Posted on 07/30/2013 1:51:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Gang of Eight pro-amnesty Senators are trying to con the House of Representatives into passing parts of an anti-American amnesty bill so they can get a Chuck Schumer-dominated conference committee and bamboozle Representatives into going along with their sellout plans. The few pro-amnesty Republican Senators had Marco Rubio as the salesman for the unpopular amnesty bill, and the few pro-amnesty Republicans in the House have Paul Ryan to play the same un-Republican role.
The Gang of Eight patted itself on the back for successfully passing their bill in the Senate, but, funny thing, the bill was never forwarded to the House for action. The explanation for this irregular omission is fear that the House would "blue slip" the bill.
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution gives the sole power to the House to originate all bills for raising revenue, known as the Origination Clause. If the Senate oversteps and includes a provision to raise some revenue (which it did in the Gang's amnesty bill), the House can reject the bill and send it back to the Senate for correction in what is known as a "blue slip" procedure.
The devious Ryan plan to circumvent this rule is for the House to pass five or six bills on various aspects of amnesty and then use that bunch of bills to call for a conference committee with the Senate. Ryan let the cat out of the bag when he told a constituent audience in Racine, Wis. on July 26 that his revised plan now calls for a House vote, not before the August recess as originally expected but in October.
There is no indication that the Ryan amnesty is any better for Americans than the Rubio amnesty. Amnesty is still a bad deal for all, whether it comes in one package or in six.
The former New York Lt. Gov., Dr. Betsy McCaughey, the only one known to have actually read the 1,200-page Senate bill, says that the bill's text is loaded with "slippery" words (such as "emergency," "comprehensive," "plan" and "reform") that create loopholes giving Barack Obama the opportunity to refuse to enforce any provisions he doesn't like, including border security that the public is demanding.
That's what Obama notoriously did to cancel provisions of other laws, notably Obamacare's date of enforcement and the effective Work Requirement in Welfare Reform. Obama also seems to think he can invent his own new laws never passed by Congress, such as the Dream Act and anti-coal regulations.
There are so many dangerous and costly provisions in Congress' amnesty plans that they are difficult even to itemize, but for starters take the foolishness that amnesty loosens the rules for asylum seekers. We should have learned some deadly lessons from the asylum seekers we have already welcomed who turned out to be terrorists, such as the first World Trade bombers in 1993 and the Boston Marathon bombers this year.
The new amnesty bill reduces the application to be an asylum seeker from the current one-year deadline to as many years as the immigrant wants and, incredibly, allows the U.S. Attorney General to pay the asylum seekers' legal fees. We should absolutely bar all entry from countries that routinely engage in terrorism.
Another highly dangerous and costly provision that should be decisively rejected is the politically motivated plan to outsource duties to community organizers and activists who will be paid by our taxpayers to help immigrants transition to American life and apply for government benefits. That's like pouring tax dollars into the Democratic voting machine to do phone banking and outreach to load new entrants permanently into the Democratic Party.
The amnesty bill even assigns some of these so-called non-profit, left-wing community groups the task of rewriting provisions for U.S. citizenship. This indicates how far the left-wing's "religion" of diversity is taking us: That duty certainly should be performed by Americans, not foreigners.
Here's a good question for a new Congressional hearing. Will the Internal Revenue Service do a thorough audit of these groups' tax-exempt status and demand answers to intrusive questions, as the IRS did with the Tea Parties?
Here's another good question to which we would like an answer in an open congressional hearing. How many young illegal aliens who cross our southern border illegally are valedictorians compared with those who are carrying illegal drugs? The left went into spasms of rage when Rep. Steve King suggested there might be more of the latter, so let's have an investigation to find out if King was correct.
K I L L
T H E
B I L L
Of course it’s bad 99.5% are, once you actually read them.
The House must not pass an immigration bill.
The House will end up passing amnesty. We the people no longer have a say..
