Posted on 07/10/2006 2:54:41 PM PDT by sinkspur
Congress may be surprised when its public hearings on immigration energize all of us moderate Americans
The immigration bills passed by the House and Senate in recent months could hardly be more different. The House package is harsh, punitive and focused exclusively on tougher enforcement. The Senate bill balances toughness with pragmatism by including provisions to admit the workers we need to keep our economy growing and deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.
The prospect of reconciling the two bills has always looked difficult – the legislative equivalent of marrying a giraffe and a hippopotamus. As part of their maneuvering for position, House Republicans declared that they wouldn't even negotiate until they had held a series of special hearings on immigration, which started last week in San Diego and Laredo. And despite signs of softening recently, even hints of possible agreement on a phased solution, the House still has gone ahead with its hearings. Yet this, I believe, may not be such a bad thing.
Why would I say that? After all, the details on the hearings leave little doubt about the House's intentions: to look tough and – let's put it charitably – skeptical about immigration, both legal and illegal. Many sessions are scheduled for border states, where frustration about illegal immigration runs highest. And they will address such subjects as retroactive Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants, whether state and local law enforcement should be empowered to arrest illegal immigrants without other cause, whether existing border enforcement is tough enough, and English as the official language – all subjects guaranteed to rub raw the public's irritation.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
The public doesn't even know about any hearings. And, with the Democrats also on the panels, they come off as nothing but political grandstanding by both sides.
They appear to be a total waste of time.
I heard Tamar Jacoby shilling for the Senate bill back in May on radio talk show. She was saying things I knew werent true, I dont know if she was naive or deliberate obfuscation but she ought to have known better.
Spreading the story that Senate bill was serious about enforcement and employer sanctions (the ol' 'comprehensive' line) - THE SAME WEEK the Senate turned down the Cornyn amendment that attempted to fix the Senate bill's fundamentally broken employer sanctions and right after we found out the Senate slipped in that amendment to ask mexico's permission to build any walls.
She cannot be taken seriously on this issue, very open borders ...
"I clearly noted how they used favorable language for the Senate bill and negative language for the House bill, while omitting key aspects of both, to get the results they wanted. Read if for yourself, sink, and tell me that the two questions were not seriously slanted."
Correct, and also other media outlets used the same technique for their polloganda. Most seriously, though, was (and is) the msirepresentation that the Senate bill actually did something positive about enforcement, when in fact, many kennedy-inserted provisions MAKE DEPORTATION HARDER, MAKE FRAUD EASIER, AND MAKE EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION A NONSTARTER.
We need to deal with what *IS*, not with the lipstick that some PR gurus want to put on this pig.
BTW, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison got thousands of emails in may on the Senate bill, she said that it ran thousands against, and a handful for.
"You're paranoid. You also assume that even GOP voters are too stupid to understand the two plans."
OTOH, it looks like Tamar Jacoby thinks voters are too stupid to understand the Senate bill, or she wouldnt be so brazen. Her description of that horrible bill is a complete whitewash.
There was nothing about "asking Mexico's permission" to build a wall in the Senate bill.
The language advised a discussion with Mexico about it, but there was no mandate to do even that.
"I'm beginning to believe that the voters--who have never put illegal immigration in the top five issues of concern to them--wouldn't even notice if the whole discussion about immigration just faded away."
Which spikes the whole lie that 'we have to do something NOW!' that the open-borders lobby was trying to push this Spring.
They really wanted to sell swill and pretend it was better than "inaction", but got a huge voter backlash.
"The hearings keeps the issue in the public eye, and is aimed squarely at democrat house seats up for re-election in border states. That the debates bother senate open border republicans is a side issue."
Correct. Even Democrats are lining up on being tough on border enforcement in these hearings. Then Howard Dean ruins it all with another gaffe about how evil pro-border-security Republicans are.
He's the gift that keeps on giving!
They really wanted to sell swill and pretend it was better than "inaction", but got a huge voter backlash.
There was no "voter backlash." If there was any strong sentiment at all in favor of an enforcement-only immigration plan, the Senate would have passed the House bill.
I doubt if any bill will pass, which means things will just go status quo, and will stay that way at least during the next two years.
I'll give you my take on that after the November elections, not before.
ping
I can just hear one of those border state voters!!
Hastert : "Hey did you hear there is a big problem with illegal Mexican immigration?"
Democrat voter: "Do you mean to tell me there are millions of Mexicans coming into our state? "The hell you say. I'd a never knowed it if you hadn't told me." "I thought all them brown people that talk funny just had good tans!!!"
If there is not already enough support in the border states to elect candidates that are opposed to illegal abortion.. where is there enough support?
How did you move from Illegal aliens to abortion? Are you from DU?
"If there was any strong sentiment at all in favor of an enforcement-only immigration plan, the Senate would have passed the House bill."
LOL. The Senate bill was a special-interest "compromise" between the open border left and the open borders cheap labor lobby that was mostly written by Kennedy and his staffers, with help from some RINO Senators. The desire of most Americans didnt enter into their calculations, except insofar as they tried to figure out how much they could get away with putting one over on us by dissembling about the nature of the bill they passed.
" ... right after we found out the Senate slipped in that amendment to ask mexico's permission to build any walls."
"There was nothing about "asking Mexico's permission" to build a wall in the Senate bill."
I'm sure Senator Chris Dodd appreciates you running interference for him on this amendment, but although you say "The language advised a discussion with Mexico about it, but there was no mandate to do even that.", there was indeed a mandate for consultation with Mexico:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005264.htm
"(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern."
That is just a small part of what is wrong with CIRA bill.
http://demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=380
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15165
Hell, I don't even know about these hearings. What are they?
I'm sure Senator Chris Dodd appreciates you running interference for him on this amendment, but although you say "The language advised a discussion with Mexico about it, but there was no mandate to do even that.", there was indeed a mandate for consultation with Mexico:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005264.htm
"(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern."
And Bush's newly elected conservative President Calderon is against both the fence and the military on the border. The OBL will never allow for a secured border, it does not fit with their agenda. Otherwise Bush would have secured the border on 9/12. (Calderon also seeks to get amnesty for all illegal aliens in the US)
"With North Korea and Iraq in the news, the focus has shifted to national security, which tends to make all other issues pale in comparison."
"'Shifted' to national security?" Securing our borders has been at the top of the list for national security since 9/12/01. The question will be, on 9/11/06, 5 years later, why has this President and his administration refused to effectively secure the border? No excuses, including his OBL agenda, will suffice.
No, I'm not. You've been around long enough to both understand the concept of push polling and to recognize a push poll when you see one.
You also assume that even GOP voters are too stupid to understand the two plans.
Hardly. But a lot of people don't follow politics as closely as we do here, and can be swayed by push polls such as this one.
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.