We sit back helplessly watching our elected Republicans cut backroom deals with Chuck Schumer to sell out the Republic and create a permanent Democrat majority. Yet we have nobody to blame but ourselves for electing these liars in the first place.
Back in 2006, conservatives split their votes in Tennessee between Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant, handing a solid red seat to progressive Bob Corker. At the time, immigration was a hot-button issue, and Bob Corker screamed from the hilltops that he was just as strong on the issue as his conservative opponents. He not only opposed any amnesty before enforcement, he opposed amnesty period. He consistently said that all those who came here illegally would have to go back home and come here legally.
During the general election, he ran strong on the issue against Harold Ford. On September 15, he began airing the following two ads:
“For centuries, immigrants have come to America
legally. They worked hard and made America great. But today,
we’ve lost control of our borders. We need a new immigration
policy that reflects America’s values. First, secure this
border. Allow people to work here but only if they’re legal.
No amnesty. Those employed but here illegally must go home and
return through legal channels. And those who want to become
citizens must learn the English language. I’m Bob Corker and I approve this message.
“Listen to Congressman Harold Ford.” FORD: “Every day
fifty-seven hundred miles of border stands unsecured. It must
stop.” ANNCR: “More talk. But what’s his record? Ford voted
against allowing the military to secure the border. Against
tougher penalties for illegal immigrants caught smuggling drugs.
He says he opposes amnesty for illegals, but he’s also said he
could support a bill that included amnesty. Harold Ford. Ten
years in Washington. Tennessee’s most liberal congressman.”
CORKER: “I’m Bob Corker and I approve this message.
Now he is saving a dying amnesty bill by placing phony triggers in a bill 10 years after amnesty is granted. John Hoeven explained the amendment like this: the “whole effort has been to build a bipartisan group that will support the bill.”
Folks, this is what the entire Mitch McConnell caucus is all about. They work indefatigably to put lipstick on Democrat proposals so they will win bipartisan support. This is why we can’t trust establishment candidates to fulfill their promises even on the few issues they officially check the boxes on the right. Ultimately, they are working for the political class, and if that political class decides that an onerous bill must pass, they will work overtime to lend Republican prestige to that proposal – either publicly or privately. They will often vote against the bill once passage is inevitable, but they will work behind the scenes to sabotage any unified opposition.
A subatomic particle that has a large mass and interacts with other matter primarily through gravitation.
1. a weak, ineffectual, timid person.
Representing a state like North Dakota and scoring a 47% from Heritage Action while working overtime to save Democrats and pass a dying amnesty bill
Imagine if Democrats elected senators from blue states in the northeast who worked behind closed doors with Ted Cruz to craft national right to work legislation or a compromise plan to privatize Social Security? That’s about as likely as Lady Gaga joining the Family Research Council.
Yet, we continue to elect Republicans like John Hoeven who work behind the scenes to carry water for the progressives. They gravitate to one-sided compromises that sell out our Republic like flies on ethanol.
By now, you’re probably asking, John who?
Yes, Hoeven has been awfully quiet since being coronated in 2010. Aside for the occasional noise about the Keystone Pipeline, he doesn’t do much in the Senate…other than vote to raise the debt ceiling, fund Obamacare, implement an internet sales tax, support earmarks, increase food stamp spending, and vote for every subsidy under the sun.
Now he has taken it upon himself to serve as the less charismatic appendix to Bob Corker in saving Schumer’s dying amnesty bill. After being outspent exponentially in this fight by the insidious open borders lobby, the truth that We the People have disseminated on this issue is taking its toll on Schumer and his allies. Nobody in the House wants to touch this bill with a 10-foot pole, and the pathway to 60 votes is diminishing every day.
In come Corker and Hoeven to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and negotiate a poor-man’s Cornyn compromise with the Gang of 8. In their ineluctable desire to pass an amnesty bill with the requisite window dressing, the new wimp coalition is pushing yet another phony compromise. Yes, because constituents from states like Tennessee and North Dakota are flooding their offices with calls demanding “give us amnesty or give us death.” According to Politico, this deal would be a watered-down version of Cornyn’s amendment, which Erick already exposed as pathetic:
The emerging deal would soften Republican requests for a strict requirement that 90 percent of illegal border crossers be apprehended to hit a “trigger” toward a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but would provide an unprecedented increase in border security funding and officers and a guarantee on finishing the fence along the Southern border, sources said.
