Monday, June 11, 2007
|
|
I'll Take "Yes" For An Answer On Immigration
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:20 PM
|
|
After talking with Senator Jeff Sessions and Michael Medved int he first hour of today's program --transcripts will be here later-- I suspect that the immigration bill is beyond repair.
But if the bill does come back, it will only be because the proponents of the bill have decided to make the sort of concessions to the critics who hated the probationary benefits and the half-hearted effort to build the fencing already put into the law. Mickey Kaus is trying to seal the coffin, but the security-minded should resist that invitation as surely as they rejected the false promises of border security in the first draft. Here's what Mickey is writing:
kf Balking Points
1. If all these enforcement measures are so wonderful, why not enact just them and drop the questionable legalization part? Bush is holding the parts of the bill everyone says they want hostage to the parts he wants.
(Answer: because that bill won't pass, and we need a bill because the border isn't secured and the visa program is still broken.)
2. If we tried the enforcement parts first, then we wouldn't have to trust the federal government. We could make sure the measures work before we go ahead with legalization (and attract a new wave of legalization-seeking illegals).
(Because the bill still won't pass, and if we don't get security out of the current Congress, an even worse bill could emerge under President Hillary.)
3. The bill does require "that we meet border security objectives before certain other provisions can take effect." Unfortunately, legalization is not one of those "certain other provisions." Legalization is immediate under the bill.
(Mickey's correct --this is one of the key problems in the bill. But if this is fixed, it still won't be enough for Mickey.)
4. "[I]f ... they're not obeying the law, they get sent out." Of course, most of them will be obeying the law ... because what was illegal will have been legalized! As for whether the government will actually get it together to send people home if, say, they've come illegally after the January, 2007 cutoff--well, again, let's see whether that "investment" in enforcement pays off.
(Rhetoric, followed by a non-objection. Of course beefed up security won't end all illegal immigration, but the idea is that if most of the illegal immigration is stopped at the border and by the new verification system, the impact ont he country will be greatly diminished and the attractiveness fo the attempt greatly reduced.)
Bonus BP:
5. If illegals "live in fear" under the status quo, as we're told, then how is the status quo "silent amnesty"?
(He's right. The "silent amnesty" rhetoric is silly.)
The pro-reformers in the Senate need to (1)bring over one of the big critics like Senator Sessions or Senator DeMint, (2)hide Lindsey Graham and every other Republican who has blasted the base as "nativist," (3)put a detailed plan out to build much of the fence in 24 months, (4)put out a detailed plan on the Border Patrol and related agencies build-up (4)make very clear that no probationary benefits --none-- kick in until the triggers are pulled, (5)there are no automatic benefits for any illegal from a country of special concern.
|
|
WITH THIS GOVERNMENT!!!
FENCE! ENFORCEMENT! ELECTION!
Then we'll talk. |
|
Hugh is nearly there.
Come crunch time an a few minor changes Hugh will be this bill's biggest supporter. |
|
|
Real enforcement provisions would be deal breakers for the Dems. There is a reason legalization comes immediately under the proposed bill with vague promises of enforcement in the future. |
|
I'm done with this malicious lying government.
Is like Lenin said; Capitalists would give communists the technical, material and financial help they need to prevail in their ideological tug of war with the world's democracies.
To put it in other words, ... "attempt to hang them and they would try to make a profit by selling you the rope with which you are about to string them up."
It is the same with this immigration bill; businesses have such lust to debauch the cost of labor they are willing to sell out the country to get a depressed hourly wage.
Union bosses are so afraid of the erosion of their power they are willing to function as overseers of serfs rather than negotiators for free men.
We all need to work not only for the defeat of this bill but for the electoral defeat of all those who support it.
