Trey Gowdy: House Can’t Just Defend the Status Quo on Immigration

NRO ^ | July 15, 2013 | Will Allen

[kabar]

You are too eager to argue over the meaning of the word "amnesty,"

The definition of the word "amnesty" is critical to any discussion of these bills. Poll after poll show that the American people are against amnesty. Hence, it is the reason that McCain claimed in 2007 that his bill was not an amnesty and now Rubio and Paul Ryan are claiming that their bill is not amnesty. Words have meanings and the other side understands that if they can fool the public, they will win the battle.

I don't believe the word "amnesty" by itself has the precision other terms do.

The only reason it lacks precision is due to the other side trying to change its meaning. They are stealing the lexicon used to discuss the issue, e.g., illegal aliens are undocumented workers.

That's what they claimed, but you and I know their claim was pure sophistry. Indeed,the 2007 bill conformed to the definition of "amnesty" I proposed, because it created an explicit special path-to-citizenship for illegals.

The 1986 bill, the 2006 Hagel-Martinez bill (which passed the Senate,) the 2007 MecCain-Kennedy bill, and the 2013 McRubio-Schumer bill are all amnesty bills.

Definition: Amnesty, from the same Greek root as "amnesia," forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien's illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.

I do not see any point on which I disagree with you about policy goals, but I am not confident the US public has the will to do the right thing. Please learn to stop insisting on arguing with people who agree with you.

You miss my point. If we are going to get public support behind us, we must educate them on the impact of this bill and call it what it is--amnesty. The other side is using Orwellian tactics to change the meanings of words. And even you, a strong opponent of this bill, seem to believe that amnesty is not a precise term. Do you believe that mere legalization is amnesty? I do.

In 2007, the word "Amnesty" was also a kind of political buzzword we used as a weapon against the bill. I would have no objection to using it to describe plans without an explicit path-to-citizenship, although in my judgment, an immigration bill with such a direct, explicit citizenship provision is more dangerous than one without one.

And sadly, such is the evolution of such thinking even among ourselves. The word amnesty was indeed used as a "weapon" against the McCain-Kennedy bill because that is exactly what it was. If you recall McCain claimed that it was not an amnesty because you had to pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line. The McRubio-Schumer bill is just old wine in new bottles. If you read both bills, you will discover remarkable similarities and wording.

The McCain "Z" visa becomes the McRubio "RPI" visa, which essentially gives everyone amnesty. Under the "Z" visa, they were going to take two years to process the application with background checks, etc. and put the lawbreakers on a path to citizenship. McRubio uses the RPI visa, which is renewable, as the same kind of vehicle. But it even goes further in that someone could choose to stay here indefinitely under the RPI visa. They would be given work permits, allowed to travel freely to and from this country, and sponsor their dependents and relatives to join them. This is amnesty.

Obama has said he will not approve any bill that does not allow for a path to citizenship. It remains to be seen if he will hold to that if Congress approves an amnesty bill that does not include that provision. Either way the Dems win. If fact, they have already won with the passage in the Senate. It puts pressure on the GOP House and gives them an issue for the 2014 midterms--win or lose. The Reps are throwing a life preserver to the beleaguered Obama. And if Congress passes "comprehensive immigration reform," Obama will have truly transformed America coupled with Obamacare. And with or without amnesty, the Dems will be the permanent majority party if we continue to our current immigration policies. Amnesty just hastens the process.

[kabar]

That depends on us. We don’t need a single welfare immigrant ever.

But that is exactly what we are getting. Our legal immigration policies are importing poverty. We currently bring in about 1.2 million people a year with 25% of the adults lacking even a high school degree. 87% of them are minorities as defined by the USG. Immigrants use our welfare system to a much greater degree than the native born.

We do need a growing population.

Since 1965 our immigration policies have engendered the greatest mass migration of people in the shortest period of time in human history. The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 44 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in almost 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In less than a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history.

