Posted on 06/23/2013 6:59:11 AM PDT by iowamark
On first appraisal, the amnesty/immigration bill before the Senate looks pretty bad. On a more careful comb-through, clause by clause, it looks much worse - like a complete disaster. It also looks like a massive venture in deception.
Consider the oft-repeated claim that, under the bill, 11 million plus illegal immigrants now in the U.S. won't get legal status unless and until the border with Mexico is secure. This claim has been incessantly made by backers of the measure who call it "tough, conservative" legislation.
Thus, a former official in the second Bush administration flatly tells us, "The bill's path to citizenship doesn't open until the border is secured." The same claim is made in radio/tv ads in conservative media markets, featuring one-time tea party favorite, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the main Republican spokesman for the bill.
These commercials are funded by a Silicon Valley group calling itself "Americans for a Conservative Direction," though conservatism isn't evident otherwise in Silicon Valley political projects, which tilt heavily to Obama. One radio spot says of the bill's approach, "it all begins with border security," while a TV commercial featuring Rubio states, beneath his picture, "establish border security first." Similar claims have been made innumerable times in the run-up to Senate voting.
That these statements are completely false can be seen by anyone who bothers to read the legislation.
In fact, all the bill requires is that the Secretary of Homeland Security submit a "strategy" for securing the border, then certify that steps to implement this are "commencing." These paper pledges would trigger the processing of applications for "provisional immigrant" status that would in essence legalize illegals.
The bogus nature of this "conservative" ad campaign was on full display last week in two rather startling developments involving Rubio in person. On June 13, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) submitted an amendment to the bill saying the border must demonstrably be secure before the legalization of illegals can happen. This was summarily rejected by a vote of 57-to-43, refusing to put into the bill the very thing its backers say is in it.
Interestingly, only five Republican senators voted against the Grassley effort to toughen the legislation - and one of these five was none other than Rubio himself. Thus, the main spokesman telling us the bill is an exercise in "toughness" voted to make sure it wasn't.
And, just to make things crystal clear, Rubio on the previous Sunday gave an interview to Spanish-language television, saying the exact reverse of what is said by the "conservative" commercials in which he's featured. Contrary to the claim that "it all starts with border security," Rubio explicitly said, "First comes legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border."
(In fact, Rubio has made comments to this effect before, but these had not been loud and clear enough to break through the bogus rhetoric of "toughness.")
Quite apart from Rubio 's bilingual double talk, the bill itself says in so many words that a lack of border security is expected by its sponsors, since provision is made for that very outcome. The legislation says that if, five years out, the border is not secure, a special commission will be set up to look into the matter ( a commission that, on the language of the bill, would be toothless).
Also, even if border security could somehow be established, that wouldn't remedy the countless defects of the legislation. It is shot through with provisos that would swell the number of aliens on a "path to citizenship" to three or four times the 11 million illegals now in the country (if that is, in fact, the true number). Most obvious of these are "chain immigration" aspects that will bring in and legalize the spouses and children of illegals, but there are many others of like nature.
One such is a "blue card" (temporary, eight- year) work visa, which might not be a problem in itself, but links to other features. Once here, these workers could qualify for "provisional" immigrant status, just like the illegals, and thus get on the citizenship pathway also. Further, if a future illegal gets apprehended, he can escape removal by requesting "blue card" status for up to two and a half years after the rule is final. Thus, hesto-presto, would future illegals be made legal.
The bill is otherwise riddled with clauses that would help illegals avoid removal, get into the country to begin with, seek "provisional" status, apply for naturalization, ask stays of judgment, and game the system in general. One of the words appearing most often in the bill is "waiver," closely followed by "appeals" "stays," "reviews" and "exceptions": A thicket of legalisms that could and undoubtedly would be used to thwart enforcement.
It's, of course, unlikely that a Spanish-speaking immigrant who walks across the border from Mexico would know anything of these legal complexities, but the drafters have foreseen that problem also. The bill sets up a fund, amounting to $50 million (with more money to be added as needed), to represent illegals in every phase of the process - seeking provisional immigration status, filing appeals, blocking efforts at deportation, obtaining naturalization, and so on.