Show me a supporter of amnesty and I will show you an enemy of America. |
|
|
They are going to do something. Frankly that the President is getting stubborn about this should make us all worry. |
|
There you go again-----settle, settle-----
This Shamnesty bill should be part of the presidential debates whereby the public gets a chance to decide. The "Decider" in the White house WILL NOT honor any bill we the public may agree to and will find a way to give amnesty to all his illegal buddies if we are not vigilant! He has granted himself basically dictatorial powers without going thru Congress. Just a sign of his deceitful pen-----Remember the fence signing ceremony at the White house! |
|
|
That's it exactly. There will be hell to pay already because this will be the third time we have to rise up and stop this bill. At the moment, we have a Congress that was repopulated with Blue Dogs who were elected as a direct result of the last minute attempt to stuff the first bill down our throats last October. Why put the remaining Republicans in the crossfire unnecessarily? A president with 29% approval (and plummeting) leaning on Senate leader with 19% (and plummeting) approval to prevail over the rank and file is truly arrogant and audacious. Pelosi has already found that she has minimal influence over the Blue Dogs and they are just waiting it out knowing that they will topple the Dem leadership after the 2008 election. This is not a good scenario for the GOP. This bill will die in the House but it would be better for everyone, both parties, that this bill never see the light of day again. Obviously, there was a substantial quid pro quo or there wouldn't be such determination to push a bill that virtually no one wants. The Dems couldn't even prevail over the Gonzalez vote today. They couldn't prevail on the surrender/pork bill. Combined, they failed at passing the amnesty bill twice already. The fact that THIS GOVERNMENT insists on trying yet again is all the signal we need that this entire government has to go. If Mitt or Fred wants an automatic trip to the WH with coattails, they should grandstand this bill immediately and as loud as they can. I am very confident they will find widespread, bi-partisan support in the House. That is what Hugh should be saying. What's the deal? Has he been offered a position somewhere for being the TH pro-amnesty pied piper? Isn't it already obvious that us rats just won't follow him over that bridge? |
|
|
Want an amnesty before the '08 elections. They do not want this to become THE issue of that race. The Dems know they lose running on amnesty and the GOP is beholden to their donors who have already paid for their votes. They do not want us yahoos getting uppity and nominating some one like Duncan Hunter who actually would secure the border and enforce the law. The cheap labor express is simply not going to allow that to happen. They have too much at stake. |
|
Hugh,
You are coming around to the point your listeners and readers have been telling you for the past week - this bill is too broken to fix. Junk it and start over with an enforcement first bill.
If Jorge is coming back from Albania to try to sell this horrible immigration bill again, he is dumber than I ever thought. Does he really want his legacy to be the destruction of the Rebuplican party, not to mention our culture, languege and borders? |
|
|
Minor correction to your statement, ANYONE who runs on amnesty will lose in 2008. The only hope the GOP has is to fight Bush and run like Nicholas Sarkozy did against the record of his own party. The GOP has proven that it can block the Dems now that they are in the minority. Now they need to prove that they can block Bush and his awful ideas. That is why we need to get this amnesty issue into the election. Otherwise, the Dems WILL win. If I were a congressman, I would do everything in my power to prevent this bill from reaching the House and failing, wail and holler in protest that I have to even consider such a ghastly deal. That way, it won't matter who becomes president because if the major parties defy the will of the people on such an emotional and heart-felt issue, someone or several will fill the political vacuum to run independent and attract a substantion "dump the bums" protest vote. |
|
I don't Hugh, I'm deeply puzzled as to why you're interlacing your fingers and giving these guys (RINOs all, it seems to me, at least on this issue) a leg up to help them perform CPR (with Dems patting them on the back and calling for backup) on this atrocity of a bill.
Pull the plug on the paddles, please. |
|
Take no prisoners men, we don't want your stinking amnesty bill.
Kick the ILLEGALS OUT. Build the fence.
DO YOU COUNTRY CLUB A-TARDS UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT?
Throw these milk-toast devils out of the Republican Party or as far as I'm concerned it can go to Hades. |
|
Bush will not hear the base.
Medved will not listen to his callers
The Senate will not represent the people.
And now:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Yeats |
|
|
Grrr, that post should open, "I don't know Hugh, I'm..." not "I don't Hugh." |
|
|
No thanks, Hugh!! Until the fence is completely built and secured so that illegals, terrorists and drugrunners can't get through, I will not support it! Bush has no credibility with me even though I know he has always been a BIG amnesty guy. While the fence is starting to be built, assign VISA or MASTERCARD or AMERICAN EXPRESS to handle the secured "identity card" and let me tell you these companies know more about you then your own mother. |
|
|
With the exception of McCain, all of the GOP candidates are distancing themselves from this, although I suspect Rudy and Romney are secretly hoping it will pass. Both have been supportive of this approach until they saw how people reacted to it. They do not want to deal with it at all. I don't believe any of the top three have any intention of enforcing the laws any more than Bush has. The jury is still out on Fred in my mind. He has said some encouraging things, but always leaves enough room for a four lane path to citizenship. The RNC wants to keep the cheap labor express running and Chairman Martinez' job is to make sure the nominee is someone who will accomodate that. The only way we possibly get a genuine secure borders candidate is for primary voters to vote that way. The GOP is blowing a tremendous opportunity here. They could run on a secure borders/law enforcement platform and clean house on the Democrats, President, Senate and House. Instead they will keep calling their own voters names while pandering to people who can't leaglly vote. Stupid Party, indeed. |
|
Wasn't that what was said about the fence issue last year? It passed. Of course, Democratic control of congress probably prevents such a bill from being considered.