The U.S. immigrant population has doubled since 1990, nearly tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970, when it stood at 9.7 million. Of the 40 million immigrants in the country in 2010, 13.9 million arrived in 2000 or later making it the highest decade of immigration in American history, even though there was a net loss of jobs during the same period. Our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled more than three quarters of our population increase from 203 million in 1970 to 316 million today. We have added 35 million to our population since 2000 or almost the equivalent of another California. The U.S. population will increase another estimated 130 million over the next 40 years.

The McRubio-Schumer bill will bring in at least 33 million more legal immigrants over the next decade, which is more than the previous 40 years combined. And the bill doubles the number of temporary work visas with an increase of 1.6 million the first year and 600,000 a year thereafter. This during a period when 22 million Americans are underemployed or unemployed. This is the definition of insanity.

The US has a fertility rate of 2.06 just at replacement level. There is no demographic crisis re population growth.

Much of the problem with immigration is generated by state and local laws - zoning, permitting, and anti-competition regulations including taxation.

I don't know what you are talking about. Please be more specific.

[kabar]

I think you underestimate the damage a citizenship provision would do. Just think about family immigration times 30 million. However, any kind of legalization is also very dangerous. I also told the staffer that I am opposed to any immigration bill in the house.

I have worked on this issue for over six years. I have lobbied on the Hill and in Richmond to address immigration issues. I understand the damage an amnesty would do with or without citizenship. Our biggest problem is legal immigration. We don't need 1.2 million legal immigrants a year--most of whom are poor and uneducated. They are depressing our wages, taking jobs from Americans, using our welfare programs to a much higher degree than the native born, and voting Dem two to one and that percentage is increasing.

The McRubio-Schumer bill will hike our legal immigration numbers and double the size of our guest worker programs. It will be a disaster for the American worker with or without citizenship.

[1010RD]

The ‘immigration problem’ is a welfare problem. Fix welfare and you’ve solved nearly the entire problem with welfare. If you must work to live in America, if you must produce to consume, I don’t have a problem with an immigrants demographic background. Welcome to liberty which includes the hard work and benefits of your own labor.

The second issue is with American values. Those have been dropping precipitously over the last half century. How much is driven by domestic education policy v. country of origin culture I don’t know. Both are problematic.

Of the two, I would cite our education policy which is no longer American, but Politically Correct in belief and internationalist in teaching (by this I mean that American exceptionalism is not taught). Illegal immigrants rarely learn English, are Balkinized in their own communities and don’t ever take the Constitution/Citizenship classes or test. That’s a problem.

My point about the local and state generated issues is that ‘sanctuary’ cities are allowed to exist. Those same urban centers also force people into poverty via their regulation of the market place. It is very hard to work or set up a business there. That must change as it affects blacks disproportionately and they make up the domestic workforce being replaced by immigrants, mainly from Mexico.

It’s a tangled web, that only liberty can unwind.

[kabar]

The ‘immigration problem’ is a welfare problem. Fix welfare and you’ve solved nearly the entire problem with welfare.

How do you fix the welfare problem when you are bringing in mostly poor and unskilled people who depress wages and take jobs from Americans? We don't have a worker shortage problem, we have a job shortage problem. Real wages have been declining for the past 40 years.

If you're a high school dropout you're talking about 30 percent working. Among high school grads who graduated from high school in the last three years -- we do a separate survey of them the fall after graduation -- 45 percent of them held a job, the lowest in the last 50 years we've been collecting this data. And to make it worse, of that 45 percent, only half of them were able to get a full-time job. Only one in five young high school grads, not in college, [is] working full-time...So all those factors, when you combine them and take a young black high school dropout, low-income male, you're talking 5 percent employment.

I don’t have a problem with an immigrants demographic background.

I will be politically incorrect and say I do. When you bring in most of your immigrants from the Third World and in numbers that will make non-Hispanic whites a minority in 30 years, what kind of country will we have in terms of national identify and a sense of shared endeavor? We changed the immigration rules in 1965 to make America look more like the rest of the world rather than having immigrants come mostly from Europe. It has had a major impact on this country demographically, culturally, and electorally.

Legal immigrants are predominantly minorities as defined by the U.S. Government, which entitles them to special benefits like affirmative action and minority business set asides. This reinforces and incentivizes group identification rather than assimilation.

