Monday, June 24, 2013

Fear And Loathing In DC - The Gang Of Eight's Amnesty Bill Is A Disaster

Today at 5:30 PM, the United States Senate will vote on an important part of the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill, the Corker-Hoeven amendment. Majority Leader Harry Reid is rushing the nearly 1200 page bill through even though the Senate has only had a chance to look at it for a mere 72 hours.

When you actually go over this bill submitted under the guise of 'immigration reform', you realize how awful it really is.

The language of the bill reminds me of the the Affordable Care Act, (AKA Obamacare) in that it's filled with (a)obtuse, dense language that clues us in that it is deliberately deceptive (b)glosses over the real issues involved and (c) is absolutely filled with waivers, exemptions and exceptions left to the sole discretion of political appointees and language like 'the Secretary, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, may waive...'

'Sole and unreviewable discretion'? Just imagine what an Obama appointee like Janet Napolitano is going to do with that.

They denied it for a long time, but the bill's proponents have finally admitted that this is an amnesty bill, and as even Senator Marco Rubio admitted back when he was trying to get elected with Tea Party support, the 'path to citizenship' rhetoric is just a euphemism for exactly that.

If the estimates on illegal migration into the U.S. are correct, we're talking about 11.5 million people, except that when we include chain migration and family unification (which the bill doesn't prohibit) we're probably talking about 25 million or more. But let's just talk about the estimated 11.5 million whom are here for now. Anyone who was in the U.S. prior to 2012 qualifies, but since the bill doesn't call for any definitive real proof, fraud is going to be rampant.

The entire concept of amnesty is an interesting one, as is the idea of terming it immigration reform.

It basically turns the entire idea of immigration inside out.

Rather than it being a privilege extended by a sovereign nation to people it decides to welcome legally to fill its own needs, amnesty makes it a right, an entitlement.It's no accident that many people in the amnesty lobby refer to themselves as 'immigrant rights activists'.

The obvious that's unsaid given the demographic makeup of the vast majority of illegal migrants is that it's a right because this is supposedly 'stolen' Mexican land, something only groups like MeCha and La Raza say openly. But the context is obvious.

If that's the actual argument, that America has no sovereign rights over a part of its territory the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo notwithstanding, fine. But that's a separate argument.

The idea of 'immigration reform' is likewise interesting. Real immigration reform might involve cutting some of the immensely complicated and expensive red tape involved when an American citizen falls in love with a foreign national and wants to bring their spouse home to live, or when an American corporation wants to import a foreign scientist or technical expert to work here.Or creating a points system based on needed skills, English proficiency, ties to America or the willingness of an entrepreneur to bring financial capital to invest to start a business.

Nothing much is going to be 'reformed' for the 4.6 million legal immigrant applicants to America stuck in those situations. No one wants to discus how fair it is to give the 11.5 million people who are here illegally priority over the suckers who decided to follow the law and come here legally. Instead, we're going to create special rules that apply to no other immigrants but a select group largely made up of one demographic who merit this special treatment strictly for political purposes.

A potential legal immigrant from Europe or Asia would hardly be unjustified in calling that unfair and racist. It is. One of my correspondents, an English speaking Dutch software engineer with 3 inches of degrees after his name,  over a decade's worth of experience,  and a totally  clean  record finally gave up after spending a year and thousands of dollars trying to jump through the hoops ICE put in front of him and emigrated with his family to Israel, where they jumped at the chance and slashed red tape to get him. In America people like my engineer friend  will go to the back of the line behind an unskilled laborer from Sinaloa or Nuevo Leon with limited or non-existent English and an 8th grade education. The current amnesty bill would exacerbate this situation even more.

I've had some experience in conducting negotiations where there are diverse views involved. Here's a fairly ironclad rule; when people's goals are the same but their ideas on what mechanics to use to achieve them are different, consensus is usually attainable. But when their actual goals are different, actual consensus is excruciatingly difficult, and what you normally get instead is game playing, lies and deception.

What we're seeing here is the second scenario.

The Democrats have made a great deal of noise about their supposed goal of 'bringing people out of the shadows', 'immigrant rights',   'fixing our broken borders' or our 'broken immigration system', increased border security and a 'path to citizenship'  that will supposedly revitalize our economy.

They're lying shamelessly.

