I have watched this video of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) three times and still have yet to find anything to which I object. (Transcript follows the jump.)
As with my new fat best friend, here’s a guy who says what needs to be said:
I have watched this video of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) three times and still have yet to find anything to which I object. (Transcript follows the jump.)
As with my new fat best friend, here’s a guy who says what needs to be said:
On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.
Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.
The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:
“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”
Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.
Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?
Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.
GP Ed Note – I added the BOLD to Palin’s words.
Did America witness another Carrie Prejean moment last night?
Miss Oklahoma, Taylor Treat (great name if she needs, um, a different line of work) was asked a question by judge Oscar Nunez (I had to Google him to find out he’s some sort of b-rate commedian and actor) this weekend at the Miss America pageant. Nunez started his question about the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law that, according to him “authorizes law-enforcement authorities to check the citizenship of anyone they believe may be in the country illegally.” At this point, the reaction from the crowd grew to a point he couldn’t ignore, and he implored the audience to “now, listen to the question before you boo.”
Perhaps they were booing because Nunez was (just like the press, and the president) misstating what the law said. Likely he (just like the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security) hasn’t even read it, but will gladly criticize it.
While Treat’s response starts out pretty good (“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America.”), she tends toward the more can’t-we-all-get-along mushyness toward the end.
Meh, what can you do? It’s just a silly beauty pageant.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
I’m a day behind this week for some reason. Anyway, I was going to put this post up first thing tomorrow thinking that today is May 4th. Nope.
So to illustrate how meaningless Cinco de Mayo is to me, I’m going to link to this slasher post about the “made for beer” holiday.
If it weren’t for beer companies, most Americans wouldn’t know about Cinco de Mayo, a celebration of – well, I’m just not sure. It originated as a commemoration of the anniversary of a victory on May 5, 1862, by the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. (Wow, if everyone celebrated when they defeated the French military, fighting thousands of miles from home, in a desert… half of Africa would be celebrating Cinco de Mayo.) But in recent years it’s become a celebration of victimhood, partially by those here illegally, at the hands of the evil white people who built up the Welfare, Medicare, and Education systems and wanted to spread goodwill towards those who seek a better life in America.
So, instead of this being another beer holiday where we loosely celebrate another culture such as St. Patrick’s Day… Cinco de Mayo has become a full-on assault of American culture. Speakers at rallies across the country will proclaim that the rest of us are racists and that obeying the law should be the last to do. I’m not saying that those here illegally should all be rounded up and sent back especially, as Ann Coulter said, “smoking-hot Latin guys who stand around not wearing shirts between workouts.” But at LEAST get some better border protection to mitigate against an even bigger crises.
Nor should we forget the richness that legal Mexican immigrants (and their decendants) have added to American culture. But I will not feel guilty about wanting to protect that American culture… and American laws.
I’ll drink to that!
Just before I learned we got hacked on Friday, I had planned a couple of posts, the first on immigration, pointing out my ambivalence on the Arizona law which has caused such hysteria in the media. In an ideal world, I would oppose such legislation, but, in the real world in states like Arizona, I understand that sometimes we must take drastic action to confront an increase in crime.
The Arizona legislature thought this action was necessary to protect their citizens. Provided safeguards are in place to ensure that police do not randomly stop citizens because of their ethnic background or foreign accent, a law requiring an individual to provide verification of his immigration seems a reasonable precaution.
If it’s such a bad thing to ask for such verification, Mark Hemingway wonders why “Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.”
The Arizona law would like be unnecessary if the federal government secured our border. And U.S Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is right on the money when he says, “President Barack Obama should force on securing the border before bringing up immigration reform“, saying
. . . that border security would have to precede any conversations on comprehensive immigration reform, for which an outline of legislation was released by Senate Democrats this week.
“When the border’s secure, then we can deal with people illegally here, and how they become citizens or not,” Alexander said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Once the border is secure, we can move onto the more difficult issues of how to deal with those who are already here. The problem with “amnesty” is not just rewarding those who have broken the law to come here, but also that it encourages other people to follow suit. If the border is closed, that would make such journeys much more difficult.