And we know they vote Democrat two to one. This last election has shown that we are entering an era of tribal politics. 59% of whites voted for Romney. He got the majority of white voters in all age groups and gender. Obama won 93% of the black vote, 73% of the Asian vote and 71% of the Hispanic vote. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2042 half of the country will be. Demography is destiny.

The second issue is with American values. Those have been dropping precipitously over the last half century. How much is driven by domestic education policy v. country of origin culture I don’t know. Both are problematic.

We are not the same country we were in 1960. 89% of the population were non-Hispanic whites. About one in 25 was foreign born. Today, 66% of the population is non-Hispanic whites and one in 8 is foreign born. Where do you think the mantra of multiculturalism and diversity is a strength comes from? Many of these people do not share our cultural values or share the vision of our Founders, who have been demonized in our schools as white racists.

The immigration issue will become much more polarizing as we see increased immigration and lower native birthrates, principally among non-Hispanic. Europe is consumed with the immigration issue as it tries to preserve its culture and values along with the welfare state. Immigrants in Europe are also using welfare programs to a much higher extent than the native born and they are depressing wages, especially among blue collar workers.

Of the two, I would cite our education policy which is no longer American, but Politically Correct in belief and internationalist in teaching (by this I mean that American exceptionalism is not taught). Illegal immigrants rarely learn English, are Balkinized in their own communities and don’t ever take the Constitution/Citizenship classes or test. That’s a problem.

What is the root of this political correctness? We have become a much more diverse society comprised of significant numbers of people who don't share our cultural values and views on the role of government. We are also encouraging group identity rather than assimilation. We are transmitting the message that all cultures are equal and that there is nothing exceptional about America. We must not offend any of these cultures even if it means that American traditions and values must be curtailed. And the more immigrants from the Third World that you bring in, the worse it will get.

It is not only illegal aliens that are not learning English properly. There are 10.4 million students from immigrant households in public schools, accounting for one in five public school students. Of these students, 78 percent speak a language other than English at home. Overall, one in four public school students now speaks a language other than English at home.

And learning English comes at a cost. Here in Fairfax County, there are over 31,000 ESOL students in the system. The costs of just the ESOL instruction alone (excluding the regular per capita costs) are $104 million a year. And it is being paid by property taxes. The costs of immigration, legal and illegal on our educational system, are huge and they are not computed by the CBO and the estimated costs of adding another 33 million permanent legal immigrants over the next 10 years.

Our educational system is not teaching civics and the Constitution to all students, not just immigrants. And American history is being neglected and distorted.

My point about the local and state generated issues is that ‘sanctuary’ cities are allowed to exist. Those same urban centers also force people into poverty via their regulation of the market place. It is very hard to work or set up a business there. That must change as it affects blacks disproportionately and they make up the domestic workforce being replaced by immigrants, mainly from Mexico.

I just completed working on and participating in the DCMarch for Jobs yesterday. We had several thousand people turn out. Not a very encouraging sign given that we had an all-star cast of speakers ranging from Steve King, Allen West, Ted Cruz, and Jeff Sessions to a host of black leaders like Jesse Peterson and KC Smith, Katrina Pierson, etc. The real problem is that both parties have abandoned the American worker. And the McRubio-Schumer amnesty will hit all kinds of workers--blue collar and white collar alike-- and of all races and ethnicities.

It’s a tangled web, that only liberty can unwind.

Our liberty is being diminished daily by the political, corporate, and media elites. We are all being ensnared and suffocated by this web. And ignorance of the issues is the main reason the public remains unaware of what is happening and what is at stake.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” I finally got to speak to one. He assured me that my congressman would not vote for a pathway-to-citizenship. Whew!”

Not clear enough.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I know that you have been one of the good guys on this issue for years. When so many on this forum defended GWB's amnesty in 2007, you stood with me and others who saw that anyone, including GWB, who claimed to be opposed to leftist policies, but fought to give the leftists more votes and power, is not on our side. You have consistently reminded everyone here that "legal" immigration is s threat to our way of life at least as great as any legalization of the current illegals. This is especially dangerous, because the big GOP money wants to increase, not decrease "legal immigration," and the public is not marching on D. C. to do something about it.