That's exactly  the same sort of thing the same sort of people were saying back in 1986, when a prior amnesty was passed during the Reagan Administration. Then, we had 2.7 million illegal immigrants and the problem was supposed to be solved with a one time fix. Less than three decades later, we have almost ten times as many. And Democrats have obstructed any form of border enforcement vigorously during that time.

Legislation was actually passed during President George W. Bush's second term mandating the building of a 700 mile fence on our southern  border. Only 36 miles were completed before  the Democrats took over congress in 2006..after which the project was shelved for lack of funding, even though funds had already been appropriated.

Yet the mantra being recited now with the Gang of Eight bill is that we're going to have enforcement, that this is going to be a definitive settlement of the problem, that now we're finally going to really control our borders.


Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was in Washington when the original amnesty was passed made an interesting and unfortunately overlooked floor statement on the Senate floor that gives us a good look at how and why that happened as well as a prediction for what's likely to happen in the future:

In 1982, I told my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that I wanted to do the right thing for the United States. I said, “The real issue here is what is best for United States citizens. In trying to maintain that perspective, I have come to the conclusion through the course of attending many hearings on this issue, that increased border and interior enforcement along with employer sanctions and a secure worker eligibility identity system is necessary to regain control of our borders.” This is a philosophy that continues to guide me today.

But, I expressed my concern with the legalization component at the time. I echoed the recommendations of the Select Commission on Immigration. That commission said a legalization should 1) be consistent with U.S. interests; and 2) the program should not encourage further undocumented migration. The Commission believed that a legalization program should not begin until new enforcement measures have been instituted. The commission knew then – as I did and as I know now – that “without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry.” Those are the words of the Commission. You see, I didn’t think permanent residency should be granted until we had a worker eligibility system. I offered an amendment on that point in 1982, but it failed.

The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate passed a bill in 1982, but it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. We tried again in the next Congress. The Senate passed a bill in 1983, and the House followed in 1984. We convened a conference committee in 1984, but Walter Mondale came out opposed. So, we adjourned for the elections and failed to finalize a bill that year. We returned in 1985 to pass our bill again. That year, Senator Simpson included a provision to trigger the amnesty program only after enforcement measures to curtail illegal immigration were in place.

Over the years, many members offered amendments to water down the enforcement provisions in the Immigration Reform and Control Act. There was a lot of opposition to employer sanctions, especially by Senator Kennedy. He wanted – in his words – “criminal penalties to be based only upon injunctive finding of pattern or practice.” He tried to sunset the employer sanctions. Senator Kennedy also fought hard to move the legalization cut-off date from 1980 to 1982 so that more people could benefit from the amnesty.

The 1986 bill was supposed to be a 3-legged stool – control of illegal immigration, a legalization program, and reform of legal immigration. We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the bill, and created a special fund for states to reimburse their costs.{...}

Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today. Legalize now, enforce later. But, it’s clear that philosophy doesn’t work. Proponents of amnesty today argue that we didn’t get it right in 1986. I agree that the enforcement mechanisms in 1986 could have been stronger. That’s why they need to be strong this time around.

But, I’m already concerned that some will attempt to water down the principles that have been put forth on enforcement measures. President Obama doesn’t seem to favor triggers. The senior Senator from New York said – just last week — that border security wasn’t going to stop legalization. In his words, he said, “We’re not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.” Advocacy groups are already talking about ensuring that a border security commission doesn’t stand in the way or have veto authority over a legalization program.

Get the picture? Once this passes it will be 1986 all over again. Except this time, it will be even worse because of the increased numbers involved.

Fiscally, the amnesty bill is an absolute nightmare, and no real fiscal conservative ought to support it for an instant..

While U.S. law actually prohibits anyone getting a Green Card if they're likely to be a public charge (Section 212a-4), in practice this is never enforced, and roughly half of current green card holders have household incomes below the federal poverty line and receive welfare benefits.

In spite of what Senator Rubio and others are telling you, there's no way to prevent the recipients of amnesty from accessing these  entitlements and benefits, including ObamaCare and perhaps there shouldn't be. After all, if you're going to permit people to settle legally in your country in the first place, there's no humane basis to deny them entitlements like medical care or AFDC if they're available and they qualify.

The courts have already ruled on the question of legal residents and social welfare benefits at the state level (including the federal subsidies) and the first formerly illegal alien who takes this to court if he or she is denied benefits will win handily.Moreover, as Senator Jeff Sessions reveals, the bill has a number of loopholes that will allow amnesty recipients to access the benefits even before receiving a green card.