The problem with legalization of 12-20 million illegals is that there is a good chance that it will have the same effect as the 1986 bill and cause another wave of illegal immigration. We can't afford to take that risk, because the next wave may be overwhelming. The compromise should focus on increasing legal immigration, with enhanced enforcement. Enforcement efforts will be a long hard effort because of past failures to enforce. We won't be able to deal with all illegals at once, but we will create incentives for them to go get in line if we increase legal immigration, and we will avoid creating incentives for another wave of illegal immigration.
Saying we need a bill, does not mean that the proposed bill will fix the problem. It won't, it will make it worse. It will also give rise to internicine Republican warfare, since it will be necessary to deal with those who have made the problem worse, in order to get a real fix. |
|
|
I wish I could see this ending in trials for treason for all three branches of government and their public hangings. That's actually the rosey scenario. I unfortunately see the beginning of the end of the United States. Stock up people... we have all been betrayed. |
|
If you think back and remember the 1986 Reagan immigration bill (amnesty bill) it also had strengthened enforcement such as a fence or wall at that time but the tougher enforcement was quickly forgotten after the bill was signed. Why would they think we wouldn't let this get through again. Hopefully the common voter has gotten smarter since '86.
They should add a section to enforce the law by stopping the Sanctuary cities and counties throughout the US. This would be simple....deny any federal sharing or matching funds for local projects to any local government that declares itself a "sanctuary" location.
I just cannot see how Bush (and I voted for him twice) can simply ignore the tremendous outrage at this bill across the country. Is he that far out of touch? The only person I've heard that loves it is Geraldo and he has an obvious bias on this one.
If we think there will actually be any strengthening of enfocement after the bill is signed, we deserve to be "had". Learn from History. This bill is a loser from the git-go.
Jim Gschwind USNret
BS-IT, MBA, PHD Cand(Bus Mgmt). |
|
|
Either Hugh is extremely naive, or he thinks his audience is. The immigration system is "broken" because the only thing Bush has mismanaged worse than the war in Iraq is the security of our border. Bush will gladly sacrifice the lives of thousands of American soldiers and Marines, but by golly he will always fight for what is most advantageous for his favorite constituencies: illegal aliens who flout our laws, and the employers who depend on an unregulated supply of cheap labor. Bush's presidency is going down the toilet, and the only things he seems willing to really fight for are the intests of Mexico, and his incompetent Attorney General. |
|
"because that bill won't pass, and we need a bill because the border isn't secured"
Why won't it pass? No Senator or Congressman will publically admit to being against securing the border. That all insist they are gung ho for doing it.
And its pathetic for the WH to suddenly start pretending they are concerned about border security, given their stubborn resistance to care about it since 911. I guess the latest line is to pretend "we need this for national security". Stop acting like we are stupid.
|
|
|
Giuliani was in Orange County to make a speech yesterday and was met by a contingent of NumbersUSA and the local media reported it and several exchanges where Rudy was very specific about why this amnesty bill should be killed. The question is, given where he is getting his money and operational support, why should we trust him? If Duncan Hunter said he will run independent if he has to, I would send a check today. |
|
|
Mike Medved warns us of a Dem Congress and Prez after '08 which makes any bill even worse then a mended bill now. Not necessarily so Mike. The enforcement first bill must be jammed down the Dems' throat now. If they do not pass it, the election in Nov. '08 will have 4 issues. 1. Immigration. 2.WOT 3. Tax raises or cuts 4. Jurist appointments. Pubs can actually win on all 4 issues and put the Dems in a real bind. The Dems are evil not stupid. They may indeed want to build enforcement just to take it off the table for '08. Remember, all of this is done with political calculations not morals, not what is good for the protection of the nation. Let Sessions, DeMint, Inhofe, other toughies on the border issue put up their own bill and put it forward without , WITHOUT BUSH INCLUSION. Pubs running on this issue alone, must separate themselves from the Pres. They can go with him on taxes, WOT, and jurist selections but not ever again on immigration reform. |
|
|
Sent Hunter a check last week, I did add a note asking him to consider an independent run if any of the top three are the nominee of the GOP. I don't trust any of them on this issue. |
|
I love the fact that Hugh Hewitt and a few others are still rattling along with proposals on how to strengthen the immigration bill. In fact, it is dead. No Republican in his right mind is going to try to resurrect it. The Democrats have won this one big time. The country's security is in great danger. The next immigration legislation will be written by the Democrats, and I don't believe they're going to consult the Republican "base." They look at that "base" about the same way that Linda Chavez now does.
Hugh still doesn't get it. I'm convinced that Hugh will never get it. |
|
Pasadena Phil, I don't know exactly what Giuliani said about this amnesty bill today to NumbersUSA; but he has previously stated in no uncertain terms that he favors "regularization" (AKA amnesty). He even went so far as to bring up Mel Martinez as his friend and an expert on the subject for helping him come to this position.
