When it comes to the issue of immigration, the open borders “right” has adopted the parlance, tactics, and ad hominem attacks that traditionally emanate from the left. They impugn the motives of those who desire strong border security and orderly/gradual immigration as racist. However, in recent days, it is they who have been exposed as individuals who harbor deep-rooted prejudges…against native border Americans.
It started with Jeb Bush on Friday when progressive Kevin McCarthy invited him to speak before a group of House Republicans. Reading between the lines of his speech, he was propagating a sentiment that is borderline immigrant-supremacist. He suggested that we should embrace the Schumer/Obama immigration blueprint of amnesty and endless immigration because immigrants are more “fertile” and hardworking than their native-born counterparts. Essentially, he was saying that native-born Americans suck.
Then, over the weekend, Ryan Lizza quoted a Rubio aide saying, “there are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”
Why do we need to tear down native-born Americans in order to extol the virtues of immigrants and exaggerate the virtues of illegal immigrants? And at what point does this land make people suck? Is it second generation?
Now, the latest rationale for amnesty is that these [mostly poor] immigrants are needed to fund border security. Wow – why didn’t we think of that idea before? On the one hand, we supposedly need the affluence of the illegals to purvey the security measures, but on the other hand Rubio needs the illusion of border security so Republicans will “be able to go back home and tell people that they have taken serious steps to make sure this never happens again.”
There are RINOs and then there are RINOs. Mike Simpson is the king of all Rinos. He is probably the most progressive member from such a conservative district.
Now, Simpson is advocating that John Boehner pass bills with Democrat support:
Still, Simpson believes that Boehner intends to let the House “work its will” on the measures even if it means relying on Democratic votes to carry the majority of support for those bills.
“When you are Speaker, you aren’t just Republican Speaker, you are Speaker of the whole House and you need to do what’s best for the whole House sometimes that might mean a majority of Democrats and minority of Republicans that pass a bill,” Simpson said.
So why doesn’t Simpson just become a Democrat so he can officially vote for Pelosi, instead of working within our ranks to hand effective control over to her?
But there’s more: Simpson wants to pass an immigration bill so we can get to conference with the Senate and pass a mass amnesty bill:
I almost broke my computer screen watching John Conyers and Luis Gutierrez at the Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, but it was all worthwhile to see another smackdown from Trey Gowdy.
The subject of yesterday’s hearing was the Safe Act (HR 2278), sponsored by Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the immigration subcommittee. This bill represents true immigration reform that protects America first. Among other things, this bill unambiguously authorizes states to assist in enforcing immigration laws and passing laws to complement federal laws, cracks down on sanctuary cities, facilitates immediate removal of criminal aliens, expands programs that screen out security risks in our visa program, and bolsters ICE agents in their ability and latitude to detain and deport criminals.
The hearing featured a legal immigrant, Sabine Durden, who lost her son at the hands of an illegal alien drunk driver who had already been convicted of two DUIs and a slew of other crimes. Under the Senate deform bill, this person would be granted amnesty. Under Gowdy’s bill, or had the laws already on the books been enforced, this person would have been deported immediately.
Next to Ms. Durden sat an obnoxious lawyer from the National Immigration Law Center, the type of organization that helps illegals subvert our sovereignty. She smugly asserted that law enforcement lacked the skill and ability to enforce federal laws, even though they assist with enforcement of dozens of other federal statutes on a daily basis. She played the racial profiling card too. The juxtaposition of Ms. Durden and this slip-and-fall lawyer was surreal.
Were George Orwell alive today he would write a book titled 1986. It would include a narrative of all the cast of characters who lied to us about immigration enforcement 27 years ago, yet are now serving as the problem-solvers to fix the lies they originally propagated.
It would include a character of John McCain demanding to “build the dang fence” in order to win reelection, and then running around two years later to demand that we build the dang amnesty, with no fence.
It would include a character of Chuck Schumer saying on the House floor in 1986 that the bill won’t bring “millions of people cascading across the border,” and then, 27 years into the cascade, leading the effort to do the same thing.