The impact on the already obscene cost of ObamaCare is one example. If we look at just  the estimated number of 11 million aliens ( and remember,it will eventually end up being more than twice that amount with family unification and chain migration)who will now qualify, a cost of nearly $100 billion annually can be added to the rapidly rising cost of ObamaCare, since most of them will qualify for the full $9,000 subsidy, and the Affordable Care Act says that they will all be eligible for coverage immediately. And to add insult to injury, part of the taxes to cover that will be paid by legal immigrants who spent considerable time and money to enter America legally. SSI, Social Security, the Food Stamps program and other entitlements are similarly affected, as is both the cost and quality of the public schools as we've seen in California and other states with high levels of illegal alien populations.

There are reliable estimates that amnesty for the illegal migrants here will add a whopping $6 trillion to the national debt, a figure I personally think is understated because no one can accurately guess the fiscal impact of chain migration and family unification.While legalizing illegal migrants will add an estimated $3.1 trillion in taxes over time, the social welfare costs will overwhelm any economic benefits. In fact, many illegal migrants already 'pay' taxes of a sort, and how that works out will give you a good idea of what we're in for if amnesty goes into effect.

Many illegal migrants simply obtain a TIN (tax ID number) from the IRS, once known as an EIN (employer identification number) and limited to business owners with employees but now available to anyone for the asking.All an illegal alien needs to do is obtain a TIN, use a bogus social security number for work purposes,  simply tell his tax preparer to write a letter stating that all earnings credited to the social security number in question actually refer to the TIN, and then apply for an Earned Income credit.  Fraud is rampant.

Another frequently used tactic is to claim an "additional child tax credit" for children who might not live in the U.S. or might not even exist. Last year, the IRS paid out an estimated $4.2 billion for bogus child credits alone:

Border security is being held out as a huge carrot in order to shove this monstrosity through. Chew on that for a second and think it over.Actually enforcing our immigrations laws is now being held out by Democrats and some Republicans as a political concession!

But they're not actually conceding anything. Aside from any provisions for  securing the border being deliberately vague the reality is that this bill actually erodes border security.

For instance,  the background check provisions of the bill no requirement that amnesty applicants actually provide government-issued documentation proving who they say they are.Section 2101(b) makes it easy for anyone in the U.S. illegally to simply invent a new name out of thin air and use that name when applying for the amnesty. Immigration officials have absolutely no leverage to force the alien to disclose his real identity, and given the Obama Administration's stance will probably face considerable pressure to simply accept whatever name they're given without question.. The alien gains a brand new legit photo-ID issued by the federal government that gives credibility to his or her fake identity, gets legal immigration status and the ability to travel outside of the United States, even if it involves taking a jaunt to say, Pakistan or Iran to do a little specialized training and then return to the U.S. to put it into practice. It's a terrorist's dream come true.

Far-fetched? Unlikely? Two of the illegal aliens who got amnesty in 1986 turned out to be Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima and his brother Mohammed. Both participated in the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993 . Mahmoud was a ringleader in the attack who used his new legal status to travel abroad to Afghanistan for terrorist training...and by the way, even though both brothers were members of the Egyptian terrorist group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, they passed background check.

The Tsarnev brothers of course didn't even need amnesty. Neither did some of the men who were in the advanced planning stages of a plot  to attack Fort Dix and kill American soldiers  in 2007.

To give you an idea of how bogus the claims of border enforcement are, under Section 245i, the bill actually allows illegal aliens who have already been deported from the United States to return and be covered by the amnesty, and Sections 2101(c)(7)(C)(i) and 2211(b)(5)(C)(i) actually allows aliens who already have deportation orders filed against them and are still in the U.S as fugitives to get amnesty as well. The numbers on this latter category alone amount to something in the neighborhood of three quarters of a million people.

Actually, even illegal aliens convicted of a number of fairly egregious crimes get amnesty as well. 
Senator John Cornyn's relatively mild amendment on border security called for denying amnesty to illegal aliens convicted of serious misdemeanors, such as domestic violence, aggravated assault, child abuse, violation of a protection order, and drunk driving.

The senate voted it down.

The amnesty even applies to aliens arrested for a crime but not yet convicted, formalizing Secretary Napolitano's DACA directive of June 2012 to allow them to become eligible.

