergration as a general rule is good, I recommend it highly, for gays like for immigrants. But joining in with hypocrites does no one any good. Not society, and not you as gay americans.
Comment by arturo fernandez — June 21, 2007 @ 8:56 pm - June 21, 2007
#31 - Arturo, I hate to break this news to you, but being gay means being non-heterosexual. And since being heterosexual defines 90% of the world, then I don’t exactly know how much more “outsider” you can get.
Plus, how exactly is one “joining with hypocrites?” Unless you join the DNC, that is. But I digress.
I’ve always said the following truth: Conservatives like you for WHO you are. Liberals like you for WHAT you are.
Again, if you wish to define yourself as being a gay person rather than a human being, eso es tu problema.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 22, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - June 22, 2007
You’re dreaming if you think 10% of the world is gay.
I gave you an example of hypocricy: middle-class Republican voters who, I guess, believe their gardens are being “invaded” (for twenty-five bucks a visit) by illegal immigrants. In joining their outrage over illegal immigrant “invaders”, you’re joining them in their hypocricy. If you were trying to make your readers think you countered that with an argument in Spanish, I hereby let your readers know that that’s not what your Spanish did: “tatas grandes” means “big tits”.
Illegal immigration is caused by all of us, you and me, consumers, who naturally seek out the least expensive products and services to buy. Consumers want low prices, it’s how consumers get low prices. The businessman knows what the consumer values, with illegal immigrants the consumer is getting what he values. It’s capitalism, and in America we’re for it.
Calling them “illegals” and “invaders” is the equivalent of calling you a “fag”.
Comment by arturo fernandez — June 22, 2007 @ 9:30 pm - June 22, 2007
#33 - Que lastima - tu tienes muchas problems.
“You’re dreaming if you think 10% of the world is gay.”
I am merely quoting to you what the HRC and their associated groups say. So if you have a problem with those facts, tell them, not me.
“If you were trying to make your readers think you countered that with an argument in Spanish, I hereby let your readers know that that’s not what your Spanish did: “tatas grandes” means “big tits”.”
Well DUH - that’s exactly what I meant to say. I happen to speak and write Spanish fluently, including the ubiquitous “Tex-Mex” lingo so popular in my neck of the woods.
My point was that the only way some champagne socialist like Ted Kennedy would get involved with illegal aliens is if his kitchen maid (with the tatas grandes) were to be deported. Because he and his ilk are the type that would pay less-than-normal wages to someone who came into this country illegally.
“Calling them “illegals” and “invaders” is the equivalent of calling you a “fag”.”
How so? If you cross any border without permits or papers, you are “illegal” and you are “invading.” It’s called being ACCURATE.
Que tonteria.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 23, 2007 @ 5:56 pm - June 23, 2007
Viva the U S of A. Even with Peter Hughes around. Amnesty Yes.
Comment by arturo fernandez — June 24, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - June 24, 2007
#35 - “Si” on your first two statements. “NO” on the last one.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 25, 2007 @ 11:36 am - June 25, 2007