It would include a character of Marco Rubio proposing amendments to his bill that he claimed and still claims were in his original bill.
The storyline would portray a liberal opposition party spending millions on ads portraying the amnesty bill as the antithesis of what it really is.
And finally, it would include characters of credulous GOP senators entrusting the same people who have refused and continue to refuse to implement any laws on the books with the promise of implementing new laws…..after they get the amnesty “candy.”
Welcome to 1986.
Folks, this issue is real simple. It can be solved overnight. If these people really want amnesty, they would implement the laws on the books first and demonstrate that the circuitous cycle of insanity is over. Yet, they made it clear that enforcement-first is a dealbreaker. But, amazingly, Republicans like Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn are trying to find common ground where they can add some language to border security… ten years after all these people are legalized.
This proposal, and similar proposals offered to bolster enforcement after initial legalization (RPI status), represent the height of credulity and insanity. These people have lied to us for 27 years about enforcement, and yet we are to entrust them with enforcing the laws after they get their candy? Moreover, does anyone really think that the amnestied illegals will really be denied green cards and citizenship after remaining in “good standing” for 10 years…simply because exit-entry is not fully in place? Do we really think they will last in that status without a subsequent change in law to expedite citizenship –no matter what happens with enforcement? If there is such enormous pressure (inside of DC, not in the real world) to legalize them now – when they are totally illegal – will anyone have the stomach to withhold the promised citizenship from a legal and legitimate constituency?
Clearly, any amnesty that passes before enforcement is implemented will serve as a mere down payment that can only be augmented and never diminished or retracted.
Amazingly, McConnell and the entire establishment are defending their position as the only way we ensure border security in a bill that can actually pass. They assert that if we fail to “pass something,” we will continue to have “defacto amnesty.”
Earlier today, Speaker Boehner announced that he will bring the farm bill to the floor and personally vote for it. This is a sharp departure from his previous statements railing against the Soviet-style subsidies and productions quotas for sugar and dairy farming. Hence, he is caving on one of the few issues for which he has always shown intrepid conviction.
There’s a new platitude that is being propagated by the GOP establishment in defense of odious new legislation or reauthorization of existing bad policies. They are asserting that passing big government legislation; that passing Democrat priorities is better than the status quo; that action is superior to inaction. This is the most dangerous, defeatist attitude for a Republican to harbor, and conservatives must make it clear that, especially when in the minority, Republicans must stop bad legislation. Period.
We’ve already seen this dynamic unfold with the immigration deform bill. This bill will do to our immigration system and the rule of law what Obamacare is doing to our healthcare system. Yet, instead of pursuing an aggressive conservative policy strategy on this issue, both the leaders in the Senate and House are saying that we must pass something, irrespective of the merits of the bill. They are basically saying that another ‘amnesty first, promise of enforcement later’ is superior to doing nothing. This logic is borderline insanity.
The Senate just voted 82-15 to proceed with debate on the amnesty/immigration deform bill. Every Democrat voted yes, laying waste to the notion that there are still moderate red state Democrats. 15 Republicans voted to stand with We the People against the La Raza foreign lobby/K Street juke box:
McCain, Murkowski, and Coburn were not present for the vote. The former two would have voted for it anyway.
The rest of the Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, all voted to proceed with debate, thereby sealing the fate of the bill and ensuring that a phony cosmetic compromise is hatched to pass the bill and pressure the House.
We have the GOP leader, Mitch McConnell, running around behind the scenes promoting the amnesty bill with his base of donors. We have John Cornyn, the number 2 Republican, pushing a compromise that might be used for a final deal. Now, we have John Thune, the Conference Chair, saying that he hopes to attract more Republicans to the bill and raise the number of GOP yes votes.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the third-highest ranking Republican in the Senate, said he expects the Gang of Eight immigration bill will gain more than 60 votes, enough to avoid a filibuster from opponents.
