Posted on 05/19/2007 11:40:04 AM PDT by Pokey78
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Delegates to the state Republican convention unleashed a rare chorus of boos and hisses at U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Saturday, as he spoke up for a bipartisan immigration reform package unveiled in Washington this week.
Hear it for yourself by clicking here.
Chambliss had just finished emphasizing his devotion to border security provisions contained in the measure, and brought up agriculture’s need for temporary, foreign workers.
“We’ve got to face the fact that we’ve got to create a new, truly temporary worker program” — the boos started here, but Chambliss plowed on — “for that segment of our economy that need temporary workers.
“If we don’t have a meaningful, workable program, we’ll simply be dependent on foreign imports for food products, the way we’re dependent on foreign imports for oil products,” Chambliss said, finishing his thought.
After the speech, Chambliss said he took the crowd’s reaction as a lack of popular understanding of the shape of the current immigration system.
Both Chambliss and U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson spoke at a breakfast meeting, then before 1,200 or so delegates who gathered in the Gwinnett County Civic Center.
Isakson was first. He laid out the enforcement and border security aspects of the immigration bill, due to come up before the Senate this week.
His speech was short, and received polite applause. “We have the opportunity and a narrow window to change what has plagued our society for 21 years,” Isakson said.
The current bill does just that, he said, endorsing “citizenship the right way, the naturalized way, the speaking-English way.”
Chambliss, the state’s senior senator who is up for re-election next year, did most of the talking.
He explained that he and Isakson engaged with Democrats — after their attempts to change immigration last year were blocked, in a Republican-controlled Congress.
“Today is a different day in Washington. Republicans are not in control. The Democrats have decided that an immigration bill is coming to the floor.
“We could either sit on the sidelines and we could throw rocks, or we could become engaged and make what we knew was a bad bill, better,” Chambliss said.
But he promised that both he and Isakson were not inalterably committed. “You need to know, you did not elect two potted plants to the Senate,” Chambliss said.
But he also had a word for critics.
“We either come up with a comprehensive immigration package or we have the status quo,” he said.
“Please don’t believe what you hear or see on radio and TV,” Chambliss said. “We’re not asking you to trust us. But give us an opportunity to explain it to you.”
The issue of illegal immigration has the potential to create a serious split in the party, on a state and national level.
“If this gets categorized as amnesty, it could cause the party to split next year, particularly if the top of the ticket is viewed as too liberal,” said Mark Rountree, a political strategist who works with Republican candidates.
By liberal, he meant former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Rountree wants former Tennessee senator and actor Fred Thompson in the ’08 presidential race.
Immigration is yet another of those issues that where the fault line separates the business community from the ideological base of the party.
Supporters of the immigration bill backed by Chambliss and Isakson include Gary Black, a former candidate for state agriculture commissioner.
“We just can’t turn our heads anymore. We’ve got to find some resolution,” Black said.
He’s a member of a group formed only in the last few weeks, called Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform.
Thank you!
It is not even close that the US "needs" the illegal labor, for agriculture, or other industries for that matter. This is total lobbyist (self-serving) poppycock. Those politicians who are sincere enough (if there are any)to really believe this are simply over their head.
Either way, they are ignorant or whores. That's the "leadership" we have elected.
Would it be too over-the-top to refer to Martinez as “La Raza Man” from now on?
Let's see them ram that one through ;)
Bush is destroying this country... and doing a more thorough job of it than Clinton. Clinton did it for money and power, but Bush is just doing it for money.
I never thought I would say this, but Bush SHOULD be removed from office... not for any of the liberal bumper-sticker idiocy like “Bush lied”, etc., but because he is working to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.
You can't pay them near-slave wages and ignore all kinds of pesky labor laws, that's what's wrong.
(Laffin Out Loud) Ha Ha Ha!!!
Here's what that really means:"Well... (excitedly and all out of breath) We had to hurry up and join the Democrats in doing SOMETHING, even if it's dead wrong!"
The Fair Tax is the best immigration reform bill ever conceived. It fundamentally changes the financial motivations for illegal immigration, makes legal workers more competitive to employers, and taxes the underground cash economy which exists around illegal immigrant communities.
If congress really thinks immigration is critically important, then it is important enough to change the tax system. If congress will not vote for a plan which includes tax reform, they are not serious about immigration.
Give me a break!! Have you meet any lately.
Goldfinch, I’m not sure how much clearer I could have been. Talk about getting hit by friendly fire... Are we reading the same article? My exact point is that the Republican Party is in far greater political peril with the immigration issue than the Democrat Party, for multiple reasons.
Illegal immigrants will obviously be more likely to vote Democrat. The issue is more problematic than that, however, since that is a longer term problem.
The short term political problem, the one affecting us in the next 18 months, is that if this proposal is received by the public as a form of amnesty, and our Republican nominee is perceived as weak on the issue, it could cause a historic split in the Republican Party.
Tancredo or Hunter or Barr or any one of dozens could lead an independent third-party effort, running to the right of the Republican presidential nominee, particularly if it’s Guiliani.
Goldfinch, did you even read my comments? Or just fire in all direction from the foxhole?
Anyway, in your role as a GOP spokesman, maybe you could answer some questions for me. Maybe you can tell me what in the world the GOP thought it would gain by authoring a ‘comprehensive’ immigration plan featuring amnesty?
Shouldn’t have someone in the GOP realized that the base want the border controlled first?
Shouldn’t have someone in the GOP realized that neither that President nor Congress has any credibility on the issue of border control?
How many times do you expect the base to buy into the idea that the GOP favors border control when so very little has been done to control the border in the 6 years that the GOP controlled both the White House and Congress?
Did the party really think they would be able to sell their base on a bill giving amnesty to 20 million illegals, giving only their normal nod and a wink to the issue of border control?
I have been watching the political games for 40 years and I have never seen a party propose a bill that would:
1) harm the country
2) alienate the base
3) guarantee the party would remain a minority party for the foreseeable future.
That is quite a trifecta there. I cannot imagine why the GOP thought it was a winner. Any light you could shine on the GOP’s actions would be much appreciated.
“....or we have the status quo”
So we have another US Senator...ON PUBLIC RECORD refusing to support and enforce existing immigration law....
Oh man, talk about an opportunity for a great slap down.
Amendment XVII (the Seventeenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution
was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911 and by the House on May 13, 1912. It was ratified on April 8, 1913 and was first put into effect for the election of 1914. It amends Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature, thus effectively eliminating state representation in Congress. It was passed and ratified during the Progressive Era.
I’ll bet we can get 34 state legislatures to vote to withdraw the 17th amendment......put those suckers back under direct control of state legislatures...
These guys don't get it that it is their responsibility to get control of our borders.
We don't need to make 'deals' to get Comprehensive Bills, for the Federal government to fulfill its duty to guard the borders, esxpically now when we have seen the results of our porous immigration policy with 9/11.
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.