Yesterday he had a great piece in his daily newsletter that outlined the much more moderated, level-headed, and sober criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. (You know, the one MSNBC declared “Makes it a Crime to be [an] Illegal Immigrant”.) I’ll cut and paste at length below the jump.
Well, leave it to Connie Mack, a guy who represents the 14th CD of Florida (which includes not a border with a dangerously unstable narco-nation, but, rather Naples) to destroy the concept of a temperate and reasoned objection (of which, admittedly, there are some):
This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause
Perhaps Representative Mack should do some investigating before he opened his mouth. The part I highlighted above is completely untrue and misrepresents the law totally. It could have come from Keith Olbermann. Maybe it did.
Clearly put, the law requires law enforcement to check citizenship only while engaged in “lawful contact“, i.e., pulled over already for, say, speeding or hazardously driving. Can this law perhaps be abused by bad cops? Abso-freakin’-lutely. But so can all the laws up to now. Not that this isn’t a legitimate concern, but to characterize this as some sort of Hitler-esque Stasi move is ridiculous and below a Congressman. Espeically a Republican one. Having an issue with this and it making one feel uncomfortable is fair. I’m not totally sold on it myself. But come on, Connie.
Much will be made, no doubt, about this article, noting how Communist thug Fidel Castro considers the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 (is my name for it starting to make sense now?!) a “miracle” and “about time”.
Now, ask any Tea Partier and he’ll tell you you can’t choose your fans any more than you can choose your family members. Fair enough, but look at what else Fidel wants the US to do, post haste:
…the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform
Hm… climate change
Now, I’m not one to suggest that Obama is taking his cues from our nearest Communist dictator. Just that it surely is curious that he’s pretty much doing just what his “amigo” suggests he should.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)
It is a chilling question and one that has been troubling me for about two weeks. I read the “low grade civil war” phrase as a declarative statement from a commenter on a news story about the Congressional Town Hall meetings and it has been rattling in my brain ever since.
I’ve been wanting to post about this question and today seemed like the right time since now I’m not the only one worried about this question. In today’s Washington Times, actor/activist Jon Voight makes this statement:
“There’s a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?” Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.
“We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can’t see this is probably hoping it isn’t true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation.”
“Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don’t know what that method is, I implore you to get the book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods.”
Now this is old news to anyone who really studied Obama’s past. And I’m not as concerned about this kind of argument, nor the “birthers” distraction.
Here are my real fears about the United States heading into a civil war:
These are serious issues that fundamentally challenge the formation of the Republic itself. Don’t buy into the childish arguments that every criticism of the Federal Government is based in racism. That is ignorant and simple-minded talk.
I hope I am wrong, but my perspective has been reinforced by my reading of a 1997 book called “The Fourth Turning”. I’ll do a review later, but needless to say — it is a chilling book that talks about unmovable historical cycles. We are in The Crisis period now, according to the authors.
I’m anxious for a vigorous and respectful discussion on my question posed here. No Americans in 1773 knew there would be a Revolution; no Americans in 1857 knew there would be a bloody Civil War; no Americans in 1928 knew there would be a global Depression and a 2nd global war.
Ah, only in the City by the Bay would a Federal law-breaking gay guy be named to the Board of Supervisors by theÂ California law-breaking Mayor.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom swore in openly gay attorney David Campos to replace Tom Ammiano on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Ammiano won his election to the California State Assembly on Nov. 4, carrying a Victory Fund endorsement.
Campos, who will represent the city’s ninth district, came to the United States at the age of 14 as an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala. He became an American citizen in 1997, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
â€œI might be the first undocumented person elected to the Board of Supervisors,â€ Campos said to cheers. â€œI think it’s only fitting in this very difficult time to be an immigrant that something like this would happen in San Francisco. It says a lot about the city.â€
Arghhhhhhhhh.Â Â Is there some way to saw off San Fran and allow it to be its own country?Â Which is worse?Â The fact he was an illegal immigrant…. or that he’s a lawyer?
By the way, The Victory Fund folks want me to be happy cuz he’s openly gay.Â I guess gay trumps “rule of law” now.Â Â
And just exactly what is so interesting about a gay guy on the San Fran Board of Supervisors?Â I’d just assume they were all gays or lesbians by now.Â Â Is there gay discrimination in elections in San Fran?Â
So enforcement of US immigration laws is terrorism to Mr. Obama? Oh my. Such an audacious display of shameless pandering could be admirable, as far as practical politics go, if it didn’t betray the utter cluelessness of the man. Ed Morrissey from Hot Air asks a very pertinent question that the Obamessiah needs to answer:
[I]f that’s what Obama thinks of ICE, why has he done nothing about them during the three years he’s been in the Senate?
Well, Senator, what say you? Surely if ICE has behaved in such a nefarious manner as you suggest they have it would be incumbent upon a man of your position to do something to stop them. What exactly have you done about this, other than campaigning for the highest office in the land after only a year’s experience as a junior senator?
– John (Average Gay Joe)
I’m telling you, I’m on the verge of not voting for President in November and just sticking with putting my energy into the NC Governor’s Race.Â
Just when I’m starting to think that McCain is the better of two evils, he says something that completely disgusts me and, more importantly, concerns me about his willingness to sacrifice the fundamental principles of the United States of America.
QUESTIONER: Senator, you have been a leader on immigration reform in the Senate but unfortunately Congress has failed to make progress on this very critical issue. As the next President of the Unites States of America will comprehensive immigration reform, and not just enforcement, be one of your top policy priorities in you’re first 100 days in office?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: It will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
The first part is bad enough.Â Â But it gets worse….
And my friends, thank you for the question, and let me just review for you again, we tried. I reached across the aisle to Senator Ted Kennedy, and by the way I know that he’s in your prayers, and we worked in bipartisan fashion. And we were defeated. And by the way, it wasn’t very popular, let’s have some straight talk, with some in my party, and so I did that and worked together so we could carry out a federal responsibility.
We have to secure our borders, that’s the message. But we also must proceed with a temporary worker program that is verifiable and truly temporary, we must also understand that there are 12 million people who are here and they are here illegally and they are God’s children, they are God’s children and they will be treated in a humane fashion based on the principle obviously that someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally.
Although Byron York reports that “The McCain campaign says that in the answer above, McCain fumbled the words “legally” and “illegally” when he said that “someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally,” and they want to assure readers he was not setting some bold new policy“…. it doesn’t much matter.
What McCain doesn’t seem to realize is that “God’s Children” do not have an “automatic divineÂ right” to American citizenship.Â Especially if they break the laws of this country in the process of getting here.Â What the hell is wrong with him?
Since McCain thinks that anyone who enters the country illegally has automatic dibs on US citizenship, and since the Supreme Court believes that Constitutional legal protection shouldÂ extend toÂ non-US, foreign enemy combantants, then I say — let’s just go for the full monty.
No more immigration laws, dismantle the border crossings, no customs checks at airport.Â Â Just open it all up and let chaos reign.
Oh and by the way, I’ll stop paying my US taxes immediately… become a citizen of Canada…. and then re-enter the USA illegally (along withÂ some Al-QaedaÂ sleepers, I’m sure)Â to get all of the benefits of the US Constitution that I have now — but this time for free!!
The time has come as I finally get my official “say” in the 2008 election.Â Tomorrow is the North Carolina Primary!Â And we have a lot going on in the Tar Heel state besides that one primary race you are hearing a lot about.
So for all of you from North Carolina who read GayPatriotÂ or have family/friends that do…. here are my official, personal endorsements.Â (GP Ed. Note:Â I respectfully stillÂ disagree with Dan on his support of John McCain, so these are my PERSONAL endorsements).
FOR REPUBLICAN NC GOVERNOR:Â Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory.
It is about time that the largest metro area in the state have a larger say in Raleigh.Â Our voice has been minimized lately because the former DEMOCRAT from our area who was the Speaker of the House is sitting his ass in jail due to massive corruption.
McCrory is the seven-term Mayor of the City of Charlotte.Â He has governed with, what I would call, a conservative pragmatism.Â Not perfect, but just right for being a Republican mayor in the second largest city in the South. (Yes, that’s right Atlanta!)Â Â He has made jobÂ growth, fightingÂ crime and cracking down on illegal immigration the cornerstones of his campaign.Â Â Â I think he is the best GOP candidate to win back the Governor’s Mansion for conservative governing this year.
DISCLOSURE:Â I am a proud financial contributor to McCrory for Governor.
FOR DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION:Â Senator Hillary Clinton
As a proud footsoldier of Operation Chaos, it is my duty to urge unaffiliated and switched-Republicans in North Carolina to VOTE HILLARY!!! (I think a little vomit justÂ came up…)Â Â Â
Ahem, anyway… if we have to have a Democrat in the White House I’d much rather have the devil we know than the silver-tongued devil we don’t know.Â Â Â
OhÂ yeah….and on gay rights — Hillary, Obama & McCain are all the same; why waste my breath on that topic?
FOR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION:Â “NONE OF THE ABOVE”
We have a cool option on the North Carolina ballot that I plan to use tomorrow:Â None Of The Above (NOTA); technically the spot on the ballot reads: No Preference – Republican.
I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain who, without the pantsuitÂ and cackle, looks to be a lot like Hillary Clinton rather than Ronald Reagan to me.Â I fear the unchecked PresidentÂ McCain (with support/acquiensence)Â of the Democratic Congress) will roll the clock back on securing the border, ensuring economic growth and may allow millions of Americans to be vaporized because he doesn’t want to even consider the Jack Bauer-treatment of terror suspects.Â Don’t even get me started about the threat as PresidentÂ he poses due to his blatant disregard to the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment (McCain-Feingold).
Sorry John…. you may have won over others in the Republican Party — but you have a LONG way to go with me.Â Â I can at least let you know how I feel … with my vote for ‘NOTA’ tomorrow in North Carolina.
In my pro-McCrory for NC Governor posting on Thursday, I made the following sweeping statement….
None of the other GOP candidates can make the same claims since they don’t have executive experience and have not made illegal immigration a priority like McCrory has.
At the time I wrote it, I nearly didn’t because I thought it was too sweeping and I admittedly haven’t studied every piece of the other GOP candidates’ platforms in their campaigns for NC Governor.
So, I’m happy to present another side (and a correction-of-sorts) from an email I received from a Fred Smith for NC Governor supporter.
Fred Smith has been campaigning all over the state and since August has visited all 100 counties at least once. He has set out specific things he would do as governor. He has talked at length in every county he has visited about the problems caused by illegal immigration, what it costs the state and what the governor could do to address the problem. He has the support of sheriffs all over the state and has talked with them at length asking them what they need to address the problem.
This reader also referred me to a speech given by Smith which includes strong words against illegal immigration.
We believe that we are, as our national motto says, one nation under God. And we believe we ought to speak the English language. And the problem we have today is we have illegal aliens coming to this country with such velocity that they’re overwhelming our melting pot and the reason for that is the federal government has let us down on border security. The federal government has let us down on upholding the rule of law and that’s going to leave it to the states and the state of North Carolina to put a Band-Aid on this problem.
And as governor I would do four things. The first is I would try to make sure that every sheriff’s department had a chance to be a part of the 287(g) program to catch, detain, and deport illegal aliens violating our laws. Second, if you get a driver’s license you be legally entitled to get a driver’s license in this state. Common sense says if that’s what they do in
Mexicothat’s what we ought to be able to do here in . The third thing, we need to pass illegal immigration reform like the states of Georgia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Colorado, have to say if a government agency or institution is going to give a benefit they must enforce federal law which they ask are you legally entitled to this benefit. And fourth we need to have a voter ID card to protect the integrity of our voting system. North Carolina
Sounds good to me. I’m still a staunch McCrory supporter, but I’m happy that Smith is taking a strong stand on illegal immigration, too!
Republican NC gubernatorial candidate (and Charlotte Mayor) Pat McCrory has a new ad up touting his success in cracking down on illegal immigrants. None of the other GOP candidates can make the same claims since they don’t have executive experience and have not made illegal immigration a priority like McCrory has.