“I think there’s a very real possibility that that they’ll have 60 — beyond 60, north of 60 — in order to get on the bill and then probably ultimately to pass it. The question is, can change be made in order to attract more people to it and make it a larger number?” said Thune on MSNBC’s “Mitchell Reports.”
Thune said he would wait until the bill went through the amendment process before deciding if he could support it.”I’m going to make that judgment after it moves across the floor and we get an opportunity through the amendment process to see how the bill gets changed, how it might get improved,” he said.
If you read between the lines of the statements from most GOP senators, particularly those in leadership, they are not concerned about the malice of the bill in itself; they are concerned about tweaking the bill so more Republicans can vote for it and pressure the GOP-controlled House into passing amnesty first, enforcement later (or never).
When the establishment is looking to recruit someone to run for Senate, they first look to find like-minded people in the House. What better person to be a yes-man for McConnell than someone who has been a yes-man for House leadership? Their latest recruit is Congressman Bill Cassidy who is being supported by all of the establishment in his bid for Senate.
Every Republican in Washington plans to run for election against Obamacare. However, they all understand that we lack the votes to repeal the law statutorily. The only thing we can do is vote to defund Obamacare and the individual mandate through the HHS and Financial Services Appropriations bills. But when the rubber meets the road, the establishment types are missing in action. Bill Cassidy is one of those members who likes to inveigh against Obamacare even as he votes to fund it in the spending bills. He likes to take digs at the IRS, even though he declined to join the effort to defund their Obamacare office.
Like most of the establishment candidates who feel insecure in their opposition to Obamacare, Cassidy took his turn posing behind the Mitch McConnell RINO-protection tower last month.
This tower of babel has become the latest prop to bolster weak Republicans during primaries. Those people like Jim Bridenstine and Ted Cruz don’t need a photo op to illustrate their opposition to Obamacare. Their conviction stands for itself. Cassidy, on the other hand, needs that extra distraction to ingratiate himself to primary voters.
It’s amazing how many Republicans ran for election as absolutely opposed to any form of amnesty – certainly before enforcing existing laws. Somehow within a year or two, all of them have had an epiphany. The latest example is Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, the third amigo in the McCain/Graham Schumer club.
In 2010, Ayotte ran strong on the issue of illegal immigration, and actually aired a number of ads lambasting her Democrat opponent on support for amnesty. During the primary, she had a strong Tea Party challenge from Ovide Lamontagne, winning by just 1600 votes. Needless to say, she wouldn’t have been caught dead supporting amnesty during that primary. Here is a quick summary of some of her greatest hits in 2010, brought to you by Project Vote Smart:
Kelly Ayotte. News. 16 September 2010. “‘We don’t need to add, necessarily, more laws,” she said. “Let’s look at enforcing what we have on the immigration context and then measure where we are.’ Ayotte would push for illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. to be immediately deported and does not support any form of amnesty, she said.” (www.ayotteforsenate.com)
Schoenberg, Shira. 2010. Concord Monitor: Ayotte in Line with GOP Policy. 16 August 2010. “Ayotte said she would first address illegal immigration by securing the country’s borders, enforcing existing immigration laws and making English the official language of the U.S.” (www.concordmonitor.com)
Kelly Ayotte. Issue Position: Crime and Safety. “Kelly believes in the importance of enforcing our national borders and in ensuring only legal immigration.” (votesmart.org)
Kelly Ayotte. Issue Position: Immigration. “In the Senate, Kelly’s top immigration priority will be to secure our borders — no excuses. Simultaneously, she will work to ensure that existing immigration laws are enforced and is against amnesty. Kelly knows that Americans can solve any problem if they put their mind to it — and she will bring that results-oriented approach to this critical issue.” (votesmart.org)
Well, fast-forward less than three years, and Ayotte plans to vote for the worst amnesty bill ever proposed. This, from Breitbart:
On Sunday’s Face the Nation (CBS), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) announced she would support the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform proposal. “Our immigration system is completely broken,” she said, calling the legislation “a thoughtful, bipartisan solution to a tough problem.” She specifically singled out the bill’s loose border security requirements for praise, labeling them strong enough to prevent “another wave of illegal immigration.”