They also say they will double the border patrol. But what good is more border agents if the administration ties their hands? Most importantly, all the triggers in this plan will occur after legalization. So somehow we are supposed to believe that they will actually implement these enforcement triggers after they already have their amnesty. Needless to say, Schumer calls their work “really productive.”
Folks, at some point we need to start gaming out red state Senate races far in advance in pursuit of a real Republican instead of reflexively thinking about picking up the state with just any R. It is that mentality – a lazy tendency to pick the first candidate with high name recognition months in advance – which has saddled us with a bunch of prairie progressives from the red states in the Great Plains.
We are proud to have been the first major comprehensive conservative organization to formulate a cogent immigration policy and lead the fight against reckless amnesty from day one. When we began the fight, very few conservatives on and off the Hill were willing to publicly oppose Obama’s immigration policy, as many of them were intimidated by the phony electoral prognosis propagated by GOP consultants.
Now, several months later, the tide is turning, and it is turning rapidly. The base is on fire, and very few Republicans want to be associated with Rubio and his silly gang. Honestly, I didn’t think we were able to defeat this bill in the Senate, and have been focusing much of our efforts on the House side. But is appears that we are well within striking distance of defeating this bill. Here are the people who need to hear from you.
The four GOP gang members – McCain, Graham, Flake, Rubio – along with Ayotte, Heller, Collins, and Murkowski, are probably a lost cause. However, there are also enough red state Democrats who are jittery about supporting this bill to deny Schumer 60 votes, and certainly a super-majority. Yet, two insipid RINOs, Bob Corker and John Hoeven, who represent solid red states, are attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They are working tirelessly with Schumer to craft a phony compromise that will add some window dressing for border security after all of the illegals are granted amnesty. They can potentially bring along with them a dozen more Republicans who badly want this bill.
Repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.
That was a headline from a CBO report in May when Republicans voted on full repeal of Obamacare. Somehow, when it comes to ascertaining the costs of wrongheaded policy, CBO wants us to engage in willing suspension of disbelief. The most costly entitlement will actually reduce the deficit, they claim. In Washington, up is down and down is up.
We are now seeing the same thing with the amnesty/immigration deform bill. You need not be an actuary to understand that 11 million poor illegals and tens of millions of other poor legal immigrants and guest workers, along with their American-born children, will wind up receiving a lot more in benefits that they pay in taxes. Yet, CBO will have you believe that this bill will actually reduce the deficit over 10 and 20 years by $197 billion and $700 billion respectively. In fact, the only main costs in this bill are the border security provisions.
Well, if you take their estimate to its logical conclusion, we should double the number of illegal immigrants, thereby doubling the level of deficit reduction. Also, countries like Mexico should be economic superpowers by now. It’s this sort of dyslexic bean counting that has led to $17 trillion in debt.
When determining whether a population would be a net contributor or a net recipient to the tax/benefit structure we have in this country, you have to understand that tax/benefit structure. All conservatives agree that when the income level is relatively low, those individuals will be net recipients; hence, the progressive system that everyone on the right rails against. Yet, somehow, when that simple fact is extrapolated to new immigrants, some of these people get disgruntled.
But CBO fails to factor in the degree of progressivity to our tax system even for the native population. In 2011, CBO issued an analysis showing that our tax and government transfer system had become less redistributive since 1979. At the time, I showed that, in fact, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% grew from 19% to 36.7% while the share of the bottom 50% shrunk from 7% to 2.25%. Meanwhile, government transfer payments have exploded since 1979.
But somehow CBO found that our system had become less redistributive since the growth of refundable tax credits and welfare programs. With that in mind, it’s no enigma that they believe a low-income group of aliens will also be net contributors.
The real issue with the immigration debate is not a question of what to do with those illegals already here; it is a question of what to do with the next wave.,.and the next wave….and the next wave.
While everyone is focused on the past – what to do with those already here – and the future – whether the promises of more enforcement will ever materialize – nobody is focusing on the present. In anticipation of a mass amnesty and perennial suspension of deportations, migrants from Central America are rushing to cross our borders. Yes, these people all follow social media. Here is a key finding from the New York Times:
Now the Rio Grande Valley has displaced the Tucson enforcement zone as the hot spot, with makeshift rafts crossing the river in increasing numbers, high-speed car chases occurring along rural roads and a growing number of dead bodies turning up on ranchers’ land, according to local officials. […]
But after nearly a decade of steady declines, the count has started to rise again over the past year, driven by the rise in the southern tip of Texas, where the numbers so far this fiscal year are up 55 percent. Since October, 94,305 individuals have been apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley alone, topping the count in Tucson for the first time since 1993.
