Read My Lips: No New Amnesty

Human Events ^ | May 17, 2006 | Ann Coulter

[boryeulb]

On the bright side, if President Bush's amnesty proposal for illegal immigrants ends up hurting Republicans and we lose Congress this November, maybe the Democrats will impeach him and we'll get Dick Cheney as President.

Get Yours FREE!

At least Bush has dropped his infernal references to slacker Americans when talking about illegal immigrants. In his speech Monday night, instead of 47 mentions of "jobs Americans won't do," Bush referred only once to "jobs Americans are not doing" -- which I take it means other than border enforcement and intelligence-gathering at the CIA. For the record, I'll volunteer right now to clean other people's apartments if I don't have to pay taxes on what I earn.

Also, someone must have finally told Bush that the point about America being a "nation of immigrants" is moronic. All nations are "nations of immigrants" -- as Peter Brimelow pointed out brilliantly in his 1992 article in National Review on immigration, which left nothing for anyone else to say.

Of the "nation of immigrants" locution, Brimelow says:

"No discussion of U.S. immigration policy gets far without someone making this helpful remark. As an immigrant myself, I always pause respectfully. You never know. Maybe this is what they're taught to chant in schools nowadays, a sort of multicultural Pledge of Allegiance. ... Do they really think other nations sprouted up out of the ground?"

Brimelow then ran through the Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman-French, Welsh and Celtic immigrant influences in Britain alone.

Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.

Bush has also apparently learned that the word "amnesty" does not poll well. On Monday night, he angrily denounced the idea of amnesty just before proposing his own amnesty program. The difference between Bush's amnesty program and "amnesty" is: He'd give amnesty only to people who have been breaking our laws for many years -- not just a few months. (It's the same program that allows Teddy Kennedy to stay in the Senate.)

Bush calls this the "rational middle ground" because it recognizes the difference between "an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years." Yes, the difference is: One of them has been breaking the law longer. If our criminal justice system used that logic, a single murder would get you the death penalty, while serial killers would get probation.

Bush claimed the only other alternative -- I assume this is the "irrational extreme" -- is "a program of mass deportation." Really? Is the only alternative to legalizing tax cheats "a program of mass arrest of tax cheats"?

This is the logic of the pro-abortion zealots (aka "the Democratic Party"): Either lift every single restriction on abortion or ... every woman in America will be impregnated by her father and die in a back-alley abortion!

Those are your only two answers? Do you need another minute?

How about the proposal made on Brimelow's Web site that illegal immigrants be told they have two months to leave the country voluntarily and not have their breaking of our immigration laws held against them when they apply for citizenship from their home countries -- or not leave and be banned from U.S. citizenship forever?

Or how about just not giving illegal aliens green cards -- as Bush is proposing -- and deport them when we catch them?

Instead of choosing immigrants based on the longevity of their lawbreaking, another idea is to choose the immigrants we want, for example, those who speak English or have special skills. (And by "special skills" I don't mean giving birth to an anchor baby in a border-town emergency room.)

Why not use immigration the way sports teams use the draft -- to upgrade our roster? We could take our pick of the world's engineers, doctors, scientists, uh ... smoking-hot Latin guys who stand around not wearing shirts between workouts. Or, you know, whatever ...

As Peter Brimelow says in his book, "Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster," why not choose immigrants who are better than us?

Bush thinks it's not fair to favor people with special skills -- a policy evidenced by his Harriet Miers pick.

How about this: It's not fair to want to go out with someone just because that person is attractive and has a good personality because it discriminates against people who are ugly with bad social skills! That's our immigration policy.

Press "1" for English; press "2" for a new President ...

[monkapotamus]

[hosepipe]

[ Coulter is well on her way to insignificance. ]

When was you're last best seller?.. Rinoplasty..

[AZ_Cowboy]

You missed the real clencher...Thomas Sowell!

[expatguy]

Many people still dont get it. Illegal immigration is the least of your concerns.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[Lurker]

I wasn't suggesting you come to the inestimable Miss Coulters rescue. We all know that if Miss Coulter decided to take sinkspur on directly it would be like putting an infant in the ring with Mike Tyson.