We don't even have, at this point, a functioning entry-exit system to track people whom overstay their visas, something Congress has been 'working on' for 17 years.

This track record coupled with the bill's loose language on 'triggers', 'goals' and border enforcement in general should give you a clear idea of how unserious the idea of border control is with the bill's proponents.

The highly touted compromise of the recent Corker-Hoeven amendment is a disgraceful head fake designed to allow Senate Republicans to go home and posture about how they voted for tougher border security, while it actually does nothing concrete about it until all of those undocumented Democrats are nice and legalized. Even the main talking point of the bill, the 20,000 extra border patrol agents that are supposedly going to be deployed on the border aren't going to be hired until enough funds are raised from the fines illegal aliens are supposedly going to pay. Since the majority of them are going to plead poverty and be excused, just like the border fence it is yet another commitment that will simply be ignored.

As a matter of fact, the new, improved bill with the Corker-Hoeven amendment directly states that DHS head Janet Napolitano  or any future DHS head can simply ignore building any fence at all. From page 35, line 24 of the new bill:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

Border security? Ho ho! A number of members of the U.S. senate could have a successful career doing standup.

When it comes down to border enforcement, the simple question boils down to this: for strictly partisan political purposes, most Democrats have ignored current immigration laws when it comes to enforcement. What makes anyone think that's going to magically change? In California, for instance, does anyone think that Governor Brown or perhaps a future Governor like ex-MeCha member and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is going to cooperate with any federal enforcement measures or laws any more than they do now?

It's obvious what the Democrat's real goal is - a reliable supply of low information voters they can bribe to keep them in power. Nothing else matters. And they will be voters much quicker than we're being told.

Aside from the fact that a number of non-citizen migrants already vote fraudulently, especially in blue states with no voter ID laws, you can rest assured that if this new amnesty bill is passed there will be a huge push from the Left to get them into the booths as soon as possible, legislation or no legislation.

Can't you just hear the president or Senator Schumer whining, 'they're living here, they're on a path to citizenship, why can't they vote? Are we that kind of country'?

Back in 2002, a left wing amnesty activist and political scientist named Ruy Teixeira wrote a book entitled "The Emerging Democratic Majority" in which he peddled the notion that the Latino immigration that had already occurred would make the GOP a permanent minority party and establish a Democrat ruled European-style Socialist welfare state. He was subjected to a certain amount of smug ridicule at the time because the Republicans went on to take solid control of Congress in the midterms and even to re-elect George W. Bush in 2004.But as it turns out, he was merely premature. Even Ruy Teixeira in his most tumescent nocturnal fantasies probably never imagined that the Republicans would help make his vision reality by going along with importing the majority he envisioned.

The Republicans shilling for this don't even make sense anymore. Here's Bill O'Reilly, a supposed 'conservative' mouthing what's become the GOP establishment's mantra in the face of all facts to the contrary, And he's by no means alone:

You see, the GOP's consultant class who have successfully lost two straight national elections they should easily have won have convinced a large part of the Republican establishment that there's a Hispanic tidal wave coming and they had better forget about any principles they have or even what's good for the country, get with the program and out pander Democrats if they want to stay in power and win elections. No matter what.

Politicians like Senator Marco Rubio continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths about why going along with something President Obama and the Left are absolutely salivating over is somehow smart politics, because they're essentially dishonest about what their endgame is. When you take a serious look at the actual numbers from the last election and think about what's actually being proposed here, that much becomes obvious.

What the GOP establishment wants isn't 'border control', or to 'fix' anything.In fact, the recent Congressional Budget Office analysis says that amnestia at best will only cut illegal migration by 25%. What they really want is to cut themselves loose from the Republican conservative base they despise anyway, and do their best to make them politically powerless in order to court what actually amounts to 3.5% of the electorate, most of it already located in solid Blue States.

And in some cases, they're simply working for special interests who want a continuous flow of cheap labor. Portions of the bill have been specifically engineered as bribes and gimmees with that in mind.

Is the problem of of our porous borders and illegal migration that we've let fester for so long something that could be handled in a humane, fair way that would actually benefit the country? Of course it is, and I'll detail some of those solutions in a subsequent article. But since  that's not the goal of the Ruling Class politicians of either party who are pushing this disgraceful excuse for legislation, that's not what we're getting.

