Yes, yes, yes! I came across two great pieces of news today that show concrete progress on the shamnesty issue (even though they're both from the House rather than the Senate), and they deserve to be trumpeted.
Good News #1: The first is that Rep. Tom Tancredo (Rep., CO) successfully passed a bill that would withhold federal emergency services funding for so-called 'sanctuary' cities that protect illegal immigrants.
I've mentioned this subject in previous blogs, but a quick synopsis is that these 'sanctuary' cities refuse to investigate the legal status of criminals picked up on the streets, and in many cases these criminals are released simply because they are suspected to be illegals (but it's a no-no to actually check it out). Basically, the city government turns a blind eye to illegals, allowing them 'sanctuary'. The end result is that illegals have virtually free reign in these 'sanctuary' cities, and we end up with things like the Fort Dix Six, a group of terrorists who attempted to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. Three of them were illegals who'd been in the US for at least 10 years, and between the three they'd had charges filed against them 75 times! But, no one bothered to investigate their legal status and have them deported.
So, what does this House bill mean? It means, I believe, that these 'sanctuary' cities will have to choose between the protection of their US citizens via federal emergency money or the protection of their illegal populations via their 'sanctuary' status. Can't have both anymore. It should be very illuminating to see what they decide...
The good news is that there were 50 Democrats voting in favor of this bill, a good sign that this issue crosses the normal political aisle and reflects the will of the clear majority of the American people. And, it may be an indicator that if the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) does pass the Senate, it may find more opposition in the House than previously thought. I'd much rather see it killed in the Senate again, but it's nice to have a backup plan.
Good News #2: The second piece of good news was posted by Michelle Malkin: Republicans in the House also introduced legislation today that took aim squarely at securing our borders before entertaining any other action at all. It rightly blasted the past 20 years of leadership, pointing out the obvious lack of enforcement. The LA Times goes into some more detail: the Secure Borders First Act would effectively secure our borders first, bar illegal immigrants from obtaining legal status, require employers to check the legal status of all workers hired, and establish English as the nation's official language. It stresses operational control over the border and rejects amnesty in favor of enforcing existing laws. It would require the deployment of 18,000 more border patrol agents by the end of 2008, as well as full implementation of the US-VISIT program (to track who comes and goes), which was authorized in the mid-90's but never implemented. It also has some common sense provisions that would improve communication between the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the Treasury Department, allowing for better identification of illegals. Another provision would prevent temporary agriculture workers from bringing their families or from getting legal status in the US, and it would hold 1/4 of their wages in escrow to be picked up at the border when they return home at the end of their work visa. It would also crack down on illegal gang members.
I don't know about you, but this bill is music to my ears!
Here's the thing that's really interesting to me. The Founding Fathers designed Congress very carefully - the Senate was meant to be the place where legislation got bogged down in debate, resulting only in the passage of bills that really have a lot of support. The House, on the other hand, was given the ability to fire off bill after bill in rapid succession, but House members tend to stay much more in tune with their constituents since they serve only two year terms (rather than the Senate's 6-year term). So, even though the Senate has been slow in coming around to what the American people want, the House has heard it loud and clear (at least these Republicans who introduced this bill). We'll see if it passes a full House vote, but I certainly hope it does. It could be a sign of good things to come.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Be Aware: Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) Begins...
After another secret behind-closed-doors session, the shamnesty deal-makers have provided a new bill that will be introduced into the Senate this week (probably Wednesday). The new bill (S. 1639) appears to be similar to the old bill, with the addition of a few hand-picked amendments. If you want to look at the bill, you can download it here.
I haven't had time to read it for myself yet (it's 418 pages long), but I'll be sure to post information about the bill when I start seeing analysis from the real professionals. Given the nature of this issue, the actions taken on the first attempt, and the fact that it's the same people trying to ram this thing down America's throat, my guess is that it'll be just as bad as the first one. The main problem here is that it sounds like there will be even less debate allowed on this one, so be ready to call your Senators ASAP! I'll do my best to blog concrete info as soon as I see it.
Keep up the pressure! This could be the money round!
There's my two cents.
I haven't had time to read it for myself yet (it's 418 pages long), but I'll be sure to post information about the bill when I start seeing analysis from the real professionals. Given the nature of this issue, the actions taken on the first attempt, and the fact that it's the same people trying to ram this thing down America's throat, my guess is that it'll be just as bad as the first one. The main problem here is that it sounds like there will be even less debate allowed on this one, so be ready to call your Senators ASAP! I'll do my best to blog concrete info as soon as I see it.
Keep up the pressure! This could be the money round!
There's my two cents.
Amendment Fraud on the Shamnesty Bill!
National Review Online posted an article today that warns supporters of the shamnesty bill may try to snooker you with an amendment (reportedly to be introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Rep, TX) that will supposedly remove 'amnesty' from the bill.
Don't buy it.
First of all, the shamnesty bill will grant immediate legal status to essentially all illegals currently in the US. The only ones who need to return to their home country are the ones who want to become citizens. As I've argued before, why would citizenship be needed? Illegals will be able to stay here, get jobs and social services, and no longer fear deportation.
Second, even if illegals returned to their home countries to fill out the paperwork, they don't have to wait for approval before coming back. They can return immediately, and the net effect is that the law-breakers will get into line in front of those who have followed the law and are waiting to legally enter the US.
It's a gimmick to give political cover to Senators who want to defect and support this bill. Don't fall for it!
There's my two cents.
Don't buy it.
First of all, the shamnesty bill will grant immediate legal status to essentially all illegals currently in the US. The only ones who need to return to their home country are the ones who want to become citizens. As I've argued before, why would citizenship be needed? Illegals will be able to stay here, get jobs and social services, and no longer fear deportation.
Second, even if illegals returned to their home countries to fill out the paperwork, they don't have to wait for approval before coming back. They can return immediately, and the net effect is that the law-breakers will get into line in front of those who have followed the law and are waiting to legally enter the US.
It's a gimmick to give political cover to Senators who want to defect and support this bill. Don't fall for it!
There's my two cents.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Recommendation: Epicenter by Joel C. Rosenberg
I've started a new section on my blog - Recommendations. I'm going to put books, movies, and other similar items on here that I come across and think are worth sharing. The first entry is Epicenter by Joel C. Rosenberg.
I just finished reading this book, and I highly recommend it for anyone who has even a passing interest in understanding the events and conflict going on in the Middle East. Rosenberg is a best-selling author of several fiction books (including The Last Jihad), so although this is non-fiction, he knows how to move it along. He's been an advisor to both American and Israeli officials, and has met with many other key power players all over the world, so he has an in-depth first hand knowledge of the subject. He starts with background on his uncanny ability to accurately predict several major events over the past few years (i.e. the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime) through his fiction, and from there transitions into some predictions for the future.
If you want to understand what's going on over there, why it's happening, why it's important to you, and what may happen next, this is the book you need.
I just finished reading this book, and I highly recommend it for anyone who has even a passing interest in understanding the events and conflict going on in the Middle East. Rosenberg is a best-selling author of several fiction books (including The Last Jihad), so although this is non-fiction, he knows how to move it along. He's been an advisor to both American and Israeli officials, and has met with many other key power players all over the world, so he has an in-depth first hand knowledge of the subject. He starts with background on his uncanny ability to accurately predict several major events over the past few years (i.e. the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime) through his fiction, and from there transitions into some predictions for the future.
If you want to understand what's going on over there, why it's happening, why it's important to you, and what may happen next, this is the book you need.
To Clone Or Not To Clone?
Just two weeks ago, the House voted on a bill (H.R. 2560) to authorize human cloning. The Editors of National Review Online write that the bill would have allowed scientists to create human embryos for the express purpose of destroying them to harvest stem cells. Of course, Pelosi and the rest of her colleagues know that, so they wrote the bill in such a way that it appears to ban cloning. They use essentially the same tactic and terminology that was used on Amendment 2 (which passed) in the 2006 Missouri elections: scientists are forbidden to implant a cloned embryo into a womb, thus 'banning' human cloning. But, the actual cloning process itself is completely legal.
As David Christensen writes, this bill would create a human cloning industry which -- through the doctor-patient privacy privilege -- law enforcement couldn't touch. Upon passage of such a bill, would researchers actually attempt to clone human beings? Yes. It's already been done in South Korea, where scientists have paid over 100 women for over 2,000 eggs. A human being has not yet been successfully cloned, but this should be an obvious warning to Americans. Another questionable clause in the bill would forfeit any property used to violate the ban on human cloning to the government. So, if a cloned baby were discovered, would the baby become the property of the US government? These questions are alarming, and the only way to avoid them altogether is to truly ban all attempts at cloning embryos, whether inside or outside of the womb.
The issue of stem cells is, of course, tightly interwoven with that of abortion. Why? It basically comes down to this: embryonic stem cells (i.e. pluripotent cells) have the potential to change into any type of cell found in the body, giving them the most 'potential' for usefulness. But, obviously, they can only come from embryos, which many Americans consider to be an early stage of human development. Therefore, to destroy an embryo is to destroy a human life. One of the resources I pointed out at the last election was this article from the St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture which describes the process of embryonic stem cell harvesting - if you don't understand how it works, check this out. I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether or not this process contitutes the destruction of a human life, but make sure you understand what is involved before you make your decision.
Anyway, the situation we have here is that what some believe is the greatest amount of potential for good treatments also requires by far the greatest amount of ethical and moral grappling. The catch is that there has not been a single cure or treatment produced from embryonic stem cell research. That's right, not a single one.
So what do we do? Fortunately, there are perfectly viable alternatives: adult stem cells and cord blood. To date, scientists have created over 70 proven treatments using adult stem cells, including treatments for Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and anemia. Even better, researchers in Massachusetts recently found a way to transform regular skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice. If we can funnel money into adult stem cell research, which has already shown tremendous promise and real results -- especially if these adult stem cells have the same function as embryonic stem cells -- while avoiding all of the ethical and moral questions, why wouldn't we? Similarly, cord blood banks, which collect and catalog umbilical cord blood to provide another method of obtaining viable stem cells, completely avoid the ethical and moral questions that squarely oppose embryonic stem cell research.
Fortunately, the human cloning bill didn't pass in the House - even 31 Democrats voted against it; even if it had passed, President Bush has vowed to veto any such bill that comes to his desk. It's good that the correct result was achieved in this instance, but the fact that such a bill even came up should be a shocking wake-up call that this issue is very much alive and kicking. Not to mention the fact that it was addressed during the much-publicized furor over the Senate immigration bill - was it coincidental timing, or slick political opportunism? Be aware, and pay attention. It'll be back again.
There's my two cents.
***Update: Here's a link to a chart that shows the list of treatments developed from adult stem cells.
As David Christensen writes, this bill would create a human cloning industry which -- through the doctor-patient privacy privilege -- law enforcement couldn't touch. Upon passage of such a bill, would researchers actually attempt to clone human beings? Yes. It's already been done in South Korea, where scientists have paid over 100 women for over 2,000 eggs. A human being has not yet been successfully cloned, but this should be an obvious warning to Americans. Another questionable clause in the bill would forfeit any property used to violate the ban on human cloning to the government. So, if a cloned baby were discovered, would the baby become the property of the US government? These questions are alarming, and the only way to avoid them altogether is to truly ban all attempts at cloning embryos, whether inside or outside of the womb.
The issue of stem cells is, of course, tightly interwoven with that of abortion. Why? It basically comes down to this: embryonic stem cells (i.e. pluripotent cells) have the potential to change into any type of cell found in the body, giving them the most 'potential' for usefulness. But, obviously, they can only come from embryos, which many Americans consider to be an early stage of human development. Therefore, to destroy an embryo is to destroy a human life. One of the resources I pointed out at the last election was this article from the St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture which describes the process of embryonic stem cell harvesting - if you don't understand how it works, check this out. I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether or not this process contitutes the destruction of a human life, but make sure you understand what is involved before you make your decision.
Anyway, the situation we have here is that what some believe is the greatest amount of potential for good treatments also requires by far the greatest amount of ethical and moral grappling. The catch is that there has not been a single cure or treatment produced from embryonic stem cell research. That's right, not a single one.
So what do we do? Fortunately, there are perfectly viable alternatives: adult stem cells and cord blood. To date, scientists have created over 70 proven treatments using adult stem cells, including treatments for Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and anemia. Even better, researchers in Massachusetts recently found a way to transform regular skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice. If we can funnel money into adult stem cell research, which has already shown tremendous promise and real results -- especially if these adult stem cells have the same function as embryonic stem cells -- while avoiding all of the ethical and moral questions, why wouldn't we? Similarly, cord blood banks, which collect and catalog umbilical cord blood to provide another method of obtaining viable stem cells, completely avoid the ethical and moral questions that squarely oppose embryonic stem cell research.
Fortunately, the human cloning bill didn't pass in the House - even 31 Democrats voted against it; even if it had passed, President Bush has vowed to veto any such bill that comes to his desk. It's good that the correct result was achieved in this instance, but the fact that such a bill even came up should be a shocking wake-up call that this issue is very much alive and kicking. Not to mention the fact that it was addressed during the much-publicized furor over the Senate immigration bill - was it coincidental timing, or slick political opportunism? Be aware, and pay attention. It'll be back again.
There's my two cents.
***Update: Here's a link to a chart that shows the list of treatments developed from adult stem cells.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Shamnesty, Here We Go Again!
The shamnesty bill is coming back to life, thanks to efforts from the White House and several waffling Senators (especially some key Republican sell-outs). What you're hearing in the mainstream media is that there will be an immediate up-front infusion of $4.4 billion for border security in exchange for the Senate re-examining the issue and addressing 20 or so amendments. Supporters are hopeful that enough support will be skimmed from the opposition to pass the bill.
Now, here's the real scoop.
The $4.4 billion is merely a pretext to allow a few Senators to ride both sides of the issue - they can still oppose amnesty (which they still say isn't a part of this bill), but they can also say they're 'tough' on border security. But, there are a few problems:
- there's no estimate from the White House of how much money the provision would generate yearly toward border security
- the White House could not say whether the money would be in addition to currently planned border security funding levels or just a way to dedicate funds to that purpose
- it wasn't clear what budget account would be drawn down to pay for the initial $4.4 billion
Seems a little too vague for my comfort level, especially given that this deal requires the "deal-makers" to go behind closed doors for the fourth time to work things out in secret! Again, what are they hiding?
Here's the big question in my mind: even if this extra money does get approved, what does it really accomplish? What's different about this deal that would make Americans believe that the government is actually going to secure the border this time? Let me remind you of some of the provisions in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations and Secure Fence bill signed last year:
- $362 million for the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator (US-VISIT) project, which has been stymied for 11 years
- $7.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including $1.2 billion for fencing and other barriers along the border, and funding for 1,500 new Border Patrol agents
- $3.9 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- $181 million for US Citizenship and Immigration services (USCIS)
How much of that has actually happened? To my knowledge, NONE of it. I've already blogged about the fence here, and I haven't seen anything concrete on any of the other items.
Here's another dirty little secret: John Hawkins at Right Wing News reports that "if the bill gets through the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the open borders Republicans will work together when the bills have to be reconciled in committee to strip out any amendments that the 'grand bargainers' don't like." That means the amnesty crowd gets everything they want unless the cloture vote fails (remember, cloture is a vote to end debate on a bill and go straight to the yes/no vote on the bill itself). If cloture passes, amnesty passes.
Call your Senators, and call the wafflers (they may not want to listen to you if you're not from their state, but they can't ignore a tidal wave). The key ones that need to be swamped with calls are Brownback (Rep, KS) because he's local and otherwise conservative; McConnell (Rep, KY), because he's the Senate Minority Leader; and Lott (Rep, MS), who is simply waffling because he knows the media wants this amnesty and he's trying to get some good press after his ousting from leadership over a racial comment about Strom Thurmond. If you have the time and inclination to make more calls, the rest of the Senators being targeted to remove their opposition are (a '*' means they're up for re-election in 2008):
- * Alexander (R-TN)
- Bennett (R-UT)
- * Cochran (R-MS)
- * Coleman (R-MN)
- * Collins (R-ME)
- * Cornyn (R-TX)
- * Craig (R-ID)
- * Domenici (R-NM)
- Gregg (R-NH)
- Hatch (R-UT)
- Hutchison (R-TX)
- Kyl (R-AZ)
- Murkowski (R-AK)
- * Smith (R-OR)
- Snowe (R-ME)
- Stevens (R-AK)
- * Warner (R-VA)
Again, the toll-free number is 800-417-7666, or you can find the number for the Capital Switchboard on my contact list to the right. Call these people and tell them you oppose the "amnesty for amendments" deal. It's now or never!
Some of our leaders think we're too stupid to realize what they're doing - granting amnesty to millions of illegals in exchange for an empty promise. Don't let them get away with it!
There's my two cents.
Now, here's the real scoop.
The $4.4 billion is merely a pretext to allow a few Senators to ride both sides of the issue - they can still oppose amnesty (which they still say isn't a part of this bill), but they can also say they're 'tough' on border security. But, there are a few problems:
- there's no estimate from the White House of how much money the provision would generate yearly toward border security
- the White House could not say whether the money would be in addition to currently planned border security funding levels or just a way to dedicate funds to that purpose
- it wasn't clear what budget account would be drawn down to pay for the initial $4.4 billion
Seems a little too vague for my comfort level, especially given that this deal requires the "deal-makers" to go behind closed doors for the fourth time to work things out in secret! Again, what are they hiding?
Here's the big question in my mind: even if this extra money does get approved, what does it really accomplish? What's different about this deal that would make Americans believe that the government is actually going to secure the border this time? Let me remind you of some of the provisions in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations and Secure Fence bill signed last year:
- $362 million for the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator (US-VISIT) project, which has been stymied for 11 years
- $7.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including $1.2 billion for fencing and other barriers along the border, and funding for 1,500 new Border Patrol agents
- $3.9 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- $181 million for US Citizenship and Immigration services (USCIS)
How much of that has actually happened? To my knowledge, NONE of it. I've already blogged about the fence here, and I haven't seen anything concrete on any of the other items.
Here's another dirty little secret: John Hawkins at Right Wing News reports that "if the bill gets through the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the open borders Republicans will work together when the bills have to be reconciled in committee to strip out any amendments that the 'grand bargainers' don't like." That means the amnesty crowd gets everything they want unless the cloture vote fails (remember, cloture is a vote to end debate on a bill and go straight to the yes/no vote on the bill itself). If cloture passes, amnesty passes.
Call your Senators, and call the wafflers (they may not want to listen to you if you're not from their state, but they can't ignore a tidal wave). The key ones that need to be swamped with calls are Brownback (Rep, KS) because he's local and otherwise conservative; McConnell (Rep, KY), because he's the Senate Minority Leader; and Lott (Rep, MS), who is simply waffling because he knows the media wants this amnesty and he's trying to get some good press after his ousting from leadership over a racial comment about Strom Thurmond. If you have the time and inclination to make more calls, the rest of the Senators being targeted to remove their opposition are (a '*' means they're up for re-election in 2008):
- * Alexander (R-TN)
- Bennett (R-UT)
- * Cochran (R-MS)
- * Coleman (R-MN)
- * Collins (R-ME)
- * Cornyn (R-TX)
- * Craig (R-ID)
- * Domenici (R-NM)
- Gregg (R-NH)
- Hatch (R-UT)
- Hutchison (R-TX)
- Kyl (R-AZ)
- Murkowski (R-AK)
- * Smith (R-OR)
- Snowe (R-ME)
- Stevens (R-AK)
- * Warner (R-VA)
Again, the toll-free number is 800-417-7666, or you can find the number for the Capital Switchboard on my contact list to the right. Call these people and tell them you oppose the "amnesty for amendments" deal. It's now or never!
Some of our leaders think we're too stupid to realize what they're doing - granting amnesty to millions of illegals in exchange for an empty promise. Don't let them get away with it!
There's my two cents.
Well Said!
Senator Jim DeMint (Rep, SC), one of the leaders of the opposition to the shamnesty bill, issued a statement yesterday in response to a $4.4 billion offer by the White House for an emergency funding bill to beef up border security in exchange for supporting the shamnesty bill. It's so simple and well-stated that I'm going to quote it rather than summarize it:
"I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there’s simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."
"We have a serious problem with our immigration system, but this mess of a bill is not the solution. It puts amnesty before security, contains loopholes for criminals, and will increase the burden on taxpayers."
"All of the border security triggers in this bill can already be implemented under current law. It is unfortunate that the bill supporters continue to hold border security hostage in return for passage of amnesty. Instead, they need to prove to the American people that they will secure the border first."
Thank you, Senator! Well said!
There's my two cents.
"I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there’s simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."
"We have a serious problem with our immigration system, but this mess of a bill is not the solution. It puts amnesty before security, contains loopholes for criminals, and will increase the burden on taxpayers."
"All of the border security triggers in this bill can already be implemented under current law. It is unfortunate that the bill supporters continue to hold border security hostage in return for passage of amnesty. Instead, they need to prove to the American people that they will secure the border first."
Thank you, Senator! Well said!
There's my two cents.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Bias in the Mainstream Media - They've Picked Their Side
I think few people would argue that the mainstream media (TV, most newspapers, etc.) has a liberal slant, but I think that most people also don't realize just how bad the slant is. For example, think about how many of these headlines you've seen in the past 60 days:
- William Jefferson (D-LA) Shatters Corruption Records: Democrat Possibly The Most Corrupt Congressman Ever
- Gupta's InfoUSA Pays Pelosi's Son
- Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud
- Hillary, Eavesdropper?
My guess is you've heard or seen one of them at most, but each of these involves major figures on the liberal side of the aisle engaging in unethical behavior at minimum, and at worst committing actual crimes. Here's a quick summary of each story:
- Jefferson: This Congressman from Louisiana was caught on tape accepting bribes for hundreds of thousands of dollars, $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer, and he pressed multiple rescue vehicles into his own private chauffer service during the Katrina aftermath.
- Pelosi: Paul Pelosi, son of Nancy Pelosi (current Speaker of the House), was given a $180,000 'salary' and a senior vice president position by Vinod Gupta at InfoUSA, who is a big Clinton supporter and liberal activist. Pelosi has no experience in InfoUSA's main business activities, and also holds down another full time job as a loan officer in a different company.
- Feinstein: Dianne Feinstein, a Senator from California, abruptly left her position on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report revealed she had funneled billions of dollars to her husband's construction companies.
- Clinton: This story on Slate.com reveals how the Clintons monitored cellphone conversations to discover potential problems with Bill's...uh...fidelity deficiencies. A new book entitled 'Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton' shows this is standard practice for the Clintons.
If you've seen two or more of these stories, think about where you saw them. All of these are significant issues that should be broadcast far and wide to the American people, but the mainstream media has buried them because their liberal slant (not to mention their liberal political friends) would be damaged.
Don't misunderstand me - all of these stories are about liberal Democrats, and I'm not making the case that all Republicans are squeaky clean. One only has to look at Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Mark Foley to discover that. The case I am making is the coverage of such scandals and indiscretions: the media is itself extremely liberal, and has become increasingly open about it over the past few years; it wants the liberal viewpoint to come out at all costs, so they shine a beacon on anything that agrees with it and bury everything else.
Case in point: ignoring good news that reflects conservative success. Did you know that a new study shows improvements in test scores since 2002, when Bush's No Child Left Behind policy took effect? What about the biggest one-day individual tax earnings in history as a result of Bush's tax cuts and a shrinking deficit? Have you watched the Dow lately? It passed 13,000 for the first time in history in April of this year and is now on its way to 14,000, but where are the headlines?
Nothing revealed the liberal bias like 'Rather-gate'. Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News ran a story in the last presidential election cycle that claimed Bush had shirked his duties in the National Guard and lied about it, using some old memos (which were forged) as 'proof'. It probably would have worked, if it hadn't been for the 'new media', which completely blew the fraudulent story out of the water. Even after having real proof presented, Rather and CBS did not retract their story or apologize (though Rather ended up 'retiring' and CBS's ratings haven't recovered since), instead saying essentially that although the memo itself was fake, they believed the story was still true.
This open bias is why the so-called 'new media' has gathered such tremendous momentum in just a few years. Most people want the truth, whether good or bad. With the truth (i.e. ALL the facts), people can make their own decisions about things, but the mainstream media doesn't get it. Want proof? Circulations of almost all major newspapers -- havens for liberal writers -- are down while most conservative papers are up. Fox News, one of the big names in the new media, has more viewers than CNN. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly each have literally millions of people tuning in to their programs every day, multitudes more than any liberal show has ever had.
Millions of Americans have realized that they simply can't trust the mainstream media to provide objective reporting on events and issues anymore. It's become an agenda-driven wing of the liberal movement.
There's my two cents.
- William Jefferson (D-LA) Shatters Corruption Records: Democrat Possibly The Most Corrupt Congressman Ever
- Gupta's InfoUSA Pays Pelosi's Son
- Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud
- Hillary, Eavesdropper?
My guess is you've heard or seen one of them at most, but each of these involves major figures on the liberal side of the aisle engaging in unethical behavior at minimum, and at worst committing actual crimes. Here's a quick summary of each story:
- Jefferson: This Congressman from Louisiana was caught on tape accepting bribes for hundreds of thousands of dollars, $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer, and he pressed multiple rescue vehicles into his own private chauffer service during the Katrina aftermath.
- Pelosi: Paul Pelosi, son of Nancy Pelosi (current Speaker of the House), was given a $180,000 'salary' and a senior vice president position by Vinod Gupta at InfoUSA, who is a big Clinton supporter and liberal activist. Pelosi has no experience in InfoUSA's main business activities, and also holds down another full time job as a loan officer in a different company.
- Feinstein: Dianne Feinstein, a Senator from California, abruptly left her position on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report revealed she had funneled billions of dollars to her husband's construction companies.
- Clinton: This story on Slate.com reveals how the Clintons monitored cellphone conversations to discover potential problems with Bill's...uh...fidelity deficiencies. A new book entitled 'Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton' shows this is standard practice for the Clintons.
If you've seen two or more of these stories, think about where you saw them. All of these are significant issues that should be broadcast far and wide to the American people, but the mainstream media has buried them because their liberal slant (not to mention their liberal political friends) would be damaged.
Don't misunderstand me - all of these stories are about liberal Democrats, and I'm not making the case that all Republicans are squeaky clean. One only has to look at Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Mark Foley to discover that. The case I am making is the coverage of such scandals and indiscretions: the media is itself extremely liberal, and has become increasingly open about it over the past few years; it wants the liberal viewpoint to come out at all costs, so they shine a beacon on anything that agrees with it and bury everything else.
Case in point: ignoring good news that reflects conservative success. Did you know that a new study shows improvements in test scores since 2002, when Bush's No Child Left Behind policy took effect? What about the biggest one-day individual tax earnings in history as a result of Bush's tax cuts and a shrinking deficit? Have you watched the Dow lately? It passed 13,000 for the first time in history in April of this year and is now on its way to 14,000, but where are the headlines?
Nothing revealed the liberal bias like 'Rather-gate'. Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News ran a story in the last presidential election cycle that claimed Bush had shirked his duties in the National Guard and lied about it, using some old memos (which were forged) as 'proof'. It probably would have worked, if it hadn't been for the 'new media', which completely blew the fraudulent story out of the water. Even after having real proof presented, Rather and CBS did not retract their story or apologize (though Rather ended up 'retiring' and CBS's ratings haven't recovered since), instead saying essentially that although the memo itself was fake, they believed the story was still true.
This open bias is why the so-called 'new media' has gathered such tremendous momentum in just a few years. Most people want the truth, whether good or bad. With the truth (i.e. ALL the facts), people can make their own decisions about things, but the mainstream media doesn't get it. Want proof? Circulations of almost all major newspapers -- havens for liberal writers -- are down while most conservative papers are up. Fox News, one of the big names in the new media, has more viewers than CNN. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly each have literally millions of people tuning in to their programs every day, multitudes more than any liberal show has ever had.
Millions of Americans have realized that they simply can't trust the mainstream media to provide objective reporting on events and issues anymore. It's become an agenda-driven wing of the liberal movement.
There's my two cents.
Fun and Frivolity: Squirrel Goes on Rampage
Okay, I couldn't help but post a link to this story. I'm not saying it's funny that people were injured, but can you seriously read this without at least cracking a smile??
Speaking of the Fence...
Here's some additional information on the fence that was supposedly begun in 2006. Michelle Malkin has posted a blog called 'FINO: fence in name only' that lays out a lot of good detail on the fence issue. Some important points to note:
- there is no current funding for the fence
- Congress estimates it will cost $3.2 million per mile
- the $1.2 billion allocated to build 370 miles of fence last fall are being used for other things
- the Bush administration has backed off on their original commitment to build at least 850 miles of fence, and is now saying 370 miles is sufficient
- the Bush administration is also favoring watered-down measures that will ultimately only monitor/block 950 miles of the 1,950 miles of the US/Mexico border (and only 370 of those miles will have a fence)
This could be a good place to start the immigration 'reform'...