And who might be the people funded by this $50 million? They will be - surprise - non-profit "immigrant-serving" organizations "whose staff has demonstrated qualifications, experience and expertise in providing quality services to immigrants." In short, the money is a slush fund for La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and similar outfits whose stock in trade is fighting against immigration laws, and gaming the immigration system (and who probably wrote the legislation to begin with).
So much for "tough, conservative" law-making - and so much for Marco Rubio as a conservative leader on this (or any other) issue.
Rubio cannot leave politics soon enough to suit me , I hope Allan West Primary’s him.
Any Republican who votes for this POS is a traitor and needs to be sent packing! McCain, McRubio, McGrahamnesty, McFlake, et al, can all go straight to hell!
The biggest hole I see with the “amnesty” bill, is the one which isn’t apparent, and which is certain to come up shortly after the bill passes, if it does.
The hole is the number of years. So, the number of years mentioned before someone becomes legal, might be 11 years.
But, soon after the bill passes, there will be millions of illegals and thousands of liberal legislators, including all of the liberal members in congress, and the president, who will look to speed up the process. The excuse for speeding it up will be along the line of, “well, we will be legalizing them in 11 years, so, what’s the problem with speeding up the process?”. Then there will be new bills introduced to cut the years to 5 or 3 or 1, or even none. If we accepted that those 11 million (no doubt many millions more) could be legal in 11 years, the logic for rushing for quicker amnesty, will be logical to most who are now in approval of the bill. And so, amnesty will be with us a lot quicker than most people had expected, and the current bill will have been just a stepping stone to almost immediate amnesty.
Yep. So true. It is part of the liberal mindset, the analogy to: “We can’t stop certain types of behavior, so we need to guide it and make it as safe as possible.”
In this case, liberals will highlight the “personal costs” incurred by those coming over the border, how dangerous it is, how useless it is to build fences, etc. as a justification for speeding up the process.
We will be making people needlessly suffer with our laws, you know.
I was going to post something along the same lines, but...your Peanuts poster hit it on the head.
It is hard to believe they are going to pass this, but they will.
Compromising with evil is accepting evil. Even more so when you know what the outcome will be in advance.
When this Bill passes, in any form, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.
This is the final hump, it will be all downhill from here, unstoppable from a political perspective, IMO.
I watched Atlas Shrugged II last night, it is all there, and happening right before our eyes.
I have just decided a sound border fence is not a good idea.
The way things are going it would likely soon be used to keep us in rather than keep others out. A better idea, IMO, is to use the electronic system by which people can absolutely not get a job or benefits or healthcare without being a citizen. That in itself could possibly be interpreted as the mark of the beast. We have to be careful here, but I don’t want big sis locking us in like with the Berlin Wall.
The common thread I get from all of this is that if Mexico's economy was conducive to employing their citizens then they wouldn't come into the U.S.
But the problem with Mexico is corruption and no real jobs for the less educated.
And forget the...
"You got to let us pass the bill in order to see what's in it" bullshit is NOT going to fly this time.
The border states could force the fed’s hand in this by asking for volunteers to defend their state against invasion. I’m sure they’d get plenty of helpers!
Article I, Section 10 declares that no state may “engage in War, unless actually invaded ...” which certainly seems to be the case here.
There are tons of issues, including Constitutional questions, involved with militia call-ups and/or National Guard deployments. If a governor sent the National Guard to the border, the President could step in and call them back, which wouldn’t help the state but would make for some interesting headlines!
But what about the “Irregular” militia, e.g. volunteers? Couldn’t the states call for volunteers, give them a week or two of training, appoint officers and non-coms (maybe from the National Guard?) then send them to stand guard over the border?
If Rubio & Co. adamantly refuse to secure the border, there are other ways ...
A big part of our problem is that we have elected officials who do not have core beliefs or convictions, they will run as a “Conservative Republican” because that’s the brand more likely to win in some areas, they just want the job.
The GOP is the Seinfeld Party....a party about nothing.
Berlin wall??? How many people are clamoring to flee to Mexico? A border fence bears no resemblance to the Berlin wall.
So all illegal immigrants are Hispanic?
I used to the topography of the Maginot Line because it's what we have now.
A border fence bears no resemblance to the Berlin wall.”
Not now, but things could change to the point you may feel the need to escape. The fence could keep us in as well as it could keep others out. I do not trust our government at all.
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.