Oddly enough as this gets down to the wire, a lot more legal Hispanic immigrants than you might think understand that how devastating this is going to be to them  if it gets pushed through. They understand that it's a housekeeper, a nanny, a delivery driver or an elder care giver earning between $35,000 and $40,000 or so per year with benefits that's going to have to compete with one of the unskilled newly legalized 'immigrants' willing to work for 40% less with worse working conditions.

They're the ones who are going to be competing with these newly legal immigrants and the people they bring over through chain migration for affordable housing. It's their children, not those of the Ruling Class who are going to have  their children  stuck in classrooms with 50 kids to a teacher in dysfunctional public schools that struggle to teach at even a basic level.

What is being proposed here is an unjust, race based, fiscally unsound mess.It is frankly un-American.

This is 'hope and change' none of us were even asked if we wanted.

Any congressman that votes for this of whatever party is not only unworthy of public trust and public office, but should be shunned, insulted and jeered at in public on the streets of America as the self-seeking, dishonest scum he or she is.

 Ya basta. Enough.

You can call Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 to contact your congressperson directly. Or tweet them. I'd pay particular attention to the ones that are only sitting in the Senate because of those nasty conservatives and Tea Party activists they despise. And if this passes the Senate, be prepared to put the heat on the House..because Boehner won't. 2014 is just around the corner :


Sen. Richard Shelby

Sen. Jeff Sessions


Sen. Mark Begich

Sen. Lisa Murkowski


Sen. John McCain

Sen. Jeff Flake


Sen. John Boozman

Sen. Mark Pryor 


Sen. Barbara Boxer

Sen. Dianne Feinstein


Sen. Michael Bennet 

Sen. Mark Udall


Sen. Chris Murphy 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal 


Sen. Tom Carper

Sen. Chris Coons


Sen. Bill Nelson 

Sen. Marco Rubio


Sen. Saxby Chambliss 

Sen. Johnny Isakson


Sen. Mazie Hirono

Sen. Brian Schatz 


Sen. Mike Crapo 

Sen. Jim Risch 


Sen. Dick Durbin

Sen. Mark Kirk


Sen. Dan Coats

Sen. Joe Donnelly 


Sen. Chuck Grassley 

Sen. Tom Harkin 


Sen. Jerry Moran 
Sen. Pat Roberts 


Sen. Mitch McConnell

Sen. Rand Paul 


Sen. Mary Landrieu

Sen. David Vitter


Sen. Susan Collins

Sen. Angus S. King, Jr.


Sen. Ben Cardin

Sen. Barbara Mikulski


Sen. William “Mo” Cowan

Sen. Elizabeth Warren 


Sen. Carl Levin

Sen. Debbie Stabenow 


Sen. Al Franken 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar 


Sen. Thad Cochran 

Sen. Roger Wicker 


Sen. Roy Blunt 

Sen. Claire McCaskill


Sen. Deb Fische

Sen. Mike Johanns 


Sen. Dean Heller 

Sen. Harry Reid 

New Hampshire

Sen. Kelly Ayotte 

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 

New Jersey

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg

Sen. Robert Menendez 
New Mexico

Sen. Martin Heinrich 

Sen. Tom Udall

New York

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand 

Sen. Chuck Schumer 

North Carolina

Sen. Richard Burr  

Sen. Kay Hagan 

North Dakota

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp 

Sen. John Hoeven 


Sen. Sherrod Brown 

Sen. Rob Portman


Sen. Tom Coburn M.D.

Sen. James Inhofe


Sen. Jeff Merkley

Sen. Ron Wyden


Sen. Bob Casey 

Sen. Pat Toomey 

Rhode Island

Sen. Jack Reed 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse 

South Carolina

Sen. Lindsey Graham 

Sen. Tim Scott 

South Dakota

Sen. Tim Johnson 

Sen. John Thune 


Sen. Lamar Alexander

Sen. Bob Corker 


Sen. John Cornyn 

Sen. Ted Cruz 


Sen. Orrin Hatch

Sen. Mike Lee 


Sen. Patrick Leahy 

Sen. Bernie Sanders 


Sen. Tim Kaine 

Sen. Mark Warner 


Sen. Maria Cantwell

Sen. Patty Murray 

West Virginia

Sen. Joe Manchin 
Sen. Jay Rockefeller 


Sen. Tammy Baldwin 

Sen. Ron Johnson


Sen. John Barrasso 

Sen. Mike Enzi 

No comments: