What Everyone Missed in the Immigration Debate

Are we missing the big picture in the debate over immigration reform? I'm not just talking about the misguided politicians who tried to shove a ridiculous amnesty bill down our throats. Have we the people allowed what really happened to go over our heads?

This recently defeated attempt to allow millions of illegal aliens to get around the law is not the first of its kind. The conservative hero Ronald Reagan allowed this on a smaller scale in 1986. What was different back then?

For one thing, the political climate was much different. We allowed amnesty, and it caused the problem of illegal immigration to get much worse. Millions of people have snuck across the border since then because they saw that we did little to prevent it and they realized that we actually rewarded the behavior. Now we are worried about terrorists sneaking across the border alongside the people who are just looking for a better life. We have also seen an increase in crime and gang membership due to lack of enforcement. The list goes on.

Despite these important issues, I saw something else in this debate that really hasn't happened before. It wasn't just the facts I listed above that caused so many to speak up, to write their elected representatives, to place so many phone calls that it actually crashed the Senate switchboard and had Senators' aides filtering faxes and emails.

These things all happened not just because the political climate has changed, they happened because of our new ability to protest from the home and office.

Let me backtrack a little. We have been watching left wing protests on the television for decades. There were televised riots during the Vietnam War. Recently we have seen many protests over the Iraq War and of course we remember the millions of people all over the country protesting in support of the amnesty bill.

What we don't see is protests from right wing groups, at least not in large numbers. When have we ever seen the Million Man March for Tax Reform? When was the last protest to reform entitlement programs? Even now we have a small group of Iraq War vets who are trying to talk to the leaders of the Democratic Party in Washington, but they get little media and of course Harry Reid won't acknowledge the fact that they exist. Granted, this has some to do with the fact that the media pays no attention to right wing causes. But it is also due to few supporters making an effort to show up.

The left has always been more vocal. They have protests, they have celebrities, and they have film makers. The right doesn't do these things, probably because we are busy making sure the American economy doesn't shut down. We have jobs, we run businesses, and we raise our families, crazy things such as that.

What was different about the immigration issue was our ability to come together as one voice without having to interrupt our lives. Online resources such as NumbersUSA and Grassfire.org gave us several things. They gave us the information we needed to make informed decisions. They gave us the scoop on terrorists who were sneaking across the border. Michelle Malkin gave us news regarding crimes committed by people who were in this country illegally. Other resources like John Hawkins of Right Wing News gave us insider information of tactics being used by the pro-amnesty senators. The Heritage Foundation told us what amnesty would cost the tax-payer. NBER told us that illegal immigration was destroying the African-American community by giving their jobs to illegals who would work for less pay.

They also gave us the ability to communicate ideas on how to defeat the amnesty bill. They created online petitions, emails, and faxes to send to Congress. They used their status to gain the meetings with people like Tom Tancredo.

When these internet resources were joined by Conservative Talk Radio, there was hell to pay in the Senate. The likes of Rush and Hannity were giving their listeners the same tools that we were being given on the internet. This combination is what caused the switchboard to crash that day. This is what caused Senators to realize that their jobs were on the line. This is what killed the amnesty bill.

Believe it or not, Congress hasn't yet figured out what hit them. They have put the blame squarely on the shoulders of talk radio and have completely discounted the role played by the combined resources shared on the internet. To be honest, I'm glad they haven't figured it out yet because this helps us the next time they try to bring this bill back, whenever that may be.

But I question whether or not Conservatives citizens are actually aware of what happened. Do we see the power that we now have? Do we see that we now have the ability to take our country back using these same resources towards other issues? Why don't we join together in the same manner for tax reform? Why isn't there a movement like this to stop pork and earmarks? Why aren't we doing the same for tort reform?

The reality is that these movements do exist, they simply don't have the same force behind them yet. We are still fighting for border security of course, the amnesty fight was one battle in a bigger war. We have to ensure that this is taken care of because it seems that Congress got over amnesty and forgot about the fence. Did we come together to prevent a mistake, but now we can't get the same emphasis behind correcting a past issue? Have we learned that we have the ability to make real change in Washington? Was the battle to defeat amnesty our one big push, and now we go back to our routines?

I hope and pray that we have learned what we can do. It is not enough for Congress to be put into a place of fear over one issue. We must learn from this and use it to push them into a place of fear on every other issue that they are screwing up on a daily basis.

We have to get our country back. Someone get some more online faxes ready please.

The Immigration Defeat Fallout

The United States Senate failed pass a cloture motion that would have ended the debate over the controversial immigration reform package. The final vote was 46 in favor of cloture and 53 opposed. This was a stunning turnaround from the earlier vote this week that allowed the debate to edge closer to passage. If you have read my previous postings on this sham of a bill, you already know my feelings on this issue. So I won’t bore you with the myriad of reasons why this whole debate was ridiculous. I do want to talk about the message that many of the Senators that were ardent supporters of this reform package have sent to the people of the United States.

Throughout the past month of debate, we have heard many “intellectual” Senators in favor of this reform deal deride talk radio; claiming that the talking heads like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Ingraham were leading the public astray with their lies and distortions. These claims are not new, in fact we have heard these same claims from many of the same people that are crying foul now. The difference this time is that Republican Senators are joining the chorus.

Senator Trent Lott claimed that talk radio was running the country, and that something needed to be done about it. Senator Lindsey Graham said that the “loud people” were the ones opposing the bill. I find it amusing that these same Senators have no problem appearing on talk radio shows when the commentators are agreeing with their point of view, but as soon as there is disagreement, then talk radio needs to be silenced.

Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin have openly called for the discussion to start on the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” to rein in talk radio. Senator Jim Inhofe claims to have overheard fellow Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer discussing the need to find a “legislative fix” for talk radio. Why do politicians, of both parties apparently, automatically resort to finding a “legislative fix” for silencing their opposition? After all, wasn’t that what the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was all about?

Before my left leaning friends start the cacophony of agreement with these misguided Senators, let’s take a closer look at the possibilities of such an action. First of all, it is disheartening to see Senators looking into silencing opposition. Their claim is to want balance in the media, but who decides what is balanced? If it is left up to the Senators, then we would be reading about how this immigration bill flew through Congress with bipartisan support.

Secondly, would the policy change every 2 to 4 years depending on who was in control of Congress or the White House? Obviously not everyone believes that the 3 major news networks are unbiased, so how would we get everyone to agree on a set of standards of “fairness”? What I believe is fair is not necessarily what you believe. If the Democrats are in control then we have Al Franken on the all talk radio, but if the Republicans win then we have wall to wall Rush?

No one is stopping Air America from becoming a success. The only thing standing in their way is their management, and maybe their talent. Rush Limbaugh is a success because he is a very talented talk radio host. Does he espouse conservative principles? Yes he does, but he is also very entertaining at the same time. Air America had the idea of just hiring liberal hosts and expecting it to work because they were the alternative to Limbaugh. Like it or not, talk radio is a business. Without listeners, who drive the ratings, no advertisers are going to buy air time on your shows. To keep the listeners, you need to provide some value to them. If the “Fairness Doctrine” is implemented, then stations will be required to offer a balanced format from both sides. Limbaugh would not go away, he is the most listened to radio program in the country, he would just be followed by someone like Al Franken. Based on Franken’s ratings while on the air, the radio station would start to lose money on advertising. The station management would be left with 2 choices, stay with the current format and lose money, or change formats.

Where would the “Fairness Doctrine” stop? Would it be limited to just political commentary? Or would religious programming be affected as well? Would the local Christian music station be required to play secular music just to be “fair”. Would a station that airs “Focus on the Family” be required to air a secular equivalent to James Dobson? What about the internet? Would we still be able to post on blogs without providing a “balanced” approach? I realize that the internet does not fall under the same rules as radio, but once you start playing the “fairness” game, it is awfully hard to stop, especially for politicians.

Congressman Mike Pence introduced legislation in the House to prevent the “Fairness Doctrine” from ever become law again. In Pence’s words he says, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill.”

Will this legislation ever see the light of day? Only time will tell, but I believe that any attempt to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” is the wrong action to take. We should question any politician that wants to stifle the opposition legislatively. Remember that even though you may not like Rush and what he stands for, the limits placed on him could eventually be placed on your interests in the future.

Billions for Z Visas, Not a Cent for Security?

When proponents of comprehensive immigration reform decided they needed to sweeten the pot to get their bill passed, they added $4.4 billion that was supposedly to be spent up-front on border security. This was intended to partially satisfy the desire of millions of Americans that border security and employer enforcement be addressed first, and other measures considered only after we are satisfied that we have control over our borders.

Senator Jim DeMint was suspicious, however, and went to the Congressional Research Service for an opinion on how the $4.4 billion could be spent. The result was as you might suspect; what follows is DeMint's press release:

Power Line: Billions for Z Visas, Not a Cent for Security?

Senators Defect from Supporting Shamnesty Bill

According to Bloomberg, a few supporters of the ILLEGAL immigration bill are defecting. It seems that they are defecting because they were trying to install more common sense amendments. Those amendments are in jeopardy, so the entire process is in jeopardy.

I would chalk this up to bi-partisan anger.

Kill the Bill. Then secure the border.

PS, Harry Reid is a jackass.

