Immigration Sellout, part II

The Senate immigration bill, this 'Grand Compromise' between Kennedy, McCain, Bush and a few others is Amnesty fraud according to Sowell and Worse than Amnesty according to David Limbaugh. I don't know of a single conservative who likes this deal - Mark Levin,
Hugh Hewitt (reviewing the fine print), and many (but not enough) Republican Senators, including Hutchison and Cornyn, are coming out against this bill, as did Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter.

Some of the clunkers in it:

• The cost is huge - "This direct cost of giving 20-30 million mostly unskilled people full rights is estimated at $2.5 trillion."
• taxpayers pay legal bills for illegal aliens:
  Boehm said, "If passed, this bill will make taxpayers pay the legal bills for illegal aliens seeking amnesty. Tucked away on page 317 is a provision that would allow lawyers in the federally-funded legal services program to represent illegal aliens, which they are presently barred from doing."
  
• The illegal aliens who get legalized dont even pay back taxes that they didn't pay when underground.
• David Limbaugh notes: The bill's so-called "triggers" -- the events that must occur as a sop to enforcement types before the wrist-brushings and windfalls kick in -- are virtually defined out of existence in many cases by exceptions that swallow the rule.
  
  

It is a travesty to ram this through the Senate without full committee hearings and much more study. The Tsunami of social change wrecked by the most massive amnesty in world history and the 20-30 million in new immigrants with rights to social security, welfare, medicaid etc. is reason enough to take time to review it. But the 'fast track' is the only way to keep this bloated monstrosity alive; like a vampire, it wouldn't survive long in the light of day.

What is further maddening is the utter political blindness of the Bush White House and others, who foolishly think the following: "If they vote Democrat, it will be because they perceive the Republican Party as anti-immigrant." Thus, in one fell swoop, they buy into the lie that 'illegal immigrant' and 'immigrant' are the same thing (my legal immigrant wife gets incensed at the comparison, as do many other legal immigrants); they further buy the lie that only immigration policy is why Hispanics vote. How patronizing and clueless. The lower-class illegal immigrants that we are importing with this massive amnesty how low education levels and will have low income levels; they will be the clients for the liberal welfare state and will vote accordingly. These lower income voters will vote for the party that they think is looking out for them, and a social system based on more handouts is what they will vote for. The amount of money transferred to this group over time will amount to $2.5 trillion, and they will vote for the party of higher taxes and more spending to ensure they get it.

The only hope for the GOP is to fight for policies that defend the middle class and keep it as whole as possible. We WILL pay higher taxes if this passes, and the Republican party cannot compete with the Democrats on pandering to welfare state clients; when they do, our budgets get seriously busted; consequently, this is a sure prescription for a Democrat-majority country with a bigger welfare state We saw this happen in California, which went from a mostly-Republican state to a 'blue state' in 15 short years, due to the 1986 amnesty, which is a baby compared to this giant. Expect to see Arizona, Florida, Texas, and a few other states (Georgia?) to follow the trend. As a consequence, the political realignment that saw California become a blue state can and will be visited upon Texas within 20 years, should this pass.

Americans prefer 'enforcement first' by a 2-to-1 margin over the 'comprehensive amnesty' idea. Mark Krikorian explains why amnesty is a non-starter and what immigration hawks actually want:

..is steady, predictable, unapologetic enforcement of the laws, with an eye toward downsizing the illegal population through attrition, as more and more illegals give up and deport themselves. This would, of course, cause hardship for illegals and their employers, but it would be hardship with a purpose — to reassert control over the immigration system and establish legal status as a labor standard.

Duncan Hunter's statement states most of what needs to be said, so I am showing it in its entirety - HUNTER EXPRESSES “FIERCE DISAPPOINTMENT” OVER SENATE AMNESTY PROPOSAL:

I vow to oppose this legislation supported by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain. It provides a vast new immigration benefit to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to live in the United States.I opposed the 1986 amnesty act because of this same reason. It proved to be the draw that we predicted it would be. I am deeply disappointed to see history repeating itself.

This package will confirm to the world that the U.S. does not really mean what it says when it comes to immigration enforcement. As a result of the citizenship benefit included in this legislation, despite the fine print, we will see a stampede across our borders.

This vast new amnesty and expansive guest worker program will surely be ridden with fraud and abuse, and ultimately lead to millions of public-assistance-dependent immigrants.

The Senate’s decision to blatantly ignore the Secure Fence Act signed into law last year and only require construction of 370 miles of fence, as opposed to the 854 miles mandated by the law, is a dramatic failure of this legislation.The San Diego border fence has proven that fencing works. The time has come to quickly implement the Secure Fence Act, not retreat from its mandates.

I believe that this package will result in lower wages for America’s already-struggling families by encouraging the importation of cheap foreign labor rather than investing, developing and growing a domestic workforce that will sustain our economy far into the future.

Amnesty is not the answer. Border enforcement must be first and it must be comprehensive. To do otherwise is to repeat the mistakes of the past. This Senate bill is bad for Americans, bad for our workers, bad for law enforcement and, most importantly, bad for national security. I will fight it. Please join with me.