We need to say it like it really is...Any politician who so much as uses the word "REFORM" in place of the word "ENFORCEMENT" is aiding and abetting the LARGEST FOREIGN INVASION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD !
Any Republican who can lay down with these RATS may as well be a RAT themselves and should be drug out of their offices and tarred and feathered, just like in the old days.
Not exactly how it works. If the Senate changes anything in the House bill, the House has to vote on the changed bill. The Senate can’t just change the House bill and “deem it passed.”
He'll do immigration reform by EO before he leaves office.
Who is going to stop them?
Amnesty, legalization, citizenship, permanent residency. These are all separate concepts, but people seem to have difficulty understanding that.
Citizenship: Should not be granted to anyone who entered the country illegally. If they return to their own countries and then apply for re-entry and later for citizenship, that’s another matter.
Amnesty: Amnesty is simply a pardon for the criminal act of crossing the border illegally. The alternative is to throw them in jail, or deport them. If you don’t do either one of those, you’ve granted amnesty. So, are there cases where someone is here illegally, but they shouldn’t be deported or thrown in jail? Of course there are. That doesn’t mean they should be granted citizenship; just that they shouldn’t be jailed or deported. They should be granted amnesty for being here illegally and then their status should be clarified via some form of legalization.
Legalization: Millions are here illegally doing valuable work. While granting many of them amnesty, they should simultaneously be legalized in one of several ways. Legalization could involve granting them visas for temporary stays while they finish school, or green cards for temporary employment, or for long-term employment, depending upon their situations.
Permanent Residency: If someone immigrates to the U.S. but never becomes a citizen, are they to never be granted permanent residency? Why not? The main reason is that they will become a drain on resources, so don’t provide them with those resources. Why should a permanent resident be entitled to welfare, disability, or any other benefit they haven’t earned, just because they choose to live here instead of, say, France? If they can’t figure out how to afford to live here, send them home.
I’m just trying to have a reasonable discussion about all this, by the way, as are, I believe, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan. (The Gang of 8 is another matter entirely, which is why Rubio got squeamish about being part of it, I suspect.)
We have millions of people here illegally, but many of them can easily have their status legalized as long as citizenship isn’t part of the deal. Obviously, amnesty will have to be part of it, however, or legalization is impossible. To me, all “legalization” really means is “You’re here working illegally; now you’re going to be here working legally under clear rules and conditions.” Then we’d know who’s here. If they remain here illegally anyway, that is, without papers, deportation should be automatic upon discovery.
It goes without saying that border security is paramount, regardless what is done on the legalization front.
I was told if there is a bill coming out of conference... then there is a 100 percent chance it will get passed. Impossible to stop and really simple too.
It will get passed via a discharge petition, which takes a simple majority.
Socialist Dems + RINO Gop = majority.
I would hope even the liberal faction of the Supreme Court would toss out a bill not passed by both Houses, although sometimes one does wonder.
Really though, it would be about as obvious a constitutional violation as Reid declaring that a 45-55 vote against a bill was sufficient to pass it instead. If you’re willing to argue that he could get away with that too, then I guess all bets are off.
It IS scary to imagine what can happen when the President starts to ignore the law, as President Obama seems to do at will, while continuing to get away with it.
You might be right about the odds of it passing. My point is that it still has to be voted through in a single form by both Houses. The Senate can’t dictate to the House by changing the bill unilaterally.
But yes, if a majority can be found in the House of Rep, it will become law if they agree to the Senate version.
Just heard that Sheila Jackson Lee is BO’s choice for the new head of Homeland Security. That would probably be the only thing that could be worse than this bill.
What bill? The House hasn’t put forward any formal proposals yet.
If enough hell is raised this August break, there won’t be a bill.
The GOPe will be as good as dead, like this whole country
Isn’t there a part of the amnesty that grants employers a $5,000 tax break for everyone hired who qualifies for this amnesty as opposed to not getting a break if one is already an American citizen? If so employers will obviously be firing and hiring only these new dreamers. Enough to make one want to puke. Unfriggin’ believable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.