Capitol Hill's Deaf Ears

My guide began to tell me of the hundreds of faxes Congressman Saxton’s office receives daily related to the Immigration bill; a stack of faxes “two or three inches deep,” she remarked. But she assured me that the three inch stack was nothing compared the quantity of faxes her fellow aides said were being received by those Senators directly associated with the Immigration Compromise.

Naturally I had to ask what Congressman Saxton thought of the near 500 faxes a day he was receiving from Americans who felt betrayed by their representation. Her reply was that the faxes were immediately recycled and that the Congressman never sees them.

read more

I want to make a new holiday. I want it to be called "Punch your Congress-Person in the Teeth for not Listening" day. If we discover that the they are completely ignoring the will of the people who put them into office, we get to line up and punch them in the mouth. I think I will fax this suggestion to Mel.

Quote of the Day and Some Thoughts About Shamnesty

"At this point, the people supporting this bill might as well be supporting putting crack in elementary school vending machines because quite frankly, it probably couldn't do much more damage to their political careers than this bill." John Hawkins -- rightwingnews.com

John lists a group of polls on his site this morning once again demonstrating a vile hatred of the Senate's Immigration Bill. But it is not only by Hawkins, nor just by conservatives, but also by liberals.

A Democracy Corps poll shows that democrats are evenly split over the issue. Voters said that they were more likely to support the bill if it tightened border security and stopped illegal aliens from getting government benefits. SFGate.com has info on that poll. Rasmussen polls show that only 20% of American voters support the bill, while almost 70% want an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration."

This has got to be the strangest paradox in political history. If you look at most polls, you will find that the splits are partisan. Example, look at a poll regarding George Bush and the economy. About 40% of voters give him high marks on the economy. If you break in down by party, 77% of Republicans give him high marks while only 10% of Democrats agree. On this issue those who would normally support a Republican president praise him, while those who would not support a Republican president do not.

Immigration is a different animal. This bill, and the president who is pushing it, is opposed by the left and the right. On this issue, the President gets high marks from 24% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats.

But despite this uniform opposition from the left and the right, the Senate and the President are on television daily explaining to us that they are pushing this reform because that's what American voters want them to do. And there was much confusion in the land.

Look, I'm not one to trust polls because I know that they can be skewed by biased pollsters. I also know that 90% of the people responding to these polls have done not one bit of research into the subject matter. But this is more overwhelming than most. There is no support for Immigration Reform, but we have morons in DC who swear to us that it has vast support and that it is absolutely necessary. How is this even possible? Have Bush and Cheney stopped watching Fox News?

Completely left out of the debate in DC is the fact that there is no support for this bill. Completely left out of why there is no support for this bill is the fact that Congress was not given permission to create new laws in an effort to cover up the fact that it refused to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades.

Take a look at what Hawkins has to say. If I keep typing, I'm going to get angry and punch my monitor.

The Fraud Of Illegal Immigration

The President and Congress refuse to listen to the American people and let the latest version of the immigration reform bill die. The proponents of the bill speak about the need to do this now and that any changes will render the entire bill meaningless. They vilify anyone who dares to question the aspects of the bill. They have used a myriad of insults and labels to try to quiet the deafening outcry from the very same people who voted them into power.

The latest poll done by Zogby International has shown that virtually no one in the country believes that Congress or the administration is properly handling the illegal immigration issue. A paltry 9% of respondents support the President’s efforts on this topic. As bad as Bush’s numbers are, Congress rates even lower at a shocking 3%. These numbers are even more surprising when it is revealed that the illegal immigration issue is the second most important issue facing our country today. How can a President and a majority of Congress ignore over 90% of the American public?

Over the past several weeks we have witnessed many of the advocates of this bill go on a media blitz to try to win support. All of them use the same lines about how we are all just wrong about the bill and how now is the only time we can accomplish this reform. There are several questions that have risen up in my feeble little mind while listening to the rants.

First of all, we are told that this bill does not provide amnesty because those that are here illegally must pay a fine and wait about 8 years before they can become citizens. In the meantime they can apply for Z visas and live and work as normal U.S. citizens. This aspect of Z visas is a slap in the face of all of the legal immigrants that are currently here working on H1B visas. These legal immigrants cannot change jobs or get a promotion without losing their place in line for a green card. Z visa recipients are not held to these same standards.

Secondly, we are told that the act of crossing the border illegally is nothing more than a misdemeanor and the punishment, a $5000 fine, fits the crime. That logic assumes that once here the illegal immigrant breaks no other laws. The proponents have told us that they are here to do work that Americans won’t do. Let’s look at that statement. In order to do work “legally” they must have a valid social security number, which because they broke the law to get here, do not. In this case they either buy a valid SSN, which has been stolen from someone else, or they simply make one up. Both situations are crimes. If they decide to work “under the table” without reporting any income to the IRS, then we are looking at tax fraud. Add these to the already acknowledged misdemeanor of being here illegally and the punishment certainly does not fit the crime.