Primary Election day is May 6. Go, Pat, go!
DISCLAIMER: I have personally contributed to the McCrory for Governor campaign
The $146 billion stimulus package intended to jolt the economy by giving taxpayers rebates up to $1,200 includes cash returns for illegal immigrants who pay taxes.
Under the plan passed by the House, illegal immigrants who qualify as “resident aliens” and earned a minimum of $3,000 would be eligible for rebates of between $300-$600, FOX News has learned.
Only those illegals who have been assigned an Individual Tax Identification Number that allows them to file income taxes would be eligible. Resident aliens are defined as people who spend a “substantial” amount of time in the U.S. and have not been deported.
The provision has irked illegal immigration opponents, who say the assigning of TINs and collection of taxes from illegals sanctions their presence in the country.
Luckily, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) is making a stink about this horrible new incentive to cross the US-Mexico border.
I wonder what GOP Frontrunner John McAmnesty thinks about this provision. Do I have any confidence that CNN will even ask the question at tonight’s debate?
PS — Yours truly, a legal-natural born resident of the USA for 39 years, will be getting no “rebate” with my own tax dollars.
UPDATE (from GPW): This is McCain’s chance to show that he has heard from conservatives concerned about his immigration stance. Let’s hope he supports Ensign on this.
In a recent Associated Press-Pew Research Center poll, 17 percent of likely Republican voters in the New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary named illegal immigration as the one issue they want to hear candidates talk about, making it second only to Iraq. In Iowa, where caucuses kick of the presidential nominating season, immigration was the leading issue for 18 percent of Republicans, ahead of Iraq.
The figures are somewhat surprising in New Hampshire, a state of 1.3 million people with a small immigrant population and even smaller illegal one. There were 14,000 more foreign-born residents in the state last year than in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A report last year by the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the state is home to somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 illegal immigrants.
Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said he has believed for a year or so that illegal immigration would be important in the GOP primary because it strikes so many chords. There’s the economic argument: Illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. There’s the legal one: They’re breaking the law. There’s the cultural argument: They’re not assimilating into American culture.”
A sizable majority — an average of 65 percent of voters in those three states [Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania] — said that they would vote for the candidate they agreed with on other issues but not on immigration. But an average of 22 percent said that illegal immigration could be a deal-breaker for them when it comes to voting for a candidate.
That would be a significant number in a close election. Most interesting is that 27 percent of independents — the key swing voters who decide elections — say immigration could turn them away from a candidate, more than either Democrats or Republicans.
Democrat voters, on the other hand, are content to live in their made-up land of Bush Derangement Syndromeville and cast their votes from that warped perspective.
A very hearty and sincere thank you to Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) for being clear that she opposed the Kennedy-McCain-Bush-Graham Amnesty legislation from the start and consistently. A less than hearty but still sincere thank you to Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) one of the “NO Amnesty Eight” who rose to the occasion this morning to help drive a stake in the heart of this monstrous legislative attempt to undermine America’s border security and put citizenship up for sale.
If you are a fellow North Carolinian, give a call to Sens. Dole and Burr to thank them for standing up for you today.
**Afternoon Update** — It is great to have a Congresswoman like Sue Myrick! I used to live in Jim Moran (D-VA) who was completely useless. Myrick is great, especially on immigration! Here is her statement on the Amnesty Crash-N-Burn.
Today, the US Senate voted down the immigration/amnesty bill 53-46. Prior to the vote, Rep. Myrick signed onto Secure Borders FIRST (For Integrity, Reform, Safety and anti-Terrorism) Act of 2007, which was introduced in the House today by Reps. King (R-NY) and Smith (R-TX). This legislation would take real concrete steps to secure our borders and put an end to illegal immigration.
“The Secure Borders FIRST Act is what Congress should pass before we consider anything else. I have said it before, and I will say it again…if we don’t secure the borders and enforce our laws, nothing else we enact will work,” said Rep. Myrick. “The common sense policy of ‘enforcement first’ is what the American people want, and that’s why I support this bill”.