Critics of the Senate legislation, including Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, point to the influx in the Rio Grande Valley enforcement zone as proof that the bill must explicitly mandate “full operational control” of the border within a decade before any immigrants who were once here illegally could be allowed to proceed toward citizenship.
Hence, when you begin telegraphing the message that as long as you can make it across the border or overstay your visa, we will never send you back, there will be an immediate influx of illegal immigrants. That is why it makes no sense to begin any legalization before implementation of border and interior security. Under these half-baked Republican compromise plans that will promise enforcement after RPI status is granted, all the new illegals who come during the ensuing years will be here to stay forever. They must be afforded the reasonable opportunity to come forward and apply for status. Any illegal can potentially be in the country prior to 2012; anyone could potentially pay the $500 fine; anyone could potentially be an Ag worker who is eligible for full legal status in 5 years. And anyone could potentially be eligible for the Dream Act. By the time to RPI process is complete, we will have several million more illegals living “in the shadows” and part of the American fabric, along with their anchor babies, for a number of years.
There are some analysts, including the incomparable Michael Barone, who think that we won’t experience a third wave of illegal immigration from Mexico because of their declining birthrates. But that is nothing more than wishful thinking. First, according to a recent Pew survey, 35% of Mexicans would like to come here. That’s 39 million people. Moreover, these optimists are overlooking the recent influx of migrants from Central American countries. Here is how the Times describes the recent rush across the border:
The surge in South Texas is driven mostly by immigrants originating not from Mexico but from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, officials said. The Mexican border city of Reynosa is the end of a railway that begins in southern Mexico, and many migrants ride the roofs of freight trains to reach the United States.
We’ve seen this bad movie before; we know how it will end. In fact, we are already getting a sneak preview.
As part of the GOP Pledge to America in 2010, they made the following observation regarding suspension votes during the Pelosi Congress (page 34):
The number of House legislative days devoted to action on noncontroversial and often insignificant “suspension” bills is up significantly in this Congress by comparison with the past several Congresses, wasting time and taxpayer resources. Of the bills considered under the suspension procedure – requiring 2/3 vote for passage – so far during this Congress,
more than half were bills naming federal buildings, recognizing individuals or groups (like sports teams) for achievements, or supporting the designation of particular days, months, or weeks.
Someday I plan to tally up the number of suspension bills that were proposed over the past two and a half years, but there is no doubt that the number comes close or exceeds the level of wasted votes during the Pelosi years. Some weeks, the majority of legislative days are wasted on these insipid issues, none of which represent good public policy or effective messaging against big government.
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:
Senator Cornyn’s Amendment Will Repeat Failures of 1986 Amnesty
Madison Project Chairman Jim Ryun: “Rarely do we have the luxury of drawing upon recent history to guide us on policy as we do with the immigration issue. Senator Cornyn’s amendment to the amnesty bill fails to learn from the mistake of granting amnesty before implementation of enforcement.”
Washington, DC – The Madison Project today announced its strong opposition to Senator John Cornyn’s amendment to the immigration bill, S. 744.
The Senate amnesty bill is fatally flawed on numerous accounts, and the Cornyn amendment serves as mere window dressing to give Republicans cover for passing another failed amnesty,” said Daniel Horowitz of the Madison Project. “Cornyn’s amendment is being sold as a means of strengthening the security aspects of the bill. The problem is that all of the enforcement measures are not required for another ten years, long after all of the illegal immigrants are granted legal status. If there is anything we learned from the 1986 amnesty, it is that all enforcement must be implemented before any legalization.”
“A serious effort to solve the problem must begin with a bill that demands accountability by requiring that the existing laws be applied and faithfully executed before any legal status is granted,” added Horowitz. “Ironically, this amendment actually weakens existing law by exempting airports from the requirement to install biometric exit-entry for tracking visa overstays when roughly 40% of all illegal immigrants are people who have overstayed their visas.”
“As the 2014 election cycle begins in earnest, we will not support any candidate who favors any sort of legalization or amnesty before the proper security and enforcement measures are implemented and the rule of law is restored,” said Drew Ryun of the Madison Project.
“In fact, we will work to defeat those who help pass another failed amnesty – one which places the desires of special interests and foreign lobbies ahead of the American taxpayer, legal immigrants, and the rule of law.”
The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found at http://madisonproject.com/
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.