Following the logic that they are here to do work that Americans won’t do, if the jobs paid more than Americans would line up to work in the fields. The illegal immigrants accept less money than American citizens do to do the same work. They accept less because of their illegal status. Does anyone believe that they will continue to work for less money than the employee next to them once they attain legal status? There are also many cases where INS has gone in and conducted raids at manufacturing facilities and rounded up hundreds of illegal immigrants. The factory then has to fill those positions with legal workers. In every case those jobs, that Americans just won’t do, were filled immediately.

The proponents of this reform legislation have said that the current laws don’t provide stiff enough penalties to employers or illegal immigrants to deter anyone from breaking the law. That is why we need to act now to beef up the law. That is a frightening statement. So if a punishment is not harsh enough, we just don’t enforce the law? That does not make any sense, but yet that is essentially what we are being told. Here is a novel idea. Why don’t we try enforcing the current laws as written and see how effective they are?

This is precisely why the American public does not have any faith in the government, be it the President or Congress, to make this reform package work. The bureaucrats in Washington tried this same approach in the 60’s and the 80’s to combat illegal immigration. Even the feeble minded, like myself, can see that their reforms didn’t work in either case previously, but yet we should trust them to get it right this time? The country is at a unique point in our history, the voters of both parties are very unhappy with their elected representatives. The elections of next year could very well determine what path our country goes down. Will we continue with the status quo approach of sending the same tired candidates back to Washington? Or will there be a political uprising, where the voters of this great country send men and women to Washington who are more interested in doing what is best for our country than furthering their political careers?

Amnesty Equals No Dollars.

What a GREAT day I had today. My mother is in town for a few weeks and decided to have her mail temporarily forwarded to our house. So today in the mail is two wonderful little items, her renewal fees for the GOP and a card from President Bush trying to get additional donations and a birthday card we were supposed to fill out and send back to him.

Yeah, I filled it out.

You will have to excuse me, Spanish isn't really my thing, but the card went something like this.

"El Presidenta. Gracias for the social security. Signed, Hector from venezuala."

I was really tired and didn't have the brain power to think up a bit more, or to actually check my spelling.

Oh yeah, two different forms that were asking for money. Well, I took some advice from a Michelle Malkin archive.



Yeah, It was a great day today.

Note: The above scan is not mine. I am using it as the example of what I did. The above was sent to Malkin from one of her readers.

Can Romney Gain Points by Announcing His Running Mate Now?

Oh the little things.

I have a written a couple of pieces about Senator Jim DeMint on my blog recently, I have also posted his latest statement about the shamnesty bill that he is trying to kill. I have made no secret that he has recently gained a great deal of support from myself. I thought about trying to draft him into the presidential race and also suggested that he would make a great running mate for Fred Thompson.

But some additional research makes me wonder if another candidate isn't already considering DeMint for the position of Vice President.

I didn't know this until moments ago, but Jim DeMint has endorsed Mitt Romney and in fact is the senior advisor to the Romney for President Exploratory Committee. I have attached the links for the Press Release and the letter of support from Senator DeMint. If DeMint were more popular back in January when he endorsed Romney, this would have probably been bigger news and I probably wouldn't be sitting here saying, "Wow, look at that." But due to the fact that DeMint has just recently gained any real popularity, I am just now seeing this. I am also wondering if a few people wont read this while they are thinking to themselves that they have known this for a long time and that it isn't new news. Well, it's new to me.

"We must elect a President in 2008 who is up to the task, and I need you to encourage Mitt to run. ... As a leader who has spent most of his life in the private sector, Governor Romney will call on America's strength and character to solve problems and secure our future."

I am not sure what to think of Romney or DeMint to be honest. They are both on the radar just very recently, so their politics is only known by those who have done the research. I have been considering supporting Romney in the primaries, even over the prospect of Fred Thompson. And now that I see support from Senator DeMint, who had done a great job preventing the shamnesty bill from going to a vote, Romney has gained points in my view.

If Romney were to give indication that Senator DeMint was his choice for a running mate, he would shoot up the ladder. I may be wrong, but I think that DeMint was mentioned as a possibility when Romney was name dropping a few weeks back. And if the Senator is able to defeat shamnesty, they would gain favor in the ranks of conservatives who are against this bill. Much of the political landscape is going to be shaped by what happens to this bill and what action is taken for border security. Conservatives are split over this issue by those who want to support the GOP at all costs and those who are more concerned about policy that party. The candidate who can mend this split has the best shot at becoming the next President of the United States.

DeMint Statement on Border Security

June 14th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement:

"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."

On Tuesday, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress. For the text of the letter and facts on the border security provisions, click here.