I was asking you about site policy.

I'd also like to ask if something in my post #255 violated the rules of the forum. I proofread it pretty carefully and made extra sure that nothing in it was a personal attack on another poster, incited violence in any way, or had even the faintest whiff of racism in it. Are there some new rules I'm unaware of? If there are I certainly don't want to violate them.

Now, just so I'm clear on this; it's alright if people imply that conservative columnists are racists because they disagree with the Presidents immigration proposals?

I thought that sort of thing was reserved for the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world and that that sort of thing was unwelcome here.

I'd really appreciate you clearing this up for me.

Thanks,

L

[antceecee]

Not surprised that you missed my point. Ann criticized Miers for looking like a cleaning lady and you criticize Ann for looking like a 40 yr. old wanna be teen.

Oh and BTW... I don't know where you live, but where I live there are goodlooking 60 yr. olds wearing black leather mini skirts. I guess if you've got it why not?

[Jim Robinson]

I choose not to be associated with vdare.
Thanks

[antceecee]

Pure paranoia.

[hosepipe]

[ I remember hearing that Bush being impeached would be the huge scare tactic to get us to the polls in Nov, now it may only get a shrug from the base. ]

Cheney would be a better President and man..

[Lurker]

Thanks for reiterating the policy on vdare. I'll be sure to continue not posting anything from there here. To be honest, this is the first time I've heard of them.

I don't want to seem rude, but if you have time could you address the other questions I asked?

I just want to be sure I have the most up to date information on site policy so I can be certain that my behavior conforms to your rules.

Thanks,

L

[Jim Robinson]

spam

[AZ_Cowboy]

In a word, yes. It's literally impossible to debate anything on here anymore. There are other forums that are more suitable to lock-stepper types.

[Lurker]

I'll be sure to edit that down and just post the pertinent sections in the future. I was afraid that my response was pulled simply because it ruffled someones feathers.

We all know if you guys started pulling posts simply because they upset people you'd be doing very little else. Obviously you've got better things to do than that.

Since you haven't said anything to the contrary, I'm going to assume it's alright to start tossing implications of racism around when someone happens to disagree with a columnists writings. To be honest I think that's a bit of a change, but what the heck; one has to move with the times.

If I'm incorrect in that asssumption please let me know.

Thanks again.

L

[teldon30]

Shelby voted for it...i believe.

[Jim Robinson]

Would advise against becoming a PITA.

[RHINO369]

You're a racist because you threaten my fragile world view. Anything that makes me utilize higher levels of thought than republican = good, makes me feel bad, and therefore your a retarded racist.

[Kozak]

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions Unveils Massive Numerical Impact Of Senate Immigration Bill

Monday, May 15, 2006

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) today unveiled an impact analysis that shows the Senate immigration bill – should it become law – would permit up to 217.1 million new legal immigrants into the United States over the next 20 years, a number equal to 66 percent of the total current population of the United States.

Even if the maximum levels are not reached, the increase to the U.S. population caused by S. 2611 will be at least 78.7 million in 20 years, just over 25 percent of the total current population. This lower estimate assumes that the bill's escalating caps on certain visas will not increase at all over the next 20 years; if the bill's caps are hit each year, the total number will be the higher estimate.

“Until now, most of us have focused on securing the border and deciding how to treat the illegal alien population already in the United States,” Sessions said. “Few, if any, of us have looked ahead to see what the long-term numerical impact of the bill would be. My staff and I have just completed such a study, and the results are shocking.”

Sessions discussed his findings at a news conference today, along with Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who released his own analysis showing similar numbers.

“As we begin debate today on the floor, my goal is to get these numbers before my colleagues so that they can appreciate just how breath-takingly unsatisfactory this 614-page Senate bill is,” Sessions said. “We know that this country is going to treat the illegal alien population fairly. However, if the Senate wants to be successful in passing immigration reform, it should produce a bill that secures the borders and the workplace and establishes a commonsense, carefully thought out, legally enforceable policy for legal immigration in the future. For our immigration system to work, the Senate bill must guarantee that today’s facade of enforcement and illegal immigration flows won’t exist in the future.”