Wow – just wow. This bill actually imposes numerous restrictions on future deportations, which, coupled with the new incentive of legalization, will ensure that there is a future wave. The future wave will, in turn, be guaranteed automatic defacto amnesty.
Of course, the most significant driver of all the defections is the support from the GOP Leader, Mitch McConnell. Hey, who needs Democrats when the GOP leader is scoring points for their side anyway?
Here’s a novel idea: if all these undocumented supporters of open borders think that ‘amnesty first, enforcement never’ is such a good idea, why don’t they have the moxie to run on that platform during the election. Why do all these people – from Rubio and Flake to McConnell, Hatch, and Ayotte – undergo such a cathartic change within a few years?
It’s time we call all the GOP offices and ask them to either vote no on cloture or stand before their constituents during the primaries and defend their real position on amnesty. A number of these weak Republicans (along with the phony red state Democrats) are up for reelection next year. They might think they are safe from a primary challenge, but we are still early in the cycle. There are a number of potential candidates who may come forward over the next few months. We look forward to seeing these brave statesmen defend their political U-turns with courage and alacrity.
Earlier this week, the House voted on the first appropriations bills of the FY 2014 budget process. So far, leadership has kept their promise to allow an open amendment process on the bills. As such, members have been able to offer some good and some not so good amendments. Unfortunately, none of this will make a difference because they will cave on the final budget process at the end of the summer.
Among the amendments, were three votes that I highlighted in a spreadsheet: a bad amendment by Bill Cassidy to delay modest flood insurance reforms, a good amendment by Scott Garrett to block TSA-style searches outside of airport setting, and a King amendment to defund Obama’s illegal administrative amnesty. Click here to see the voting presentation.
Cassidy (R-LA)/Grimm (R-NY)/Palazzo (R-MS). This amendment delays implementation of Section 207 of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Report Act of 2012 for one year. Section 207 of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act of 2012 ends the grandfathered National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) rates and allows the premium rates to rise up to 20 percent per year over a five year period. According to the sponsor, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not fully understand the implications of implementing Section 207 and has not accounted for all factors when creating their flood zone maps. The one year delay is designed to give FEMA time to properly implement the risk premium formulas and create accurate flood zone maps.
Garrett (R-NJ). This amendment prohibits any funds in the Act from being used by a Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) team or by the Transportation Security Administration to conduct security screening outside of an airport. According to the TSA, the VIPR program was developed by TSA after the Madrid train bombing in 2005. VIPR teams are fully mobile and can be deployed at “random locations and times” and are applicable to “all modes of transportation”. This amendment directs that screening will only be conducted following the provisions of Section 44901 of title 49. Section 44901 of title 49 applies to screening at airports only.
King (R-IA). This amendment prohibits funds from being used to follow specific memorandums authored by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano that allow prosecutorial discretion, deferred action, and determines priorities regarding the removal and amnesty of illegal immigrants. Specifically, a June 15, 2012 memorandum instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to grant deferred action to certain illegal aliens, directs officers to refrain from placing these individuals in removal proceedings, and permits personnel to grant employment to certain beneficiaries of this directive. A similar June 17, 2011 memo permits the use of discretion when granting amnesty to illegal immigrants based on a set of vague criteria. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor has ruled “that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings [when the law requires it].” This ruling was a result of ten ICE officers who filed a lawsuit on August 23, 2012, against Janet Napolitano and John Morton claiming that these directives placed them in a position to violate federal law in multiple ways. Heritage Action supports this amendment, and will be including it as a vote on their scorecard.
The amendment passed224-201. Only 6 Republicans voted against it. We hope the rest of the conference remain strong on the issue when it really counts. The 6 no votes were Bachus, S. (AL-06),Denham (CA-10), Grimm (NY-11),Nunes (CA-22), Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27),Valadao (CA-21). Yes, Bachus, who hails from one of the most conservative districts in the country, stands out like a sore thumb.
Stay informed, sign up for the Madison Project's email list!