You miss my point. If we are going to get public support behind us, we must educate them on the impact of this bill and call it what it is--amnesty. The other side is using Orwellian tactics to change the meanings of words. And even you, a strong opponent of this bill, seem to believe that amnesty is not a precise term. Do you believe that mere legalization is amnesty? I do.

Although I offered a definition which fits all these treasonous "comprehensive immigration" bills up to now, including the 2013 senate "Chuck Schumer Republican" immigration whopper, by the general meaning of the term "amnesty," that term certainly can be used to describe legalization without any specific written path-to-citizenship in the text of a bill/law. And we do need to think carefully about how we write about whatever immigration bills that are going to materialize in the House.

Let's say that the House brings up a "legalization-only" bill for "Dreamer" children under 18. Although that would be different from all previous major "general amnesty" bills (1986,2006,2007, the current senate bill), which essentially legalized all of the illegals present at the time, we could still call such a bill "amnesty." But if I use that term, I would always add a description of exactly what kind of "amnesty" it is.

And make no mistake, I do not want to see such a bill become law. Yes, I have some compassion, but there are all kinds of unintended, disastrous consequences (e.g. it would announce to 7 billion people that we are going to pass a Dream Act every few years).

Some GOP House members may secretly plan to pass such a bill, assuming it will never become law, getting some credit with the media. Playing with fire.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I agree with kabar that ever increasing “legal immigration” is a mortal threat.

When FD Roosevelt threatened to pack the SCOTUS with his cronies, congressmen from his own party wrote, “This is more power than a good man should want, or a bad man should hsve.” But while they were fighting that, Roosevelt went ahead with the rest of his leftist policies, which still plague us today.

Similarly, while we are very focused on illegal immigration. (which is a huge problem, and threatens add millions of leftist voters with the help of the GOP), legal immigration seems to have no limit.

[kabar]

Let's say that the House brings up a "legalization-only" bill for "Dreamer" children under 18. Although that would be different from all previous major "general amnesty" bills (1986,2006,2007, the current senate bill), which essentially legalized all of the illegals present at the time, we could still call such a bill "amnesty." But if I use that term, I would always add a description of exactly what kind of "amnesty" it is.

Based on the contacts I have, it is virtually a sure thing that the Reps will pass its version of the "Dream Act" that will include immediate legalization--already a fact under Obama with his backdoor amnesty for Dreamers--and a path to citizenship. The majority of Reps have already given up on trying to stop the Dream Act. Obama has already legalized their presence and is issuing them work permits. Trying to walk that back would be a nightmare. The failure of the Reps to scream bloody murder when Obama did it should given you an idea as to where matters now stand.

Some GOP House members may secretly plan to pass such a bill, assuming it will never become law, getting some credit with the media. Playing with fire.

I think the fix is in. We will see the equivalent of the Corker-Hoeven amendment in the House that will give the Reps the cover to vote for it. The GOP wants to please its corporate paymasters and what they want is the expanded guest worker program. The Reps will give up an amnesty to get it.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The failure of the Reps to scream bloody murder when Obama did it should given you an idea as to where matters now stand.

Also, maybe more important is that the voters did not seem to care.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I think the fix is in. We will see the equivalent of the Corker-Hoeven amendment in the House that will give the Reps the cover to vote for it. The GOP wants to please its corporate paymasters and what they want is the expanded guest worker program. The Reps will give up an amnesty to get it

I have not given up hope. Some GOP members may vote against such a dream act with a path-to-citizenship, and if they brought up a legalization-only bill, it's not clear that Dems would accept it.

Also, it's possible that they will run out of time. Then Boehner could say to the big money, "We tried but...."

[Syncro]

Gowdy went dowdy, just dang.

Do the dems have enough dirt on GOPe’ers to turn them all?

We need more with the proper metaphorical male “equipment” like Cruz, Palin etc.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

A popular belief is that Dems would never accept an immigration deal without a path-to-citizenship (therefore the House GOP could pass a non-citizenship dream act and the senate would reject it). But why not? The illegals would get to third base, could stay there indefinitely, and have several ways of getting to home plate. It would be like a chess gae in which they moved a powerful piece near our king, completely safe, not able to checkmate yet, but always threatening.

This would make a good HR thread:

The Non-Citizenship Trap: Legalization First–that’s the real dealbreaker issue for Dems.....Republican Rep. Raul Labrador emerged from the House GOP’s Wednesday loya jirga having practically negotiated the final conference report in his head, declaring he thinks “we’ll get to a pathway similar to a H1-B visa for folks here but no special pathway to citizenship for undocumented.

The article continues, For Republicans, the non-citizenship path pushed by Labrador and others is arguably the worst of both worlds. They not only lose the immigration fight–alienating both their conservative base and the white non-college voters who abandoned them in the 2012 election. They also give Democrats an opportunity to bash them relentlessly for making millions of Latinos into formal second-class residents.

There is a political risk either way. If the House leaders bring up a non-citizenship dream act and the House votes it down, the media will say "Juan Cuervo" (i. e. Jim Crow, second class people). Already mentioned some of the bad points of passing such a bill above.

Either way, the demagogue machine will use its megaphone through 2016.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Blue slip, and do NOTHING is the only way for us to win.

[Lakeshark]

Blue slip, and do NOTHING is the only way for us to win.

In the words of a great thinker..... *cough, cough* ObiwanKenobi...*cough*.............. there is another....

Pretend to be doing something and let the bill die a slow, tortured death.....

Muahahahahahaha!!!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”A popular belief is that Dems would never accept an immigration deal without a path-to-citizenship (therefore the House GOP could pass a non-citizenship dream act and the senate would reject it). But why not? The illegals would get to third base, could stay there indefinitely,..”

You and everyone else here knows that they ARE staying here forever, I don't even have to explain why we know this. So there is no reason for Dems to go for a deal for something they already have.

The reason why Dems find that idea so toxic (amnesty wo citizenship) is that they don't like or trust employers at all, but with comprehensive they can make a deal with what they consider the Devil(bosses) : accept more cheap workers now competing with their unions workers only for the golden prize: they get millions of new Dem voters in a few years voting for 95% of what they want.

Dems would never accept otherwise,

Obama says no to immigration without citizenship path

Giving them green cards (permanent residency) even wo citizenship just because they stay out of legal trouble isn't a great deal. They could still join unions and donate to Dems and march and stuff, if Dems would go for it which they wont.

.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The article continues, For Republicans, the non-citizenship path pushed by Labrador and others is arguably the worst of both worlds. They not only lose the immigration fight–alienating both their conservative base and the white non-college voters who abandoned them in the 2012 election. They also give Democrats an opportunity to bash them relentlessly for making millions of Latinos into formal second-class residents.”

If it passes, which it cant.

Of course Obama’s Dream order makes them into third class residents now, they have to apply and get a background check with the hope that no new administration would use that information against them, and they have to do it again every 5 years now.

So such a proposal to second class is still an improvement for them, rel to above argument.(’Hey, we are trying but Dems just said NO’)

This is an issue where the GOP loses either way. And I trust they will lose almost any debate because they have no clue. Rubio certainly is a problem.

Here's a joke I thought of to throw at libs I might use here:
‘Obama will create millions more Zimmermans with amnesty. We cant let him turn this entire country into 1960s South by doing that. Vote NO for Trayvon.’.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Pretend to be doing something and let the bill die a slow, tortured death.....

Muahahahahahaha!!! “

OK, I’ll buy that : )

[ObamahatesPACoal]

Congress gets way too emotional about some wasted food. It really isn’t a big deal if some fruit doesn’t get picked and brought to market. Grow something more important or something that needs less labor. People are not malnourished because of this.

There’s coal in the ground that can’t get mined because of Congress passing pointless laws.

[Girlene]

There’s coal in the ground that can’t get mined because of Congress passing pointless laws.

I'm not sure what laws you mean. Are you referring to mountaintop mining, or,...?