Perhaps Giuliani is trying to do some backpedaling now that America's outrage has been fully revealed, but there is no way I would trust him with my vote based on his previous statements. That's what is so sad, there is an incredible opportunity to run on an anti amnesty strong border control plank and none of the GOP frontrunners can lay claim to this mantle. What a missed opportunity because I think this would be a winner. |
|
Steve, If President Hillary had written this exact same bill it would have met an even quicker death. The Republican members of congress would have fillibustered it from the get go. It is just not possible that Hillary or any other Democrat could have written an immigration bill any worse than the one just concocted by Bush, Kennedy, and Kyl so scare tactics about needing to act on this one when Republicans have more influence just doesn't fly.
Please tell me how the Democrats just won? They almost added upwards of hundreds of millions of future liberal Democratic voters that would have forever decimated conservatism and the Republican Party. I'd say that the GOP came to their senses in the nick of time and decided not to commit suicide after all. |
|
|
Backpedaling is the way I see it. He was completely silent about this while the battle was on and didn't say anything until the last Thursday afternoon when it was clear the bill was going to fail. The only candidate who got it right was Fred but he did it in a May essay and several interviews along the way. He was lame last Friday. I just get the feeling that all of these are all talk. They could have stepped in and planted their spear in the ground and made a difference by seizing the issue. The only ones who did were Hunter and Tancredo. The MSM doesn't report anything they say or do so it doesn't have an effect. They've been fighting this all along. It wasn't news. Right now, the GOP is losing membership fast. What does it matter if Rudy wins with 50% of a party that may account for less than 25% of registered voters when only 2 years ago, they represented 34-35% of registered voters. Conservatives account for 30-33% of registered voters. That's a big block of voters to alienate. And we are getting very organized fast independent of the GOP. Don't believe what you hear and read that we are small vocal minority. We couldn't have stopped the amnesty bill twice and punished the GOP in the November elections if that were the case. I am coming to believe that destroying the GOP is part of the plan for these guys. |
|
Pasadena Phil, You're right Giuliani's silence on this issue speaks volumes. I mean how difficult should it have been for any conservative Republican to look at this bill and not immediately be outraged. His silence tells me that he had to craft a position based on nothing more than politics. His technical dismissal of a few small parts of the bill tells me that his opposition was more procedural than philosophical.
Thompson, who probably represents conservatives best chance is not impressing me that much -- for an actor he's not really that great a speaker. His non specific arguements against this bill and amnesty in general have mostly been homespun homilies lacking much substance. His history suggests he is less than hard line in his opposition to amnesty. A strong GOP candidate should be shouting from the rooftops against this shamnesty and we mostly have weakly spoken and crafted technical positions from our candidates. It makes me think that they want to leave some wiggle room for when they sell us out later. |
|
That's EXACTLY what I've been thinking ever since I first learned that the administration was determined to bring it back up.
Decline the invitation of the administration to bring the issue back up, decline to a party to a conspiracy to attack the base of the GOP, decline to be a member of a conspiracy that will spell the doom of the GOP.
Simply say no, ....... NO, .......... HELL NO! |
|
Make 'em ALL go on record as Against ENFORCEMENT then! Call their bluff! Who among them would vote against a security first- close the border bill? let's see.
Let's see who is willing to VOTE AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE when the people are AWARE of what of what the bill says.
MAKE them go on record as AGAINST SEALING THE BORDER! This vote would cause the kind of TROUBLE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY that the GOP has had! |
|
and border security. Let's see exactly who is against enforcing our laws securing our borders and dump their butts the first opportunity.
Hugh, there is no fixing this bill. It requires that we trust Dubya and the RINOs who have proven to us they can't be trusted. I'll say it one more time. Secure the borders, enforce all of our immigration laws especially employers and then, only then, will we be willing to talk about a guest worker program with no path to citizenship.
There will be a whole bunch of RINOs looking for jobs in the near future and if Bush gets his way the GOP will be in shambles. |
|
wouldn't pass because of---Bush and pro-amnesty Senate Republicans. If the probationary Z Visas are held hostage to actual benchmarks like fence completion and employer enforcement, Bush and his merry band of pathological liars will kill it themselves. Pinch yourself, Hugh. These people don't intend to enforce the law, have shown no proclivity to enforce the law, and to use the cliche they deride, rather have no bill than an effective bill.
This legislation is about to die a needlessly public death. The irreparable harm that Bush, Graham, and the other cretinous swine have done to the Republican Party will be around long after they slither, crawl or scurry from the stage. |
|
|
If the illegals live in fear, whose fault is that? |
|
|
|