If the current legal immigration level (950,000 a year for 20 years or 18.9 million over 20 years) is excluded from the total, according to Sessions, the Senate bill could be described as increasing legal immigration by 59 million to 198.2 million over 20 years.

“These are actually very conservative estimates,” Sessions said. “For example, for the low end, we assumed the caps would never escalate, and we only added an average of 1.2 immediate family members coming in with each alien worker. Additionally, our numerical analysis did not add in estimates of future illegal immigration flows, or include any estimates for chain-migration – the parents, brothers and sisters that new citizens can bring in on a permanent basis.”

Chain-migration occurs when an immigrant becomes a citizen. Citizens have a legal

right to bring in family members other than spouses and children. They can bring in their parents, their adult siblings and the spouses and children of their adult siblings.

“You can see how the potential exponential growth impact of the Senate legislation will cause consternation on the part of Congress and the American people ,” Sessions said.

The Senate bill would increase permanent future immigration into the United States in several ways.

LOW SKILLED PERMANENT IMMIGRATION:

H-2C Workers: By creating a new (H-2C) visa category for “temporary guest workers” (low skilled workers) with an annual “cap” of 325,000 that increases up to 20 percent each year the cap is met, the bill allows at least 6.5 million, and up to 60.7 million new guest workers to come to the United States over the next 20 years. There is nothing “temporary” about these workers. Employers may file a green card application on their behalf as soon as they arrive in the United States, or the worker may self-petition for a green card after four years of work.

H-4 Family Members of H-2C Workers: By creating a new visa category (H-4) for the immediate family members of the future low-skilled workers (H-2C), and allowing them to also receive green cards, the bill would allow at least 7.8 million, and up to 72.8 million immediate family members of low-skilled workers to come to the United States over the next 20 years.

HIGH SKILLED PERMANENT IMMIGRATION:

H-1B: The bill would essentially open the borders to high-skilled workers, as well as low-skilled workers. By increasing the annual cap of 65,000 to 115,000, automatically increasing the new cap by 20 percent each year the cap is hit, and creating a new exemption to new cap for anyone who has an “advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math” from any foreign university, the number of H-1B workers coming into the United States would undoubtedly escalate. The 20-year impact of this escalation could be anywhere from 1 million to 20.1 million. H-1B workers are eligible for green cards and would be allowed to stay and work in the United States for as long as it takes to process the green card application.

STEEP INCREASES TO ANNUAL GREEN CARD LIMITS:

Family Based Green Cards: The bill would increase the annual cap on family based green cards available to non-immediate family members (adult sons and daughters, adults siblings, and the spouses and children of adult siblings) by more than 100 percent, upping the current cap of 226,000 to 480,000 a year. Immediate family members are already able to immigrate without regard to the family based green card caps. The 20-year impact of this change would be an increase of 5.1 million non-immediate family member green cards.

Employment Based Green Cards The bill would increase the annual cap on employment-based green cards by more than 500 percent, upping the current cap of 140,000 to 450,000 until 2016 and to 290,000 thereafter and exempting all immediate family members that currently count against the cap today (spouses, children and parents) from the newly escalated cap. The new exemption would result in an average of 540,000 family members receiving green cards each year of the first 10 years, and an average of 348,000 family members receiving green cards each year of the second 10 years. The 20-year impact of this change would be an increase of 13.5 million employment-based green cards, for a total of 16.3 million employment-based green cards issued over the course of the next 20 years.

[Kozak]

Name calling is the hallmark of a liberal.

[antceecee]

I never thought I would see FReepers bashing Ronald Reagan! This must be an alternate universe.


(Remember Bizzaro Superman? Creeped me out when I was a kid. The bashing of good conservatives here kind of reminds me of that).

[Lurker]

I had no intention of being a PI anyones A. I just had some questions about site policy. It seems to me there have been some changes of late and I want to make sure I remain a welcome guest in your virtual home.

I've been around here a pretty long time and I've detected a bit of a shift in the tone of things recently. I've gotten the impression that behaviors which in the past would have gotten some people warned or banned outright are now accepted. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what is permitted and what isn't.

Thanks for the help.

L