The Secure Borders FIRST Act mandates that DHS gain operational control of all our borders within the next six years, authorizes additional border-security personnel, requires expedited removal for any illegal aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border within two weeks of entry, and makes alien street gang members deportable and inadmissible. The bill also includes strong worksite-enforcement provisions and requires tamper-resistant biometric social security cards to minimize fraud.
Regarding the defeat of the Senate amnesty bill, Rep. Myrick stated: “The American people killed this bill. They want secure borders and they want our laws enforced. It is that simple; until we know these things are done, amnesty bills will continue to fail.”
The one sane Senator left from the state of South Carolina sums up my feelings after this political disaster given to us by President Bush, John McCain, Harry Reid and
Lucy Lindsey Graham.
“When the U.S. Senate brought the Amnesty bill back up this week, they declared war on the American people. This act created a crisis of confidence in their government. Thankfully, the American people won today,” said Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).
“This is remarkable because it shows that Americans are engaged and they care deeply about their country. They care enough for their country to get mad and to fight for it, and that’s the most important thing of all. Americans made phone calls and sent letters, and convinced the Senate to stop this bill.”
“The Senate rejected this bill and the heavy-handed tactics used to ram it through. Americans do not want more of the same – amnesty and broken promises on the border. Americans want legislation to be written in public – not in secret – and they want Congress to engage in an open and fair debate.”
“There is a better way forward without this bill. The President has said that the border security measures can be implemented over the next 18 months, and they can be done under current law. Now the Administration needs to prove it and stop holding border security hostage for amnesty.”
“Once we have secured the border and restored trust with the American people, we can begin to take additional steps.”
For today, at least… We, The People have reclaimed our role. There is much more work to do in order to fully restore our place in this Republic.
In closing…. I hereby nominate Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) for Senate Minority Leader!
Why is it that the most common sense approach to grappling with the immigration problem that I’ve seen comes from a RedState blogger… and not a Senator or the teeming Senate staff that buzz around writing “clay pigeons” in the dark of night? Maybe it is because sometimes (if not all the time) We, The People “get it”.
We Want Latinos In The GOP – St. Louis Conservative at RedState.com
While I agree that this bill is not a good one and shouldn’t become law, we need to tone down the rhetoric and instead propose our own, principled bill that will work. I propose:
1. Secure the border and institute tamper proof employer emforcement provisions with REAL ID.
2. Offer a period for illegals to come forward and declare that they are here. Those with no criminal background and solid work history can apply for a probationary visa. If they elect to pursue citizenship, they can reapply for their visa when it expires without going home. There would then be a significant time period and several hurdles to pass through to eventually become citizens. Those who don’t elect to pursue citizenship can receive a probationary visa (if they are law-abiding and are gainfully employed), but it is temporary and they must “touch back” every few years or so. Further, make English the national language and make learning it a requirement for a green card or citizenship.
3. Introduce a merit system that encourages high-skilled and highly-educated immigration and puts those immigrants on a fast track.
4. Institute a guest worker program for low-skilled labor needs such as agriculture.
It’s funny to me that the same people who say that people who are against this bill are “anti-Hispanic” also say that these Hispanics are here doing jobs “Americans won’t do”. That, to me, is the height of racism, for by that statement, they basically say that these are crappy jobs and we need second-class citizens (the Hispanics) to do them. I LIKE Hispanic people, and I want them to come here and be upwardly mobile, not relegated to cleaning bathrooms all their life. Yet that is what this bill encourages. It’s not right, and it doesn’t benefit Hispanics in the long term.
Well, this can’t possibly work — it is common sense and simple. No wonder no one in Washington, DC came up with it!
St. Louis Conservative argues his approach is good policy because it is good politics — bringing Hispanics into the GOP. Frankly, I could care less about the political argument. I think St. Louis Con’s approach is good — because it is the right thing to do!
**Amnesty Watch GP programming note** I’ll be
waiting stranded punished on a US Airways flight back to Charlotte this morning. So I won’t be able to catch up on the cloture vote until it is probably over. Please use this space to keep each other up-to-date on the vote. And someone please tell me how Sen. Richard John Kerry Burr votes!
If I were not working on two short papers and revising my dissertation concept paper for school, I might have more to say on the Immigration Debate in the Senate–and other matters. But, before I go to bed, I do want to offer a few thoughts on the process of trying to pass this ball and explain (a bit) my opposition.
As I said earlier (in an update to one of Bruce’s posts), I don’t oppose the bill with his vehemence. But, while I think it offers a few good reforms, I oppose the bill in its present form, primary for the reason I articulated in my post on its apparent defeat earlier this month. The bill is a mess and should be divided up into his component parts, with the first component being a bill to close and secure the border. Until that happens, se shouldn’t even consider “amnesty” or its equivalent.
The latest debate confirms what a mess this proposal is. Captain Ed noted that members only got the bill at about 2PM on Wednesday and now “have to decide whether they want to close off debate on a 400-page bill that they’ve had for less than 24 hours to review.” And it appears that there are errors in the actual bill, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed determined to have his massive “Clay Pigeon” Amendment debated “without the Republicans seeing the language.” When Senate “Republicans objected to waiving the reading of the bill. . . [,] the Senate Clerk had nothing to read.” (H/t: Captain Ed.)
Simply put, on a subject of this magnitude, backers of the legislation should have made available a reliable version of the legislation, long before the debate even began, allowing Senators time to return to their respective states to discuss its provisions with their constituents.
I’m not as irate as some are at those who voted Tuesday to bring the bill back to the floor. Maybe some of the Senators who voted in favor of debating this controversial bill thought its flaws could be mitigated by amendment. Because there are some good aspects to this bill.
But, to end debate with some good amendments defeated and others not to be considered on their own merits, means considering too complicated a bill in too compressed a time frame.
The bill’s good components notwithstanding, I hope Senators will have the sense to vote against cloture on this bill. It’s too important an issue for such a hurried piece of legislation.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
**UPDATED AT 6:45PM**
Item #1 – At the top of the six o’clock hour, FOX News’ Major Garrett just reported that three Senators that voted “YES” on cloture yesterday will vote “NO” on cloture tomorrow. He further said the White House and Senate leaders say the Kennedy-Reid-McCain-Graham-Bush Amnesty is in “serious peril tonight”.
Item #2 – PatriotPartner John has debunked an earlier report today from Michelle Malkin that Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) has definitely committed to vote “NO” on cloture tomorrow.
Just got off the phone with a Burr DC staffer. He says Burr will vote”No” on cloture IF there are no significant changes to the bill through amendment this evening. Keep calling!!!!! I urged a statement issued by Burr saying he is voting “No” on cloture tonight if he wants this believed.
Call Senator Richard Burr (he’s one of the “Amnesty 8″) to urge a “NO” vote on cloture and not to pull a John Kerry on Amnesty.
Burr’s DC number – (202) 224-3154
Burr’s NC number – (800) 685-8916
Here’s the text of the email I just sent to Senator Burr on his Senate website.
Senator Burr -
I have called your office several times to express my wish that the Kennedy-Graham-McCain-Bush Amnesty Legislation be killed for good.
I just noticed this statement on your campaign website:
“My work in the Senate is focused on building a stronger economy for everyone, addressing the health care needs of Americans, making our country safer from the threat of terrorists….”
You must know that as a native-born, legal resident of the United States that I believe the Amnesty legislation is designed to build the economic security of illegals on the backs of the middle class, address the healthcare needs of illegals on the backs of the middle class, and makes our country less safe from the threat of terrorists.
Based on your own principles of why you say you are representing me in Washington, DC…. you must vote “NO” on cloture tomorrow.
UPDATE (from GPW): Just learned via Drudge that Burr now opposes “permitting a vote on final passage.” And he’s not the only one. Others who had previously voted for cloture intend to oppose the motion or are “leaning that way.” While I don’t oppose the bill with the vehemence that Bruce does, I see this as good news.
Looks increasingly likely that they won’t get the 60 votes needed.
UP-UPDATE (from GPW); Michelle Malkin, who has been liveblogging the Senate debate has a good post today on the bill, notes that the debate this evening is “good news for our side, bad news for the open-borders brigade.” Now read the whole thing, including her link to the Politico on why the bill is struggling.