There's my two cents.
- there is no current funding for the fence
- Congress estimates it will cost $3.2 million per mile
- the $1.2 billion allocated to build 370 miles of fence last fall are being used for other things
- the Bush administration has backed off on their original commitment to build at least 850 miles of fence, and is now saying 370 miles is sufficient
- the Bush administration is also favoring watered-down measures that will ultimately only monitor/block 950 miles of the 1,950 miles of the US/Mexico border (and only 370 of those miles will have a fence)
This could be a good place to start the immigration 'reform'...
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A Few More Thoughts on Illegal Immigration
I knew it! A Rasmussen poll published today echoes my previous blog (I swear I wrote the blog last night, even though I didn't post it until this afternoon!) suggesting that real progress could be made on immigration reform if we focus on enforcement first. According to this poll, only 20% of Americans want the immigration bill that failed in the Senate last week. However, 51% would like legislators to "take smaller steps towards reform". Even more important is the fact that a whopping 69% would like to see an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration". Very telling!
Another dirty little secret: One dirty little secret that you don't hear much in the mainstream media is that quite a few lawmakers and business people actually don't want to "fix" illegal immigration, especially the porous border problem. That's partly why there is such resistance to the wishes of a clear majority of the American people on this. Why? Follow the progression:
- illegal workers become legal workers
- newly-legalized workers demand higher pay now that they're legal
- many newly-legalized workers join unions (who are suffering from major shortages in participation and dues), who demand further wage increases and additional benefits
- many newly-legalized workers will vote in large numbers for whoever gives them the biggest increases and handouts
- businesses still want cheap labor, but the newly-legalized workers are now too expensive, so they go back to hiring illegals (a whole new set that has just arrived to fill the new vacuum of low-skill, low-wage jobs)
It's exactly what happened after the 1986 amnesty, and we can plainly see that it's a never-ending cycle that won't go away until the flow of incoming illegals is stopped at the source. That's why any real reform has to start with border security.
Besides, if low-skill, low-educated, low-wage workers are truly a requirement for our prosperous American society, wouldn't that hold true for other countries around the world? And if that holds true, shouldn't Mexico (and other 3rd-world countries) be pretty much a land of paradise? And yet, they still keep coming here...hm...
Here's proof: Judicial Watch posted a story today about a raid by immigration officials in Portland, Oregon where over 165 illegals were arrested. Get this: "At least 90 employees had fraudulent Social Security cards and many used the real Social Securities of juveniles, the elderly and the deceased. Others had fake green, or residency, cards and at least three are convicted felons who had been previously deported." Remember what I said in my first blog about identity theft? Here's a perfect example. But wait, there's more: Tom Potter, the Mayor of Portland, was outraged. Not at the illegals, not at the business that had hired them, and not even at the rampant identity theft. No, Mr. Potter "was outraged by the immigration raid, saying that it is bad policy for federal officials to go after local workers who are in his city", calling them "Portland residents". Thank you, Mr. Potter, for illustrating the liberal mindset beautifully.
But it gets even worse: Michelle Malkin writes a story in Jewish World Review describing how the legal system is abused by illegal aliens and their attorneys. She recounts how four men -- a child molester, two killers and a racketeer, all of whom had previously been found guilty, lost numerous appeals, and ordered deported -- just won a federal case in New York allowing them to stay in the US. She uses this story to illustrate a growing problem of our representatives in Congress (from both sides of the aisle) pushing special legislation through to provide "private relief" from deportation. As much as Kennedy and other open-borders proponents gripe about due process being violated in these circumstances, both the illegals and their lawyers know how to game the system in their favor. As Malkin says, "it ain't over 'til the alien wins".
These are outrageous actions, and any representative who does this should be voted out of office in the next election! Want to know who's doing it? Follow the instructions here to find the bills in question, then look to see who introduced the bill. See anyone who 'represents' you?
There's my two cents.
Another dirty little secret: One dirty little secret that you don't hear much in the mainstream media is that quite a few lawmakers and business people actually don't want to "fix" illegal immigration, especially the porous border problem. That's partly why there is such resistance to the wishes of a clear majority of the American people on this. Why? Follow the progression:
- illegal workers become legal workers
- newly-legalized workers demand higher pay now that they're legal
- many newly-legalized workers join unions (who are suffering from major shortages in participation and dues), who demand further wage increases and additional benefits
- many newly-legalized workers will vote in large numbers for whoever gives them the biggest increases and handouts
- businesses still want cheap labor, but the newly-legalized workers are now too expensive, so they go back to hiring illegals (a whole new set that has just arrived to fill the new vacuum of low-skill, low-wage jobs)
It's exactly what happened after the 1986 amnesty, and we can plainly see that it's a never-ending cycle that won't go away until the flow of incoming illegals is stopped at the source. That's why any real reform has to start with border security.
Besides, if low-skill, low-educated, low-wage workers are truly a requirement for our prosperous American society, wouldn't that hold true for other countries around the world? And if that holds true, shouldn't Mexico (and other 3rd-world countries) be pretty much a land of paradise? And yet, they still keep coming here...hm...
Here's proof: Judicial Watch posted a story today about a raid by immigration officials in Portland, Oregon where over 165 illegals were arrested. Get this: "At least 90 employees had fraudulent Social Security cards and many used the real Social Securities of juveniles, the elderly and the deceased. Others had fake green, or residency, cards and at least three are convicted felons who had been previously deported." Remember what I said in my first blog about identity theft? Here's a perfect example. But wait, there's more: Tom Potter, the Mayor of Portland, was outraged. Not at the illegals, not at the business that had hired them, and not even at the rampant identity theft. No, Mr. Potter "was outraged by the immigration raid, saying that it is bad policy for federal officials to go after local workers who are in his city", calling them "Portland residents". Thank you, Mr. Potter, for illustrating the liberal mindset beautifully.
But it gets even worse: Michelle Malkin writes a story in Jewish World Review describing how the legal system is abused by illegal aliens and their attorneys. She recounts how four men -- a child molester, two killers and a racketeer, all of whom had previously been found guilty, lost numerous appeals, and ordered deported -- just won a federal case in New York allowing them to stay in the US. She uses this story to illustrate a growing problem of our representatives in Congress (from both sides of the aisle) pushing special legislation through to provide "private relief" from deportation. As much as Kennedy and other open-borders proponents gripe about due process being violated in these circumstances, both the illegals and their lawyers know how to game the system in their favor. As Malkin says, "it ain't over 'til the alien wins".
These are outrageous actions, and any representative who does this should be voted out of office in the next election! Want to know who's doing it? Follow the instructions here to find the bills in question, then look to see who introduced the bill. See anyone who 'represents' you?
There's my two cents.
Why A 'Comprehensive' Bill Really Isn't Important
The White House is pushing hard for a 'comprehensive' immigration reform bill right now, trying to revive what the Senate rightly killed last week. They've sent out messenger after messenger saying that a 'comprehensive' bill MUST be passed RIGHT NOW.
Really? Why is that, exactly?
Clearly, the current system is not working, but that's not because of the system itself. The problem is that our political leaders lack the will to enforce the laws that are already in place. As Thomas Sowell says in a column yesterday on RealClearPolitics.com, "Both political parties know what is going on and both parties choose to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Neither wants to risk losing the Hispanic vote, though it is doubtful whether all Hispanics are in favor of open borders. The net result has been empty promises about controlling the border, paired with various schemes to legalize the illegal immigrants, and washed down with fraudulent statements that insult our intelligence." He goes on to point out three particular frauds:
1. illegals are 'needed' to fill jobs Americans won't do
2. we cannot 'in good conscience' prevent illegals from reuniting with their families
3. we must have 'comprehensive' immigration reform
He addresses these frauds this way:
1. There is no job Americans won't take if the pay is good enough, but there is no reason to increase the pay if illegals are available at low cost.
2. Why is it that the only place in the world illegals can reunite with their families is in the US? Why can't they reunite in their own country?
3. There is no logical reason that securing our borders and dealing with illegals already here must be dealt with simultaneously, only political reasons. [emphasis mine]
As Sowell says, "Passing border laws described as 'tough' gives Congress political cover when they legalize the illegals. It allows Congress to be on both sides of the issue, which is where most politicians want to be on most issues."
The problem, again, is the lack of enforcement. Case in point: last year, the Senate promised us a border fence. Where is it now? It doesn't exist in any meaningful form (it's just two miles long), as I mentioned in a previous blog.
President Bush met with Senate Republicans yesterday and said that 'doing nothing was unacceptable'. As the editors of National Review Online point out, that's odd because he has done nothing on immigration reform for the past six years. I would also add that it's apparently been perfectly acceptable for our leadership to do nothing for the past 20 years! The result is, as Sen. Jim DeMint says, that "[T]here is no excuse for anyone to believe that what’s in this bill is going to happen, except for the amnesty." I think that's very true, especially with the recent awareness raised by this shamnesty bill. Anyway, the editors go on to say that Senators on both sides of the aisle report that their constituents doubt the federal government's willingness to enforce immigration laws, and that a sustained commitment to enforcement is required before the American people will accept any talk of sweeping reform. Many Senators would support an emergency spending bill to beef up border security immediately, but the NRO editors point out that new spending "must be matched with a demonstrable political will to see our immigration laws enforced, or else Congress would have merely enacted a far more expensive version of the failed 1986 immigration reform."
There's no need for a sweeping 'comprehensive' reform. Just start with enforcement. When the American people are convinced that the government is holding up its end of the bargain, they'll support immigration reform easily and in large numbers.
There's my two cents.
Really? Why is that, exactly?
Clearly, the current system is not working, but that's not because of the system itself. The problem is that our political leaders lack the will to enforce the laws that are already in place. As Thomas Sowell says in a column yesterday on RealClearPolitics.com, "Both political parties know what is going on and both parties choose to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Neither wants to risk losing the Hispanic vote, though it is doubtful whether all Hispanics are in favor of open borders. The net result has been empty promises about controlling the border, paired with various schemes to legalize the illegal immigrants, and washed down with fraudulent statements that insult our intelligence." He goes on to point out three particular frauds:
1. illegals are 'needed' to fill jobs Americans won't do
2. we cannot 'in good conscience' prevent illegals from reuniting with their families
3. we must have 'comprehensive' immigration reform
He addresses these frauds this way:
1. There is no job Americans won't take if the pay is good enough, but there is no reason to increase the pay if illegals are available at low cost.
2. Why is it that the only place in the world illegals can reunite with their families is in the US? Why can't they reunite in their own country?
3. There is no logical reason that securing our borders and dealing with illegals already here must be dealt with simultaneously, only political reasons. [emphasis mine]
As Sowell says, "Passing border laws described as 'tough' gives Congress political cover when they legalize the illegals. It allows Congress to be on both sides of the issue, which is where most politicians want to be on most issues."
The problem, again, is the lack of enforcement. Case in point: last year, the Senate promised us a border fence. Where is it now? It doesn't exist in any meaningful form (it's just two miles long), as I mentioned in a previous blog.
President Bush met with Senate Republicans yesterday and said that 'doing nothing was unacceptable'. As the editors of National Review Online point out, that's odd because he has done nothing on immigration reform for the past six years. I would also add that it's apparently been perfectly acceptable for our leadership to do nothing for the past 20 years! The result is, as Sen. Jim DeMint says, that "[T]here is no excuse for anyone to believe that what’s in this bill is going to happen, except for the amnesty." I think that's very true, especially with the recent awareness raised by this shamnesty bill. Anyway, the editors go on to say that Senators on both sides of the aisle report that their constituents doubt the federal government's willingness to enforce immigration laws, and that a sustained commitment to enforcement is required before the American people will accept any talk of sweeping reform. Many Senators would support an emergency spending bill to beef up border security immediately, but the NRO editors point out that new spending "must be matched with a demonstrable political will to see our immigration laws enforced, or else Congress would have merely enacted a far more expensive version of the failed 1986 immigration reform."
There's no need for a sweeping 'comprehensive' reform. Just start with enforcement. When the American people are convinced that the government is holding up its end of the bargain, they'll support immigration reform easily and in large numbers.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Dirty Secrets of the Shamnesty Bill
Some very interesting information came out today, posted by Michelle Malkin on her blog. Apparently, a number of the Senators opposing the bill sent a message to President Bush stating three main reasons for their opposition:
1. the bill is full of loopholes, and problems that deserved amendments and debate were denied by Reid and the Democrats in charge
2. the deal-makers showed blatant disregard for the legal process by drafting the bill behind closed doors, skipping the committee process, and jamming the bill through the Senate without proper debate
3. the American people rightly refuse to buy what the deal-makers are selling - rewarding law-breaking illegal aliens with legal status in exchange for another empty promise
The memo goes on to list a number of amendments that were rejected, ignored, or undermined, including:
- requiring full background checks for Z-visa recipients
- prohibiting felons or drunk drivers from obtaining Z-visas
- amendments to insure illegals don't swamp our legal system with abusive legislation
- illegal Z-visa applicants can't get in front of legal applicants in the process
- illegals denied a Z-visa can't hide from the enforcement of immigration laws
The memo also details a series of procedural red flags committed by the White House and Senate deal-makers in moving this legislation forward, including:
- the bill was crafted in secret by self-appointed Senators
- all negotiations by Republicans had to go through Ted Kennedy, who has a decades-long history of failing on immigration
- the final text of the bill wasn't made available to the full Senate until the day after the "debate" had already begun
- the final bill had been drafted by the White House (the normal process is that it should be drafted by the Senate)
- depending on the form used, the bill was either 300 or over 700 pages long - either way, it was a huge bill
- this bill is very complex, and still not largely understood by many
- Reid and the deal-makers demanded that amendments be filed immediately on this huge bill that wasn't fully understood
- Reid, Kennedy, and the deal-makers cherry-picked the amendments they wanted to come up to "minimize those that might disrupt the deal"
- Reid and Kennedy blocked all attempts to get amendments debated except for those they selected
- the Republican opposition filed over 200 amendments, but Democrats prevented all but 13 from coming to a vote
- Reid and Kennedy blocked Republican attempts to get more amendments a total of 12 times throughout the process
- only 6 days of debate were allowed on this huge and complex bill
- the normal legislative process is to have the text publicly available for weeks or months, then go through committee hearings, then see substantial debate on the Senate floor - this bill did none of those
- Democrats and some deal-makers are making accusations of "bad faith" inaccurately
This bill is shady, both in substance and in process. It needs to die permanently! It sounds like a core of Senators are fighting it even now, but the American public needs to keep up the pressure.
There's my two cents.
1. the bill is full of loopholes, and problems that deserved amendments and debate were denied by Reid and the Democrats in charge
2. the deal-makers showed blatant disregard for the legal process by drafting the bill behind closed doors, skipping the committee process, and jamming the bill through the Senate without proper debate
3. the American people rightly refuse to buy what the deal-makers are selling - rewarding law-breaking illegal aliens with legal status in exchange for another empty promise
The memo goes on to list a number of amendments that were rejected, ignored, or undermined, including:
- requiring full background checks for Z-visa recipients
- prohibiting felons or drunk drivers from obtaining Z-visas
- amendments to insure illegals don't swamp our legal system with abusive legislation
- illegal Z-visa applicants can't get in front of legal applicants in the process
- illegals denied a Z-visa can't hide from the enforcement of immigration laws
The memo also details a series of procedural red flags committed by the White House and Senate deal-makers in moving this legislation forward, including:
- the bill was crafted in secret by self-appointed Senators
- all negotiations by Republicans had to go through Ted Kennedy, who has a decades-long history of failing on immigration
- the final text of the bill wasn't made available to the full Senate until the day after the "debate" had already begun
- the final bill had been drafted by the White House (the normal process is that it should be drafted by the Senate)
- depending on the form used, the bill was either 300 or over 700 pages long - either way, it was a huge bill
- this bill is very complex, and still not largely understood by many
- Reid and the deal-makers demanded that amendments be filed immediately on this huge bill that wasn't fully understood
- Reid, Kennedy, and the deal-makers cherry-picked the amendments they wanted to come up to "minimize those that might disrupt the deal"
- Reid and Kennedy blocked all attempts to get amendments debated except for those they selected
- the Republican opposition filed over 200 amendments, but Democrats prevented all but 13 from coming to a vote
- Reid and Kennedy blocked Republican attempts to get more amendments a total of 12 times throughout the process
- only 6 days of debate were allowed on this huge and complex bill
- the normal legislative process is to have the text publicly available for weeks or months, then go through committee hearings, then see substantial debate on the Senate floor - this bill did none of those
- Democrats and some deal-makers are making accusations of "bad faith" inaccurately
This bill is shady, both in substance and in process. It needs to die permanently! It sounds like a core of Senators are fighting it even now, but the American public needs to keep up the pressure.
There's my two cents.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Shamnesty Bill, Round 2...
Okay, you were warned - the shamnesty bill is being brought up again now that President Bush is back in the country, and he's planning to address the Senate in person soon to attempt to breathe new life into it. Some Democrats are already out there saying that the only negative feedback they're receiving is from a bunch of wingnut racists (I mentioned that unfair racism accusation in my first illegal immigration blog). Don't buy it - it has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with upholding American laws and taking care of American citizens before illegal aliens!
If you're someone who is against this shamnesty bill, be prepared to start seeing headlines calling you a racist or an idiot. But, take comfort in the fact that there are a whole lot of other 'racists' and 'idiots' out there - you're actually part of the vast majority of Americans. According to a Rasmussen poll last week, only 23% of Americans supported the shamnesty bill, and it "failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed." That's some pretty good company, don't you think? So why is this coming up again? Bush wants it, and so do many liberals in Congress. Bush wants to leave a legacy, the Democrat leadership wants to buy more votes, and the Republican leadership is afraid that no Hispanic will ever vote Republican again. Sadly, all three are bad reasons for doing this legislation.
Incidentally, this is a perfect example of the difference between conservative and liberal values described in my last blog. Even though a majority of the American people have spoken, liberals in Congress still think you're too stupid to know what you really want or to know what's best for America. One of the theories I've heard is that they're using the 'racist' label to allow themselves to ignore your opposition because you're just a bunch of wingnut racists, and they don't want to let wingnut racists dictate US policy (which would be a valid point, if they weren't implying that 77% of America were wingnut racists). So, they're going to try to ram the shamnesty bill through DESPITE what the American people say about it because they believe they are better and more intelligent than you are. It's ridiculous and absolutely unacceptable that some of our representatives -- let me emphasize: REPRESENTATIVES -- are failing to represent us.
If this issue is important to you, do two things: first, remember who supports this bill and who opposes it. I've posted voting results of the Senators from Missouri and Kansas in previous blogs, and I'll continue to do that as more votes occur, but also keep in mind the names of the major players on both sides of the issue. Second, continue to let your voice be heard. Call your Senators to let them know your opinion and to ask them how they plan to vote. In addition to contacting your Senators, call the White House. Amazingly, they seem to be even more clueless than the Senate about what Americans think on this issue, as evidenced by an article in The Washington Times describing how Bush was surprised by conservative outrage on the shamnesty bill. Clearly, they need to get back in touch with the American people, so let 'em hear from you!
Speaking of contacting the Senate, here's another number you can use: 800-417-7666. This was actually set up for supporters of the shamnesty bill last week to give them a fast (and toll-free) track into their Senators' offices, but anyone can use it. Just be aware that you'll have to listen to some supporters' propaganda before you get connected, but it's otherwise a perfectly serviceable method of contacting them. :)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - something needs to be done about illegal immigration. But, amnesty is NOT the answer. It hasn't helped any of the previous times we've tried it, and it won't help this time, either.
There's my two cents.
If you're someone who is against this shamnesty bill, be prepared to start seeing headlines calling you a racist or an idiot. But, take comfort in the fact that there are a whole lot of other 'racists' and 'idiots' out there - you're actually part of the vast majority of Americans. According to a Rasmussen poll last week, only 23% of Americans supported the shamnesty bill, and it "failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed." That's some pretty good company, don't you think? So why is this coming up again? Bush wants it, and so do many liberals in Congress. Bush wants to leave a legacy, the Democrat leadership wants to buy more votes, and the Republican leadership is afraid that no Hispanic will ever vote Republican again. Sadly, all three are bad reasons for doing this legislation.
Incidentally, this is a perfect example of the difference between conservative and liberal values described in my last blog. Even though a majority of the American people have spoken, liberals in Congress still think you're too stupid to know what you really want or to know what's best for America. One of the theories I've heard is that they're using the 'racist' label to allow themselves to ignore your opposition because you're just a bunch of wingnut racists, and they don't want to let wingnut racists dictate US policy (which would be a valid point, if they weren't implying that 77% of America were wingnut racists). So, they're going to try to ram the shamnesty bill through DESPITE what the American people say about it because they believe they are better and more intelligent than you are. It's ridiculous and absolutely unacceptable that some of our representatives -- let me emphasize: REPRESENTATIVES -- are failing to represent us.
If this issue is important to you, do two things: first, remember who supports this bill and who opposes it. I've posted voting results of the Senators from Missouri and Kansas in previous blogs, and I'll continue to do that as more votes occur, but also keep in mind the names of the major players on both sides of the issue. Second, continue to let your voice be heard. Call your Senators to let them know your opinion and to ask them how they plan to vote. In addition to contacting your Senators, call the White House. Amazingly, they seem to be even more clueless than the Senate about what Americans think on this issue, as evidenced by an article in The Washington Times describing how Bush was surprised by conservative outrage on the shamnesty bill. Clearly, they need to get back in touch with the American people, so let 'em hear from you!
Speaking of contacting the Senate, here's another number you can use: 800-417-7666. This was actually set up for supporters of the shamnesty bill last week to give them a fast (and toll-free) track into their Senators' offices, but anyone can use it. Just be aware that you'll have to listen to some supporters' propaganda before you get connected, but it's otherwise a perfectly serviceable method of contacting them. :)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - something needs to be done about illegal immigration. But, amnesty is NOT the answer. It hasn't helped any of the previous times we've tried it, and it won't help this time, either.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
What is Conservatism?
This was actually going to be my first blog, but the shamnesty bill reared its ugly head and trumped the initial plan. But, now that that debacle has passed for the time being, we can get back to this topic. So, what is conservatism?
A 'conservative' is not the same as a 'Republican', just as a 'liberal' is not the same as a 'Democrat', although there is enough overlap that a substantial stereotype exists. There are plenty of examples of people who cross over the line. President Bush is a perfect example - he is the leader of the Republican party and tough on terrorism, but he is also quite liberal on government spending and illegal immigration. Similarly, a number of Democrats were elected in 2006 that were quite conservative in many areas. Rudy Guliani is a liberal on social issues (i.e. pro-abortion) but conservative on national security (i.e. war on terror). So where is that elusive dividing line?
Rush Limbaugh -- love him or hate him -- is one of the biggest names in conservatism today. He almost single-handedly established what is now called the 'new media', which includes talk radio, Fox, and various other alternative forms of media like the blogosphere. He is widely considered an expert in conservatism; in fact, when the Republican party (led by conservatives like Newt Gingrich) swept into Congressional leadership in 1994 via the 'Contract With America', they asked Rush to come and speak to the freshman class of lawmakers on the subject.
So, it is with great confidence that I'm going to paraphrase one of Rush's recent monologues (from March 21st, 2007) regarding the main differences between the conservative and liberal mindset.
He first establishes that these are just generalizations, and that some givens are valid for all people: we all want economic prosperity, opportunity, and the chance at the American dream; we want to be left alone, not hassled by the government in the pursuit of that dream. The real question is how to provide that.
Rush suggests that liberals do not believe that a majority of people have the ability to realize the American dream on their own, and that they have a general contempt for 'average' Americans and 'average' human beings. The essence of liberalism is assuming that people are helpless and hopeless. That way, government can step in and provide 'assistance' to incompetent people, which actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy - by disarming the competitive nature and entrepreneurial spirit, liberalism also disarms the American dream itself by drawing focus to the government and the benefits it provides rather than the individual. Conservatives, on the other hand, have faith in the individual and believe that rugged individualism is what defines excellence, and that its pursuit is what made America the greatest country on the planet. Conservatism believes that people can better themselves, and strives to educate, inspire, and motivate people to do just that. Conservatives want a great country full of people who can raise families and support them, and to inspire them because that's how they are. Conservatives are fundamentally optimistic but still realistic, believing they can triumph over the inevitable obstacles of life. Liberals think those obstacles are insurmountable for the individual, and thus need the government to help them get by.
So, Limbaugh asks, why are some people not conservative and some are? His answer is that you could look at specific issues like abortion or gay marriage (which, again, are stereotypical enough to give you a good idea of where someone stands), or any other big issue. But, in a general sense, he maintains that anyone who is in favor of the growth of government and the idea that people need an infinite amount of help because they can't do things on their own is not a conservative. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.
The problem, Limbaugh, says, is that liberals -- in pursuit of their agenda -- use government to train their youth from grade school on up through college. They get youth into nonprofit organizations and Ivy league schools for the express purpose of going into government and continuing the perpetual bureaucracy until they can take over. Conservatives, however, look at government as something that should be invisible most of the time, and the basic philosophy targets individuals (i.e. small businesses, normal Americans) and seeks to empower them instead. Conservatives want limited government, and Limbaugh points out that using government to limit government is a difficult challenge for conservatives.
I would also add that a key difference is that of double standards. Conservatism tends to hold everyone to a single set of rules, while liberalism seems content to have one set of rules for the people making the rules, and another set of rules for everyone else. We'll get into more of this in the future.
As I said in one of my first blogs - a conservative would strive to teach a man how to fish so the man could then sustain himself; a liberal would rather give the man a fish so the man keeps coming back to him for help. It's a very different mindset, and one that is at play in essentially everything in the world of politics. As we continue to look at other issues, my goal is to illustrate the contrasts through simple examples in daily life.
For now, hopefully that gives you at least a starting point for understanding the fundamental differences.
There's my two cents.
A 'conservative' is not the same as a 'Republican', just as a 'liberal' is not the same as a 'Democrat', although there is enough overlap that a substantial stereotype exists. There are plenty of examples of people who cross over the line. President Bush is a perfect example - he is the leader of the Republican party and tough on terrorism, but he is also quite liberal on government spending and illegal immigration. Similarly, a number of Democrats were elected in 2006 that were quite conservative in many areas. Rudy Guliani is a liberal on social issues (i.e. pro-abortion) but conservative on national security (i.e. war on terror). So where is that elusive dividing line?
Rush Limbaugh -- love him or hate him -- is one of the biggest names in conservatism today. He almost single-handedly established what is now called the 'new media', which includes talk radio, Fox, and various other alternative forms of media like the blogosphere. He is widely considered an expert in conservatism; in fact, when the Republican party (led by conservatives like Newt Gingrich) swept into Congressional leadership in 1994 via the 'Contract With America', they asked Rush to come and speak to the freshman class of lawmakers on the subject.
So, it is with great confidence that I'm going to paraphrase one of Rush's recent monologues (from March 21st, 2007) regarding the main differences between the conservative and liberal mindset.
He first establishes that these are just generalizations, and that some givens are valid for all people: we all want economic prosperity, opportunity, and the chance at the American dream; we want to be left alone, not hassled by the government in the pursuit of that dream. The real question is how to provide that.
Rush suggests that liberals do not believe that a majority of people have the ability to realize the American dream on their own, and that they have a general contempt for 'average' Americans and 'average' human beings. The essence of liberalism is assuming that people are helpless and hopeless. That way, government can step in and provide 'assistance' to incompetent people, which actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy - by disarming the competitive nature and entrepreneurial spirit, liberalism also disarms the American dream itself by drawing focus to the government and the benefits it provides rather than the individual. Conservatives, on the other hand, have faith in the individual and believe that rugged individualism is what defines excellence, and that its pursuit is what made America the greatest country on the planet. Conservatism believes that people can better themselves, and strives to educate, inspire, and motivate people to do just that. Conservatives want a great country full of people who can raise families and support them, and to inspire them because that's how they are. Conservatives are fundamentally optimistic but still realistic, believing they can triumph over the inevitable obstacles of life. Liberals think those obstacles are insurmountable for the individual, and thus need the government to help them get by.
So, Limbaugh asks, why are some people not conservative and some are? His answer is that you could look at specific issues like abortion or gay marriage (which, again, are stereotypical enough to give you a good idea of where someone stands), or any other big issue. But, in a general sense, he maintains that anyone who is in favor of the growth of government and the idea that people need an infinite amount of help because they can't do things on their own is not a conservative. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.
The problem, Limbaugh, says, is that liberals -- in pursuit of their agenda -- use government to train their youth from grade school on up through college. They get youth into nonprofit organizations and Ivy league schools for the express purpose of going into government and continuing the perpetual bureaucracy until they can take over. Conservatives, however, look at government as something that should be invisible most of the time, and the basic philosophy targets individuals (i.e. small businesses, normal Americans) and seeks to empower them instead. Conservatives want limited government, and Limbaugh points out that using government to limit government is a difficult challenge for conservatives.
I would also add that a key difference is that of double standards. Conservatism tends to hold everyone to a single set of rules, while liberalism seems content to have one set of rules for the people making the rules, and another set of rules for everyone else. We'll get into more of this in the future.
As I said in one of my first blogs - a conservative would strive to teach a man how to fish so the man could then sustain himself; a liberal would rather give the man a fish so the man keeps coming back to him for help. It's a very different mindset, and one that is at play in essentially everything in the world of politics. As we continue to look at other issues, my goal is to illustrate the contrasts through simple examples in daily life.
For now, hopefully that gives you at least a starting point for understanding the fundamental differences.
There's my two cents.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
How Would This Change Daily Life?!
You've got to check this out! It's a story about some MIT scientists who have found a way to send electricity to devices without using a cord. That's right, wireless power! How cool would that be? Just think how that would change daily life - no more power cords getting tangled behind the home theater or computer, no more heavy extension cords for Christmas lights, the end of arranging furniture in rooms based on where the wall outlets are...
Pretty sweet!
There's my two cents.
PS. - this blog falls under the heading of "fun and frivolity". I'll be back with another political thriller in a day or two. ;)
Pretty sweet!
There's my two cents.
PS. - this blog falls under the heading of "fun and frivolity". I'll be back with another political thriller in a day or two. ;)
Friday, June 8, 2007
Illegal Immigration 13: Victory!!! (at least for now)
The shamnesty bill has been shelved, at least for the time being. YES!!!
The theories explaining exactly why it failed are as numerous as the people writing them. I think the simplest answer is the best: too many Americans opposed it. A new Rasmussen poll illustrates the wide cross-section of people that didn't like it - basically, everyone. The only real mystery is how a large chunk of the Senate (Republicans and Democrats alike), as well as the White House, completely missed that fact.
Regardless, maybe someone will put forth a more reasonable immigration bill; very few people would oppose something that actually addressed the problem in a reasonable and just way. Hopefully someone will do that soon, but we'll just have to wait and see. Anyway, kudos to all those who made their voices known - see, it works! And, of course, kudos to those Senators who opposed this shamnesty bill - thank you for representing us well!
Now I'm going to have to find another topic to blog about. :)
There's my two cents.
The theories explaining exactly why it failed are as numerous as the people writing them. I think the simplest answer is the best: too many Americans opposed it. A new Rasmussen poll illustrates the wide cross-section of people that didn't like it - basically, everyone. The only real mystery is how a large chunk of the Senate (Republicans and Democrats alike), as well as the White House, completely missed that fact.
Regardless, maybe someone will put forth a more reasonable immigration bill; very few people would oppose something that actually addressed the problem in a reasonable and just way. Hopefully someone will do that soon, but we'll just have to wait and see. Anyway, kudos to all those who made their voices known - see, it works! And, of course, kudos to those Senators who opposed this shamnesty bill - thank you for representing us well!
Now I'm going to have to find another topic to blog about. :)
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration 12: Thursday Night Wrap-up
After three separate cloture votes today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem, NV) finally gave up. The last (and closest) vote was defeated 45-50. Here's how our Senators voted:
- Bond: Nay (good!)
- McCaskill: Nay (good!)
- Roberts: Nay (good!)
- Brownback: didn't vote (what's up with that?!)
As Arlen Specter said from the floor, "the bill is on life support, but not dead." We'll see what happens tomorrow, but it's nice to see democracy in action, and to see that public outcry can still sway those folks in their ivory tower. Regardless, don't let up the pressure until it's truly a done deal.
Where does that leave us now?
So, it looks like McCaskill held to her published stance of being against amnesty, though I had my doubts yesterday. I had a rather heated discussion with one of her staffers today about the Cornyn amendment (permanently barring felons); she maintained that McCaskill was against it basically because of who would have been administering the judgments, not because of the provisions in the amendment itself. To me, it seems stupid to vote against such an important amendment because of procedural issues, but I'm not a Senator, so what do I know...
Overall thoughts:
Brownback? Not impressive at all. He may be a conservative on most issues, but he's as liberal as it gets on amnesty and immigration. He appears quite willing to give the country away. Watch out for him, Kansans...
If the shamnesty bill does die, Democrats appear to be content with their plan B - pasting Bush's name all over it to position themselves better for the 2008 Presidential race. You'll probably see quote after quote Friday in the news about how "Bush's plan is going down" or something to that effect. While that strikes me as being obnoxiously political and opportunistic, it's also completely accurate. Bush has wanted to address illegal immigration for a long time, but the Republican-held Congress prevented any realistic chance of success. With the Democrats in control of both houses, this was likely his best chance to get it done. Just remember, though, who was marching in lockstep with Bush on this bill - Kennedy, Reid, McCain, Biden, and Brownback, among (many) others.
I think it's safe to say Brownback's slim hopes of a Presidential bid are all but gone. He probably could have carried a lot of the conservative vote, but this issue has placed him squarely out of favor with his own base. McCain, too, has suffered already, dropping in just about every poll out there. Kudos to McCaskill for standing up to her own party's leadership and making most of the right choices on this bill. She and a handful of other good Democrats are making a world of difference when it comes to voting time.
The good news, from the conservative perspective, is that we've seen a handful of stand-out conservatives who are willing to fight tooth and nail for the integrity of the law and their constituencies - Sessions, DeMint, and Coburn being among the front-runners.
Who knows what will happen tomorrow, but I think good progress was made today. Let's put the final nail in the coffin of this atrocious shamnesty bill tomorrow!
There's my two cents.
- Bond: Nay (good!)
- McCaskill: Nay (good!)
- Roberts: Nay (good!)
- Brownback: didn't vote (what's up with that?!)
As Arlen Specter said from the floor, "the bill is on life support, but not dead." We'll see what happens tomorrow, but it's nice to see democracy in action, and to see that public outcry can still sway those folks in their ivory tower. Regardless, don't let up the pressure until it's truly a done deal.
Where does that leave us now?
So, it looks like McCaskill held to her published stance of being against amnesty, though I had my doubts yesterday. I had a rather heated discussion with one of her staffers today about the Cornyn amendment (permanently barring felons); she maintained that McCaskill was against it basically because of who would have been administering the judgments, not because of the provisions in the amendment itself. To me, it seems stupid to vote against such an important amendment because of procedural issues, but I'm not a Senator, so what do I know...
Overall thoughts:
Brownback? Not impressive at all. He may be a conservative on most issues, but he's as liberal as it gets on amnesty and immigration. He appears quite willing to give the country away. Watch out for him, Kansans...
If the shamnesty bill does die, Democrats appear to be content with their plan B - pasting Bush's name all over it to position themselves better for the 2008 Presidential race. You'll probably see quote after quote Friday in the news about how "Bush's plan is going down" or something to that effect. While that strikes me as being obnoxiously political and opportunistic, it's also completely accurate. Bush has wanted to address illegal immigration for a long time, but the Republican-held Congress prevented any realistic chance of success. With the Democrats in control of both houses, this was likely his best chance to get it done. Just remember, though, who was marching in lockstep with Bush on this bill - Kennedy, Reid, McCain, Biden, and Brownback, among (many) others.
I think it's safe to say Brownback's slim hopes of a Presidential bid are all but gone. He probably could have carried a lot of the conservative vote, but this issue has placed him squarely out of favor with his own base. McCain, too, has suffered already, dropping in just about every poll out there. Kudos to McCaskill for standing up to her own party's leadership and making most of the right choices on this bill. She and a handful of other good Democrats are making a world of difference when it comes to voting time.
The good news, from the conservative perspective, is that we've seen a handful of stand-out conservatives who are willing to fight tooth and nail for the integrity of the law and their constituencies - Sessions, DeMint, and Coburn being among the front-runners.
Who knows what will happen tomorrow, but I think good progress was made today. Let's put the final nail in the coffin of this atrocious shamnesty bill tomorrow!
There's my two cents.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Illegal Immigration 11: Loophole After Loophole
Senator Jeff Sessions (Rep, AL) posted a list of 20 loopholes in the current shamnesty bill on his website. This was posted on Monday, so some of these may have been amended in the past two days of debate (I haven't had time to check which, if any), and some of them have been addressed in previous blogs, but I thought it was worth a look anyway.
Here's a summary:
Loophole 1 – Legal Status Before Enforcement: Amnesty benefits don't wait for the so-called enforcement "triggers" before kicking in.
Loophole 2 – U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger: The biometric system (VISIT) voted into being in 1996 has gone well past the already-postponed 2005 implementation date. Without this tracking system, there is no method to track who comes and goes.
Loophole 3 – Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law: The enforcement trigger does not provide for any additional capacity over what's already in the law.
Loophole 4 -- Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers: Illegal aliens who came here just 5 months ago are given preferential treatment over foreign nationals who legally applied more than two years ago.
Loophole 5 – Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status: This one is self-explanatory.
Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible: This shamnesty bill would prevent illegals who commit child molestation crimes in the future from becoming legal, but allows those who have committed such crimes in the past.
Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required: This one needs no interpretation.
Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible: ...as long as they promise they won't be in a gang anymore...
Loophole 9 – Absconders Are Eligible: Illegals who have already been ordered out of the country can get amnesty. This provision alone would affect more than 600,000 people.
Loophole 10 – Learning English Not Required For A Decade: No hablo Ingles...
Loophole 11 – Earned Income Tax Credit Will Cost Taxpayers Billions In Just 10 Years: $20 billion. Enough said. UPDATE: Sessions offered an amendment to remove this provision, and it was passed.
Loophole 12 – Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence: "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darrell, and this is my other brother Darrell..." Oh, okay, come on in, you're now legal!
Loophole 13 – Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel and Arbitration: You, the taxpayer, will pay LOTS of money for illegals' lawyers.
Loophole 14 – In-State Tuition and Student Loans: This would give illegal aliens in-state tuition, a better position than legal aliens and out-of-state US citizens.
Loophole 15 – Inadequacy of the Merit System: This is basically a point system that gives priority to highly-skilled and educated applicants. But, it doesn't really kick in until 2016.
Loophole 16 – Visas For Individuals That Plan To Overstay: This provision would allow spouses and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence country to stay indefinitely by paying a small fine after 30 days.
Loophole 17 – Chain Migration Tripled Before Being Eliminated: Chain migration will be eliminated, but not for 8 years.
Loophole 18 – Back Taxes Not Required: Due to tricky verbage, this one is simply misleading.
Loophole 19 – Social Security Credits Allowed For Some Illegal Work Histories: Aliens who overstayed their legal visas, as well as illegals who didn't qualify for a Z-visa, would still be eligible to draw Social Security benefits for the years they worked here illegally.
Loophole 20 – Criminal Fines Not Proportional To Conduct: I have to just copy this one: "The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill’s criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment. Under the bill, an illegal alien must pay a $1,000 criminal fine to apply for a Z visa, and a $4,000 fine to apply for a green card. Eighty percent of those fines can be paid on an installment plan. Under the bill’s confidentiality provisions, someone who improperly handles or uses information on an alien’s amnesty application can be fined $10,000. Administration officials suggest that the bill’s “criminal fines are proportionate to the criminal conduct.” Why, then, is the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, and live one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official?"
There are just too many problems with this bill, and it simply cannot be allowed to pass!
There's my two cents.
Here's a summary:
Loophole 1 – Legal Status Before Enforcement: Amnesty benefits don't wait for the so-called enforcement "triggers" before kicking in.
Loophole 2 – U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger: The biometric system (VISIT) voted into being in 1996 has gone well past the already-postponed 2005 implementation date. Without this tracking system, there is no method to track who comes and goes.
Loophole 3 – Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law: The enforcement trigger does not provide for any additional capacity over what's already in the law.
Loophole 4 -- Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers: Illegal aliens who came here just 5 months ago are given preferential treatment over foreign nationals who legally applied more than two years ago.
Loophole 5 – Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status: This one is self-explanatory.
Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible: This shamnesty bill would prevent illegals who commit child molestation crimes in the future from becoming legal, but allows those who have committed such crimes in the past.
Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required: This one needs no interpretation.
Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible: ...as long as they promise they won't be in a gang anymore...
Loophole 9 – Absconders Are Eligible: Illegals who have already been ordered out of the country can get amnesty. This provision alone would affect more than 600,000 people.
Loophole 10 – Learning English Not Required For A Decade: No hablo Ingles...
Loophole 11 – Earned Income Tax Credit Will Cost Taxpayers Billions In Just 10 Years: $20 billion. Enough said. UPDATE: Sessions offered an amendment to remove this provision, and it was passed.
Loophole 12 – Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence: "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darrell, and this is my other brother Darrell..." Oh, okay, come on in, you're now legal!
Loophole 13 – Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel and Arbitration: You, the taxpayer, will pay LOTS of money for illegals' lawyers.
Loophole 14 – In-State Tuition and Student Loans: This would give illegal aliens in-state tuition, a better position than legal aliens and out-of-state US citizens.
Loophole 15 – Inadequacy of the Merit System: This is basically a point system that gives priority to highly-skilled and educated applicants. But, it doesn't really kick in until 2016.
Loophole 16 – Visas For Individuals That Plan To Overstay: This provision would allow spouses and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence country to stay indefinitely by paying a small fine after 30 days.
Loophole 17 – Chain Migration Tripled Before Being Eliminated: Chain migration will be eliminated, but not for 8 years.
Loophole 18 – Back Taxes Not Required: Due to tricky verbage, this one is simply misleading.
Loophole 19 – Social Security Credits Allowed For Some Illegal Work Histories: Aliens who overstayed their legal visas, as well as illegals who didn't qualify for a Z-visa, would still be eligible to draw Social Security benefits for the years they worked here illegally.
Loophole 20 – Criminal Fines Not Proportional To Conduct: I have to just copy this one: "The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill’s criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment. Under the bill, an illegal alien must pay a $1,000 criminal fine to apply for a Z visa, and a $4,000 fine to apply for a green card. Eighty percent of those fines can be paid on an installment plan. Under the bill’s confidentiality provisions, someone who improperly handles or uses information on an alien’s amnesty application can be fined $10,000. Administration officials suggest that the bill’s “criminal fines are proportionate to the criminal conduct.” Why, then, is the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, and live one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official?"
There are just too many problems with this bill, and it simply cannot be allowed to pass!
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration 10: Enforce existing law? Heck, no!
As with the Cornyn amendment yesterday, the Senate has rejected an amendment that makes perfect sense and is clearly in our country's best interest. This one, put forward by Senator Jim DeMint (Rep, SC) and Senator Tom Coburn (Rep, OK), would have guaranteed that existing immigration laws (things like ensuring the entire fence would be built, all databases with illegal alien information would be current and operational, a system would be in place to track every alien leaving and returning, and the elimination of 'sanctuary' cities, among other things) would be enforced before any amnesty is granted.
Shockingly, a majority of the Senate thought that was a bad idea.
Here's how our Senators voted:
- Bond: in favor (good!)
- McCaskill: in favor (good!)
- Roberts: in favor (good!)
- Brownback: against (bad!)
Some good news: an amendment put forward by Byron Dorgan (Dem, ND) that would sunset the temporary worker program after five years passed. This is good news because potential supporters of this bill may decide it's not worth taking the heat for this shamnesty bill if one of the main pieces ends so soon.
Another update: The first cloture vote failed 33-63. Reid said he'd bring it up again later today.
Keep up the pressure - the shamnesty bill is struggling, but it's far from over yet!
There's my two cents.
Shockingly, a majority of the Senate thought that was a bad idea.
Here's how our Senators voted:
- Bond: in favor (good!)
- McCaskill: in favor (good!)
- Roberts: in favor (good!)
- Brownback: against (bad!)
Some good news: an amendment put forward by Byron Dorgan (Dem, ND) that would sunset the temporary worker program after five years passed. This is good news because potential supporters of this bill may decide it's not worth taking the heat for this shamnesty bill if one of the main pieces ends so soon.
Another update: The first cloture vote failed 33-63. Reid said he'd bring it up again later today.
Keep up the pressure - the shamnesty bill is struggling, but it's far from over yet!
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration 9: Thursday's events
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem, NV) is likely to invoke cloture on the shamnesty bill today, which means he'll force a vote on it in its current form.
This is a bit of a strange move, given that there are still many amendments that have yet to be debated (including one about the right of illegal aliens to vote), and that there is no guarantee that he'll get the 60 votes needed to make it happen. If he gets 60 votes on the cloture motion, the Senate will drop everything and vote on the shamnesty bill in its current form. If he doesn't get the 60 votes for cloture, it is likely he'll shelve the shamnesty bill for the time being, which will essentially kill it.
Either way, it's probably going to be a squeaker.
If it does pass in the Senate, the shamnesty bill will then go to the House of Representatives, where the debate and amendment process will be similar to what happened in the Senate. If it passes in the House, then a committee will have to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, and then it would go to the President's desk.
In my humble opinion, I think he's doing this because the longer this shamnesty bill stays in the public light, the more people become outraged about it, and the heat is being cranked up on Senators across the nation to kill this bill. There's still a pretty good chance of getting it slipped through at this point, but the longer he waits, the more his support for this shamnesty bill erodes. We'll see what happens today, but if you want to make your opinions known, you'd better call your Senators today!
There's my two cents.
This is a bit of a strange move, given that there are still many amendments that have yet to be debated (including one about the right of illegal aliens to vote), and that there is no guarantee that he'll get the 60 votes needed to make it happen. If he gets 60 votes on the cloture motion, the Senate will drop everything and vote on the shamnesty bill in its current form. If he doesn't get the 60 votes for cloture, it is likely he'll shelve the shamnesty bill for the time being, which will essentially kill it.
Either way, it's probably going to be a squeaker.
If it does pass in the Senate, the shamnesty bill will then go to the House of Representatives, where the debate and amendment process will be similar to what happened in the Senate. If it passes in the House, then a committee will have to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, and then it would go to the President's desk.
In my humble opinion, I think he's doing this because the longer this shamnesty bill stays in the public light, the more people become outraged about it, and the heat is being cranked up on Senators across the nation to kill this bill. There's still a pretty good chance of getting it slipped through at this point, but the longer he waits, the more his support for this shamnesty bill erodes. We'll see what happens today, but if you want to make your opinions known, you'd better call your Senators today!
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Illegal Immigration 8: Gang members caught in LA
Just saw this article on Newsmax's website, and it applies directly to the Cornyn amendment that was just defeated - 124 Mexican and Central American gang members were arrested or indicted in LA on drugs, weapons, and immigration charges.
If this shamnesty bill goes through, these guys are going to be given instant legal status and free legal assistance...and, I would guess they'll get a total pass based on the new legislation, and be set free.
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this shamnesty bill!
There's my two cents.
If this shamnesty bill goes through, these guys are going to be given instant legal status and free legal assistance...and, I would guess they'll get a total pass based on the new legislation, and be set free.
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this shamnesty bill!
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration 7 : Shamnesty Update
I forgot to mention in my last post that Senators Roberts and Brownback, both Republicans from Kansas, voted with Senator Bond in favor of the Cornyn amendment (which was defeated), and opposed to the Kennedy amendment (which was passed). Senator McCaskill, the only Democrat between the two states, voted opposite on both amendments.
Illegal Immigration 6: More Details and Updates
The Senate was actively debating and amending the amnesty bill today. Michelle Malkin is a prominent political analyst that has been doing some running commentary as things happen. Go check out her blog at http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm. It's very interesting to see the actual statements being made about huge issues included in this bill. Take special note of how many (and what types of) criminals would be allowed to get a Z-visa if the bill goes through without being amended. Malkin refers to this bill as the "shamnesty" bill. I like that, so I'm going to borrow the term. :)
Some items of note in the last couple days include...
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem, NV) referred to current illegal aliens as "undocumented Americans" WHAT?!
- An amendment from Sen. Cornyn (Rep, TX), which would ban felons ("gang members, terrorists, and other criminals") from obtaining a Z-visa, failed. Bond (Rep) voted in favor of this amendment, but McCaskill (Dem) voted against it.
- A watered-down amendment from Sen. Kennedy (Dem, MA), which would allow significant loopholes for many types of criminals to obtain a Z-visa, passed. Bond voted against this amendment, but McCaskill voted in favor of it.
I also wanted to underscore a couple of very important points again. Most reasonable people, I think, would be in favor of allowing a potential path to citizenship for illegal aliens if they paid a fine (and back taxes) and returned to their country of origin to apply for a Z-visa. This is what you keep hearing about in the media, but this is not the reality of the current shamnesty bill. These conditions are only in effect if the illegal alien wants citizenship. According to this shamnesty bill, citizenship is NOT a requirement, just an OPTION. The truth is that this shamnesty bill will grant legal status to illegal aliens already here. Once they get that, why get citizenship? There's no incentive, and in fact, the fines and return trip home are a huge disincentive!
So, let me sum up what this 700-page shamnesty bill will NOT do:
- require illegals to pay fines
- require payments of back taxes
- require a return trip to the country of origin
- require any kind of assimilation or education about American history, or English proficiency
- require citizenship
Here's what this bill WILL do:
- grant amnesty to at least 40-50 million people
- give illegal aliens free legal representation
- give illegal aliens tuition assistance
- convert immigration enforcement agencies into Z-visa distribution networks
- increase the illegal-alien-drag on American taxpayers from $10 billion each year to almost $30 billion
Some Numbers You Should Know:
3-to-1:
The public outcry coming from the clear majority of the American public is resounding, as a USA Today poll yesterday shows - Americans oppose this shamnesty bill 3 to 1!
$2.6 Trillion:
This is how much YOU, the American taxpayer, will pay (at least!) if this bill goes through.
26/50/49:
Only 26% of people polled in a Rasmussen poll today are in favor of the shamnesty bill, and 50% are fully opposed. 49% say they'd rather change nothing than see this shamnesty bill go through.
51:
The idiots in the Senate are threatening the security and economy of the United States, as well as ignoring the obvious overwhelming opposition coming from their own constituents. If nothing else illustrates this staggering departure from duty and common sense, look at the amendment from Cornyn - its purpose was "[T]o establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals". It would have barred the following people from obtaining Z-visas and legal status: (1) absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported); (2) aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists); (3) aliens who fail to register as sex offenders; (4) aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses; (5) aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders; (6) alien gang members; and (7) aliens convicted of at least three DUIs. 51 Senators voted against that, including McCaskill! Explain to me how a "nay" vote can be justified on that amendment! I think I'm going to have to call McCaskill and ask her...
The only thing we can do is turn up the heat even more - call them, e-mail them, write them, fax them, and do it all over again!
There's my two cents.
Some items of note in the last couple days include...
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem, NV) referred to current illegal aliens as "undocumented Americans" WHAT?!
- An amendment from Sen. Cornyn (Rep, TX), which would ban felons ("gang members, terrorists, and other criminals") from obtaining a Z-visa, failed. Bond (Rep) voted in favor of this amendment, but McCaskill (Dem) voted against it.
- A watered-down amendment from Sen. Kennedy (Dem, MA), which would allow significant loopholes for many types of criminals to obtain a Z-visa, passed. Bond voted against this amendment, but McCaskill voted in favor of it.
I also wanted to underscore a couple of very important points again. Most reasonable people, I think, would be in favor of allowing a potential path to citizenship for illegal aliens if they paid a fine (and back taxes) and returned to their country of origin to apply for a Z-visa. This is what you keep hearing about in the media, but this is not the reality of the current shamnesty bill. These conditions are only in effect if the illegal alien wants citizenship. According to this shamnesty bill, citizenship is NOT a requirement, just an OPTION. The truth is that this shamnesty bill will grant legal status to illegal aliens already here. Once they get that, why get citizenship? There's no incentive, and in fact, the fines and return trip home are a huge disincentive!
So, let me sum up what this 700-page shamnesty bill will NOT do:
- require illegals to pay fines
- require payments of back taxes
- require a return trip to the country of origin
- require any kind of assimilation or education about American history, or English proficiency
- require citizenship
Here's what this bill WILL do:
- grant amnesty to at least 40-50 million people
- give illegal aliens free legal representation
- give illegal aliens tuition assistance
- convert immigration enforcement agencies into Z-visa distribution networks
- increase the illegal-alien-drag on American taxpayers from $10 billion each year to almost $30 billion
Some Numbers You Should Know:
3-to-1:
The public outcry coming from the clear majority of the American public is resounding, as a USA Today poll yesterday shows - Americans oppose this shamnesty bill 3 to 1!
$2.6 Trillion:
This is how much YOU, the American taxpayer, will pay (at least!) if this bill goes through.
26/50/49:
Only 26% of people polled in a Rasmussen poll today are in favor of the shamnesty bill, and 50% are fully opposed. 49% say they'd rather change nothing than see this shamnesty bill go through.
51:
The idiots in the Senate are threatening the security and economy of the United States, as well as ignoring the obvious overwhelming opposition coming from their own constituents. If nothing else illustrates this staggering departure from duty and common sense, look at the amendment from Cornyn - its purpose was "[T]o establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals". It would have barred the following people from obtaining Z-visas and legal status: (1) absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported); (2) aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists); (3) aliens who fail to register as sex offenders; (4) aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses; (5) aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders; (6) alien gang members; and (7) aliens convicted of at least three DUIs. 51 Senators voted against that, including McCaskill! Explain to me how a "nay" vote can be justified on that amendment! I think I'm going to have to call McCaskill and ask her...
The only thing we can do is turn up the heat even more - call them, e-mail them, write them, fax them, and do it all over again!
There's my two cents.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Illegal Immigration 5: How MO's Senators are Doing
In my last post, I gave a couple links at the bottom for a website called NumbersUSA. They post the upcoming amendments and changes being voted on by the Senate, as well as the results for amendments and changes that have already been voted on.
I checked Missouri's Senators (Bond and McCaskill), and both appear to be doing a fairly good job of representing the American people and fighting the worst parts of this bill. Of course, the overall results are so far not too encouraging, so they need to keep hearing from YOU!
You can also call the White House and leave your input there, too. After all, even if the bill gets through Congress, it still has to be signed into law by the President. If enough people fight this hard enough every step of the way, this bill could eventually be defeated.
There's my two cents.
I checked Missouri's Senators (Bond and McCaskill), and both appear to be doing a fairly good job of representing the American people and fighting the worst parts of this bill. Of course, the overall results are so far not too encouraging, so they need to keep hearing from YOU!
You can also call the White House and leave your input there, too. After all, even if the bill gets through Congress, it still has to be signed into law by the President. If enough people fight this hard enough every step of the way, this bill could eventually be defeated.
There's my two cents.
Illegal Immigration 4: Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines the Rule of Law
This blog is a summary of a great article by Kris W. Kobach (a professor of constitutional law at UMKC) and Matthew Spalding, published by The Heritage Foundation. They go into a lot more detail, and I would highly encourage you to check out their full article, but here is a paraphrased version which highlights the 10 worst provisions of the current immigration bill (my comments are in italics).
1. A Massive Amnesty This bill grants amnesty to anyone who could qualify for a Z-visa, and there is no limit on the number of Z-visas available. The only qualifications for the Z-visa are a job and two documents that show the person in question was here before January 1, 2007. For just a few thousand dollars, anyone in the world can buy legal status in America. How many terrorists do you think have a few thousand dollars laying around?
2. The Permanent "Temporary" Visa Supporters of the bill don't tell you that these Z-visas can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies. Also, illegals don't need to return to their home countries to apply for the Z-visa - they only need to return home if they want to get a green card and become a 'lawful permenent resident'. Temporary = permanent.
3. Hobbled Background Checks This bill would allow only 24 hours for criminal background checks for Z-visa applicants. If a specific reason for denial hasn't been found by the day after the application was submitted, a probationary Z-visa is granted. "During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City). But his real work was in the field of terrorism. He went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center." See provision #1.
4. Amnesty for Absconders Any illegal alien who has been ordered by a judge to be deported -- but broke the law again by staying anyway -- will be granted a Z-visa. Tell me how that makes sense...
5. Reverse Justice If an illegal alien is in the process of being removed from the US, the proceedings must be closed and the illegal alien will be offered a Z-visa. Again, tell me how that makes sense...
6. Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws Any Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent that arrests an illegal alien must provide them the opportunity to apply for a Z-visa. "This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network." What a great idea.
7. Amnesty for Gang Members Any gang member that is an illegal alien would receive amnesty simply by stating his gang affiliation and signing a "renunciation of gang affiliation." Yeah, that'll work.
8. Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens This bill would grant in-state status to illegal aliens, which would provide more money and lower tuition rates for illegals than for both legal aliens and US out-of-state citizens. You've got to be kidding me!
9. Taxpayer-Funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens This bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for illegal aliens' lawyers. This provision alone would cost hundreds of millions of dollars every year. You think your taxes are high now...just wait until you pay for a few million lawyers!
10. Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers Supporters of the bill say that amnesty would occur only after certain law enforcement goals are met. The truth is that the bill allows Z-visas to be immediately issued, and the government is actually prohibited from waiting more than 180 days to start issuing them. Say one thing, mean another - typical political-speak.
Do we need to do something about illegal immigration? Absolutely, yes. Is this bill the right answer? Absolutely not! If this bill goes through, we are talking about some monstrous changes in American economics, culture, law enforcement, and life in general. I honestly cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would be in favor of this bill -- especially after knowing what's in here -- unless it's for the reasons stated in my previous blog: pure politics.
So, how do you make your voice known? Call your Senators. Ask them what their stance is on this bill, and tell them you will not vote for anyone who approves of this bill. Call them more than once, just to drill your point home. As discussed in previous blogs, the politicians REALLY want this bill to go through. The ONLY way this bill will be killed is if Americans deluge, swamp, and overwhelm the phone lines, fax lines, mailboxes, and e-mail inboxes with outrage demanding to kill it.
If you want to see how your representatives have voted so far on the individual provisions, click here.
If you want to see what provisions are coming up for a vote soon, click here.
There's my two cents.
1. A Massive Amnesty This bill grants amnesty to anyone who could qualify for a Z-visa, and there is no limit on the number of Z-visas available. The only qualifications for the Z-visa are a job and two documents that show the person in question was here before January 1, 2007. For just a few thousand dollars, anyone in the world can buy legal status in America. How many terrorists do you think have a few thousand dollars laying around?
2. The Permanent "Temporary" Visa Supporters of the bill don't tell you that these Z-visas can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies. Also, illegals don't need to return to their home countries to apply for the Z-visa - they only need to return home if they want to get a green card and become a 'lawful permenent resident'. Temporary = permanent.
3. Hobbled Background Checks This bill would allow only 24 hours for criminal background checks for Z-visa applicants. If a specific reason for denial hasn't been found by the day after the application was submitted, a probationary Z-visa is granted. "During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City). But his real work was in the field of terrorism. He went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center." See provision #1.
4. Amnesty for Absconders Any illegal alien who has been ordered by a judge to be deported -- but broke the law again by staying anyway -- will be granted a Z-visa. Tell me how that makes sense...
5. Reverse Justice If an illegal alien is in the process of being removed from the US, the proceedings must be closed and the illegal alien will be offered a Z-visa. Again, tell me how that makes sense...
6. Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws Any Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent that arrests an illegal alien must provide them the opportunity to apply for a Z-visa. "This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network." What a great idea.
7. Amnesty for Gang Members Any gang member that is an illegal alien would receive amnesty simply by stating his gang affiliation and signing a "renunciation of gang affiliation." Yeah, that'll work.
8. Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens This bill would grant in-state status to illegal aliens, which would provide more money and lower tuition rates for illegals than for both legal aliens and US out-of-state citizens. You've got to be kidding me!
9. Taxpayer-Funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens This bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for illegal aliens' lawyers. This provision alone would cost hundreds of millions of dollars every year. You think your taxes are high now...just wait until you pay for a few million lawyers!
10. Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers Supporters of the bill say that amnesty would occur only after certain law enforcement goals are met. The truth is that the bill allows Z-visas to be immediately issued, and the government is actually prohibited from waiting more than 180 days to start issuing them. Say one thing, mean another - typical political-speak.
Do we need to do something about illegal immigration? Absolutely, yes. Is this bill the right answer? Absolutely not! If this bill goes through, we are talking about some monstrous changes in American economics, culture, law enforcement, and life in general. I honestly cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would be in favor of this bill -- especially after knowing what's in here -- unless it's for the reasons stated in my previous blog: pure politics.
So, how do you make your voice known? Call your Senators. Ask them what their stance is on this bill, and tell them you will not vote for anyone who approves of this bill. Call them more than once, just to drill your point home. As discussed in previous blogs, the politicians REALLY want this bill to go through. The ONLY way this bill will be killed is if Americans deluge, swamp, and overwhelm the phone lines, fax lines, mailboxes, and e-mail inboxes with outrage demanding to kill it.
If you want to see how your representatives have voted so far on the individual provisions, click here.
If you want to see what provisions are coming up for a vote soon, click here.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Illegal Immigration 3: The current bill
Pretty much everyone agrees that we need to do something about illegal immigration. So, is the current bill the right answer?
Not even close!
The Senate is in the process of debating and amending the current immigration reform bill, so some of this info may become outdated depending on changes that occur daily. Since I have no control over that, I'm going to address the bill in its original form. I'd like to point out that this bill will likely go to a full vote in just a few days, so if you want your voice to be heard, call your Senators TODAY!
If you've read my previous blogs, you know where I'm coming from on the issue of illegal immigration. Now let's look at the specific bill in question. There are so many things wrong with this bill that it's actually hard to find a place to start!
What are they hiding? The original bill was seven hundred pages long. Does anyone actually know everything that's in there?? For example, Senator McCain has been going around touting the requirement of paying back-taxes in order to become legal. The problem is that that provision wasn't actually in there. It is now, but what does that say about this bloated bill and anyone's ability to understand it? And, if it's this long and complicated, why is the Senate trying to rush the bill through the process?
Few Americans actually like this bill. Though it's rare, the anger about this issue is on both sides of the political aisle. The only people who really want it to happen are the politicians and elites. And it's showing, especially in the conservative-leaning Republican party, where their small donations are down 40% because of this one issue.
Who gets in? Current law gives preference to legal immigrants who are highly skilled, educated, and proficient in English. The new bill would abolish that idea and simply rely on family ties.
Not just 12-20 million! If this bill goes through, you'll see a massive influx of now-legal immigrants due to the provision of allowing family members (parents, spouses, and children) in with the legalized immigrant. So, instead of allowing 12-20 million new people, we'll actually be inviting more like 40-50 million, maybe more. Keep in mind that with the total population of the US around 300 million, this would increase our population by at least 17% with one signature of the President. Also keep in mind that the vast majority of these new immigrants would be low-skilled, little-educated people. In my previous blog I showed how much of a drag illegal aliens have been on our economy so far. But, if they all suddenly become legal, it gets far, far worse. Households headed by illegal aliens represent a drain of $10 billion per year by consuming more government services (i.e. at taxpayer expense) than they pay in taxes at the Federal level alone. If they all suddenly became legal, this figure would triple! And where does it stop? In the words of Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times: "By the way, when I said "came to America," if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus, don't be deterred by the fact that Canada is not technically in America. Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. This being America, pretty soon -- a court decision here, a court decision there -- the presumption of every school district and hospital and welfare administrator will be that they're obliged to treat everyone who walks in through the door as if they were a Z-1." What's that going to do to your health care costs? And what about the massive cultural shift that will inevitably take place with immigrants who have zero desire to assimilate and actually become an American?
How long have they really been here? This bill stipulates that if anyone can provide two documents showing they were in the country before January 1st of 2007, they're qualified for a Z-visa, which essentially says they can legally stay as long as they want (this is not citizenship, just legal permission to stay here). But, how hard is it going to be to come up with a couple sheets of paper with an old date? Anyone with a scanner and a printer could do it. If we don't even know who's here, or how many are here, how can we possibly determine who was here before a certain date? We can't. Anyone who can sneak in gets in. After the 1986 amnesty, Immigration and Naturalization Services found 398,000 cases of fraud. This time around we're granting amnesty to four times the number of people, and leaving the door open for applications for 12 full months! This bill is begging for fraud. You know, I wonder if terrorists would like to become American citizens so they could utilize our justice system for their legal defense...
Temporary?! The idea of a temporary worker program as a part of this bill is just silly. First of all, we've already got a functioning temporary worker program. Why do we need another one? And, it's because of this existing program that we know for a fact that 'temporary' workers almost always end up staying permanently. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world have benefitted from this program, staying well beyond their 'temporary' visa period. Basically, the government has had to make up reasons NOT to send people home until everyone gets a green card. Whether right or wrong, that's the way it is. There's even a group of Liberians who received 'temporary' status in 1991, and it keeps getting renewed every time it expires. In the context of immigration, 'temporary' actually means permanent.
They'll have to pay fines to stay. Not to my understanding - the fine and back taxes is only if they want to pursue a path to citizenship, but there's no requirement for that. They will simply receive legal status. So what's the incentive to become a citizen? Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) also criticized the new Z visa that "rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty." Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Besides, even though the bill isn't yet finished, the media and advocate groups are already complaining about how the $5,000 fine is going to be too tough for illegals to pay.
It's not amnesty. "The Bush-Senate Z-Amnesty plan is 100 percent amnesty," said Grassfire.org President Steve Elliott. "It immediately offers legal status to every illegal alien in this country, which by definition is amnesty. It creates a clear path to citizenship and illegals do not even have to 'touch back' to their home countries to stay in the U.S. indefinitely." That was from CNSNews.com on May 18th. Plain and simple: this bill is amnesty.
Rewarding those who break the law. David Limbaugh makes what I think is a very compelling argument on his blog, saying that 'amnesty' is actually understating the case, and this bill would essentially reward anyone who is willing to risk breaking the law to come here illegally. He likens the situation to how a thief is forced to give up his loot in an attempt to restore the victim as much as possible, but illegal aliens will instead be allowed to keep their 'loot'. What exactly is this loot? He goes on: "As reported in the Washington Times, the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector calculates that during their lifetimes, they will likely receive '$2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes.' Among those benefits are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, public housing, subsidized college education and Social Security Disability Insurance.'" Who's paying for that $2.5 trillion dollars? You and me.
What's really going on here? As I mentioned in my last blog, this is about what the politicians want, not what Americans want. In the words of Thomas Sowell at National Review Online, "This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians’ problems, not the country’s." If you're like me, you've got to be throwing up your hands in frustration and asking why these politicians are trying to rush through such an atrocious bill. Rush Limbaugh proposes an interesting theory to answer that question: Washington knows it's running short on people - the fact is that the birth rate doesn't match the death rate here anymore. Politicians are looking at the baby boomers retiring and are desperate to get anything in place that will bring in more tax revenue, even if it's temporary. The problem with using amnesty to bring in more people is that the vast majority of illegals are not skilled or educated, and will be getting low-paying labor jobs. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't generate much tax revenue (it's actually negative when you factor in the social services that will be drained out). US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in the USA Today that "the population aged 25-54 growing at 0.2% a year while the workforce is growing at 1.2% a year." And: "The reality is, we don't have enough people," said Gutierrez, adding that many of the United States' economic competitors, such as France, Germany, Japan and China, will be facing a similar demographic shift. "The big challenge of the 21st century is: who gets the people? Who gets the immigrants?" he said. "We don't appreciate today that these people are coming in for free."
Whoa...! Are you kidding me?! Talk about solving the wrong problem...instead of addressing illegal immigration, they're worried about how much tax revenue they get??
I was planning to post a great summary of the bill's worst attributes I came across with this blog, but this has already gotten longer than I originally anticipated. I'll try to follow up with that tomorrow.
There's my two cents.
Not even close!
The Senate is in the process of debating and amending the current immigration reform bill, so some of this info may become outdated depending on changes that occur daily. Since I have no control over that, I'm going to address the bill in its original form. I'd like to point out that this bill will likely go to a full vote in just a few days, so if you want your voice to be heard, call your Senators TODAY!
If you've read my previous blogs, you know where I'm coming from on the issue of illegal immigration. Now let's look at the specific bill in question. There are so many things wrong with this bill that it's actually hard to find a place to start!
What are they hiding? The original bill was seven hundred pages long. Does anyone actually know everything that's in there?? For example, Senator McCain has been going around touting the requirement of paying back-taxes in order to become legal. The problem is that that provision wasn't actually in there. It is now, but what does that say about this bloated bill and anyone's ability to understand it? And, if it's this long and complicated, why is the Senate trying to rush the bill through the process?
Few Americans actually like this bill. Though it's rare, the anger about this issue is on both sides of the political aisle. The only people who really want it to happen are the politicians and elites. And it's showing, especially in the conservative-leaning Republican party, where their small donations are down 40% because of this one issue.
Who gets in? Current law gives preference to legal immigrants who are highly skilled, educated, and proficient in English. The new bill would abolish that idea and simply rely on family ties.
Not just 12-20 million! If this bill goes through, you'll see a massive influx of now-legal immigrants due to the provision of allowing family members (parents, spouses, and children) in with the legalized immigrant. So, instead of allowing 12-20 million new people, we'll actually be inviting more like 40-50 million, maybe more. Keep in mind that with the total population of the US around 300 million, this would increase our population by at least 17% with one signature of the President. Also keep in mind that the vast majority of these new immigrants would be low-skilled, little-educated people. In my previous blog I showed how much of a drag illegal aliens have been on our economy so far. But, if they all suddenly become legal, it gets far, far worse. Households headed by illegal aliens represent a drain of $10 billion per year by consuming more government services (i.e. at taxpayer expense) than they pay in taxes at the Federal level alone. If they all suddenly became legal, this figure would triple! And where does it stop? In the words of Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times: "By the way, when I said "came to America," if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus, don't be deterred by the fact that Canada is not technically in America. Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. This being America, pretty soon -- a court decision here, a court decision there -- the presumption of every school district and hospital and welfare administrator will be that they're obliged to treat everyone who walks in through the door as if they were a Z-1." What's that going to do to your health care costs? And what about the massive cultural shift that will inevitably take place with immigrants who have zero desire to assimilate and actually become an American?
How long have they really been here? This bill stipulates that if anyone can provide two documents showing they were in the country before January 1st of 2007, they're qualified for a Z-visa, which essentially says they can legally stay as long as they want (this is not citizenship, just legal permission to stay here). But, how hard is it going to be to come up with a couple sheets of paper with an old date? Anyone with a scanner and a printer could do it. If we don't even know who's here, or how many are here, how can we possibly determine who was here before a certain date? We can't. Anyone who can sneak in gets in. After the 1986 amnesty, Immigration and Naturalization Services found 398,000 cases of fraud. This time around we're granting amnesty to four times the number of people, and leaving the door open for applications for 12 full months! This bill is begging for fraud. You know, I wonder if terrorists would like to become American citizens so they could utilize our justice system for their legal defense...
Temporary?! The idea of a temporary worker program as a part of this bill is just silly. First of all, we've already got a functioning temporary worker program. Why do we need another one? And, it's because of this existing program that we know for a fact that 'temporary' workers almost always end up staying permanently. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world have benefitted from this program, staying well beyond their 'temporary' visa period. Basically, the government has had to make up reasons NOT to send people home until everyone gets a green card. Whether right or wrong, that's the way it is. There's even a group of Liberians who received 'temporary' status in 1991, and it keeps getting renewed every time it expires. In the context of immigration, 'temporary' actually means permanent.
They'll have to pay fines to stay. Not to my understanding - the fine and back taxes is only if they want to pursue a path to citizenship, but there's no requirement for that. They will simply receive legal status. So what's the incentive to become a citizen? Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) also criticized the new Z visa that "rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty." Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Besides, even though the bill isn't yet finished, the media and advocate groups are already complaining about how the $5,000 fine is going to be too tough for illegals to pay.
It's not amnesty. "The Bush-Senate Z-Amnesty plan is 100 percent amnesty," said Grassfire.org President Steve Elliott. "It immediately offers legal status to every illegal alien in this country, which by definition is amnesty. It creates a clear path to citizenship and illegals do not even have to 'touch back' to their home countries to stay in the U.S. indefinitely." That was from CNSNews.com on May 18th. Plain and simple: this bill is amnesty.
Rewarding those who break the law. David Limbaugh makes what I think is a very compelling argument on his blog, saying that 'amnesty' is actually understating the case, and this bill would essentially reward anyone who is willing to risk breaking the law to come here illegally. He likens the situation to how a thief is forced to give up his loot in an attempt to restore the victim as much as possible, but illegal aliens will instead be allowed to keep their 'loot'. What exactly is this loot? He goes on: "As reported in the Washington Times, the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector calculates that during their lifetimes, they will likely receive '$2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes.' Among those benefits are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, public housing, subsidized college education and Social Security Disability Insurance.'" Who's paying for that $2.5 trillion dollars? You and me.
What's really going on here? As I mentioned in my last blog, this is about what the politicians want, not what Americans want. In the words of Thomas Sowell at National Review Online, "This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians’ problems, not the country’s." If you're like me, you've got to be throwing up your hands in frustration and asking why these politicians are trying to rush through such an atrocious bill. Rush Limbaugh proposes an interesting theory to answer that question: Washington knows it's running short on people - the fact is that the birth rate doesn't match the death rate here anymore. Politicians are looking at the baby boomers retiring and are desperate to get anything in place that will bring in more tax revenue, even if it's temporary. The problem with using amnesty to bring in more people is that the vast majority of illegals are not skilled or educated, and will be getting low-paying labor jobs. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't generate much tax revenue (it's actually negative when you factor in the social services that will be drained out). US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in the USA Today that "the population aged 25-54 growing at 0.2% a year while the workforce is growing at 1.2% a year." And: "The reality is, we don't have enough people," said Gutierrez, adding that many of the United States' economic competitors, such as France, Germany, Japan and China, will be facing a similar demographic shift. "The big challenge of the 21st century is: who gets the people? Who gets the immigrants?" he said. "We don't appreciate today that these people are coming in for free."
Whoa...! Are you kidding me?! Talk about solving the wrong problem...instead of addressing illegal immigration, they're worried about how much tax revenue they get??
I was planning to post a great summary of the bill's worst attributes I came across with this blog, but this has already gotten longer than I originally anticipated. I'll try to follow up with that tomorrow.
There's my two cents.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Illegal Immigration 2: What should we do?
In the previous blog I laid out what I see as the real issue, and a number of reasons this issue is a major, major problem. So, the next logical question is what to do about it. You hear a lot about securing the border, and the Senate even went as far as to vote to build a fence on the US-Mexico border not too long ago. Of course, they only funded that bill enough to build 2 miles of the 700-mile fence, so it didn't end up accomplishing anything real. Way to go, Senate!
But, I digress.
It seems to me that there are two major elements to this question:
1. how to stop the influx of illegal aliens
2. what to do with the illegal aliens that are already here
The simplest thing to do, of course, is to enforce the laws that are already on the books. We already have laws against being here illegally, against businesses hiring illegals, etc. If we would just enforce what's there, we could fix the problem. Securing the border would be one first step, but it's going to be hideously expensive, and I think it's somewhat impractical to think it'll actually happen.
First things first. We need to ask ourselves why most illegal aliens come here. Typically, it's probably to make a better life - basically, they can find jobs, free health care, education, and government benefits. To address all of those things, I like what Selwyn Duke proposed at the American Thinker recently. His basic plan is this:
1. enact laws that will severely punish employers who hire illegals
2. enact laws that will eliminate illegals from receiving any government benefits
3. eliminate the "anchor baby" clause (anyone born on US soil is an automatic citizen)
These three things alone would more than likely remove most of the incentive for illegals to come here. But, he goes a couple steps further:
4. enact a law that establishes a date beyond which any illegal alien caught in the US will be subject to severe punishment
5. enact a law that says if an illegal is found in the US beyond that date, they will be prohibited from entering the US ever again, even legally
All this would be accomplished without having to go to the time, trouble, and expense of building a fence (which would cost literally billions of dollars and take who-knows-how-long to do) simply by removing the reasons for them to come here. Furthermore, no jobs and no freebies would mean that there would likely be a mass exodus of those already here. Voila! We've answered both of the major elements of the question!
Now, let's talk about some of the common protests to these measures.
"Illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do." Who did those jobs before illegal aliens came here? Americans. And, there's a glaring weakness in that phrase that doesn't get pointed out much - you've probably heard that illegal aliens make up about 25% of the low-skill work force in the agriculture industry, but have you thought about who makes up the other 75%? Americans. As Duke points out in the above article, the point is not that there are jobs Americans won't do, rather there are wages that Americans generally aren't willing to work for. If illegals suddenly departed from the equation, the market would simply balance out, and wages would normalize to where they should be rather than being artificially deflated by illegal workers. It might get a little tight for a time while that normalization happens, but it certainly wouldn't be catastrophic. In fact, that kind of market push/pull relationship is the essence of capitalism. Also, isn't America the most technologically advanced society on the planet? Why do we have so much manual labor going on anyway? If 25% of those low-skill jobs suddenly open up, why can't we fill those needs with machines and technology?
"We can't possibly deport 12-20 million people." If we follow the plan outlined above, we wouldn't have to - I believe most would leave on their own. Even if they didn't, the logic in that statement is appalling. What would happen if we applied the same thought process to law enforcement? Do we shut down all law enforcement agencies because we can't possibly stop every crime? No, you do the best you can with what you've got! Last year, we deported over 220,000 illegal aliens, which was about 20% more than the year before. Take it one step at a time, and it becomes possible. Put the proper disincentives in place, and it might actually become simple.
"They're just here to make a better life for themselves and their families." For thorny issues like this, I try to think about the general principle to see how it could be applied to other situations. For example, let's say I live next door to a really rich guy who never locks his doors. I know for a fact that he's got huge TVs, lots of fancy jewelry, and an expensive coin collection in his house. I also know that he travels a lot. I could walk over to his house while he's away on his next trip, take a bunch of his stuff and bring it back to my house without getting caught. But, would it be right for me to do that? No, of course not. Now, let's say I do it anyway, then he comes home and discovers what I've done. I could point out that since he's rich he can just buy another one of everything I stole from him, and that I'm just trying to improve my standard of living and make a more comfortable life for myself. How's he going to react to that? What if the rich guy next door is you? How would you react?
"Some have been here for years or decades; we can't send them home." Again, apply the general principle to another situation. Let's say someone stole $25,000 from you tomorrow, but the police weren't able to find him. Fast forward to the year 2027. The police in another state catch a bank robber who confesses to stealing money from you back in 2007. Are you going to want justice for the thief, even though the incident happened years earlier?
In my mind, this is a case of principle over individual. There is a greater principle at stake than any individual (or group of individuals), and that is the law and integrity of the United States of America. I'm choosing the side of the principle.
Now, let's get concrete. What can YOU do right NOW? First and foremost, contact your Senators/Representatives and ask about their stance on illegal immigration and the current immigration reform bill. Do this whether you agree with me or not. One of our most priceless rights as Americans is the right of representation, and your reps need to know what you think about issues like this. I've adopted the attitude that anyone who doesn't get involved doesn't get the right to complain! :) That's one reason I've posted contact info in the box at the right - to make it easy for you to get involved. I've listed my own representatives here, but you can also call the Capital Switchboard and ask to be transferred to any Congressional office, so that's the only number you really need.
If your reps don't agree with you, politely inform them of your opinion and state that this issue is important to you and that their voting record on this issue will affect your vote at the next election. Additionally, when you hear people around you talking about the issue, don't be afraid to engage in polite discussion with them. It's okay to disagree (as long as you don't get crazy or obnoxious about it!), and word of mouth or friendly discussion is the best way to change other people's minds. And remember, chances are pretty good that most of the people around you actually agree with you anyway.
Lastly, pay attention, pay attention, pay attention! Don't let the issue sneak past you - this is something that has huge financial and cultural ramifications that may not be fully revealed for years, and by then it may be too late to "fix". If you don't pay attention, you may end up regretting it. So might your children and your grandchildren.
There's my two cents.
But, I digress.
It seems to me that there are two major elements to this question:
1. how to stop the influx of illegal aliens
2. what to do with the illegal aliens that are already here
The simplest thing to do, of course, is to enforce the laws that are already on the books. We already have laws against being here illegally, against businesses hiring illegals, etc. If we would just enforce what's there, we could fix the problem. Securing the border would be one first step, but it's going to be hideously expensive, and I think it's somewhat impractical to think it'll actually happen.
First things first. We need to ask ourselves why most illegal aliens come here. Typically, it's probably to make a better life - basically, they can find jobs, free health care, education, and government benefits. To address all of those things, I like what Selwyn Duke proposed at the American Thinker recently. His basic plan is this:
1. enact laws that will severely punish employers who hire illegals
2. enact laws that will eliminate illegals from receiving any government benefits
3. eliminate the "anchor baby" clause (anyone born on US soil is an automatic citizen)
These three things alone would more than likely remove most of the incentive for illegals to come here. But, he goes a couple steps further:
4. enact a law that establishes a date beyond which any illegal alien caught in the US will be subject to severe punishment
5. enact a law that says if an illegal is found in the US beyond that date, they will be prohibited from entering the US ever again, even legally
All this would be accomplished without having to go to the time, trouble, and expense of building a fence (which would cost literally billions of dollars and take who-knows-how-long to do) simply by removing the reasons for them to come here. Furthermore, no jobs and no freebies would mean that there would likely be a mass exodus of those already here. Voila! We've answered both of the major elements of the question!
Now, let's talk about some of the common protests to these measures.
"Illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do." Who did those jobs before illegal aliens came here? Americans. And, there's a glaring weakness in that phrase that doesn't get pointed out much - you've probably heard that illegal aliens make up about 25% of the low-skill work force in the agriculture industry, but have you thought about who makes up the other 75%? Americans. As Duke points out in the above article, the point is not that there are jobs Americans won't do, rather there are wages that Americans generally aren't willing to work for. If illegals suddenly departed from the equation, the market would simply balance out, and wages would normalize to where they should be rather than being artificially deflated by illegal workers. It might get a little tight for a time while that normalization happens, but it certainly wouldn't be catastrophic. In fact, that kind of market push/pull relationship is the essence of capitalism. Also, isn't America the most technologically advanced society on the planet? Why do we have so much manual labor going on anyway? If 25% of those low-skill jobs suddenly open up, why can't we fill those needs with machines and technology?
"We can't possibly deport 12-20 million people." If we follow the plan outlined above, we wouldn't have to - I believe most would leave on their own. Even if they didn't, the logic in that statement is appalling. What would happen if we applied the same thought process to law enforcement? Do we shut down all law enforcement agencies because we can't possibly stop every crime? No, you do the best you can with what you've got! Last year, we deported over 220,000 illegal aliens, which was about 20% more than the year before. Take it one step at a time, and it becomes possible. Put the proper disincentives in place, and it might actually become simple.
"They're just here to make a better life for themselves and their families." For thorny issues like this, I try to think about the general principle to see how it could be applied to other situations. For example, let's say I live next door to a really rich guy who never locks his doors. I know for a fact that he's got huge TVs, lots of fancy jewelry, and an expensive coin collection in his house. I also know that he travels a lot. I could walk over to his house while he's away on his next trip, take a bunch of his stuff and bring it back to my house without getting caught. But, would it be right for me to do that? No, of course not. Now, let's say I do it anyway, then he comes home and discovers what I've done. I could point out that since he's rich he can just buy another one of everything I stole from him, and that I'm just trying to improve my standard of living and make a more comfortable life for myself. How's he going to react to that? What if the rich guy next door is you? How would you react?
"Some have been here for years or decades; we can't send them home." Again, apply the general principle to another situation. Let's say someone stole $25,000 from you tomorrow, but the police weren't able to find him. Fast forward to the year 2027. The police in another state catch a bank robber who confesses to stealing money from you back in 2007. Are you going to want justice for the thief, even though the incident happened years earlier?
In my mind, this is a case of principle over individual. There is a greater principle at stake than any individual (or group of individuals), and that is the law and integrity of the United States of America. I'm choosing the side of the principle.
Now, let's get concrete. What can YOU do right NOW? First and foremost, contact your Senators/Representatives and ask about their stance on illegal immigration and the current immigration reform bill. Do this whether you agree with me or not. One of our most priceless rights as Americans is the right of representation, and your reps need to know what you think about issues like this. I've adopted the attitude that anyone who doesn't get involved doesn't get the right to complain! :) That's one reason I've posted contact info in the box at the right - to make it easy for you to get involved. I've listed my own representatives here, but you can also call the Capital Switchboard and ask to be transferred to any Congressional office, so that's the only number you really need.
If your reps don't agree with you, politely inform them of your opinion and state that this issue is important to you and that their voting record on this issue will affect your vote at the next election. Additionally, when you hear people around you talking about the issue, don't be afraid to engage in polite discussion with them. It's okay to disagree (as long as you don't get crazy or obnoxious about it!), and word of mouth or friendly discussion is the best way to change other people's minds. And remember, chances are pretty good that most of the people around you actually agree with you anyway.
Lastly, pay attention, pay attention, pay attention! Don't let the issue sneak past you - this is something that has huge financial and cultural ramifications that may not be fully revealed for years, and by then it may be too late to "fix". If you don't pay attention, you may end up regretting it. So might your children and your grandchildren.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)