June 07, 2007
Why would we trust them?
Want to know why I -- like so many other Americans -- am NEVER going to support "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"?
I'm so glad you asked.
The answer can be found during today's floor vote on amendments to the Senate Amnesty, specifically the Coburn Amendment.
Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-Oklahoma) sponsored amendment 1311, requiring all existing laws concerning immigration be enforced before any new legislation takes effect.
The proposed amendment would have inserted this language into the bill.
(2) EXISTING LAW.--The following provisions of existing law shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph (1):
(A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States as required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)
(B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have been constructed.
(C) All databases maintained by the Department which contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).
(D) The Department shall have implemented a system to record the departure of every alien departing the United States and of matching records of departure with the records of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note).
(E) The provision of law that prevents States and localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that prevents State and local employees from communicating with the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).
(F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas, travel documents, passports, and other documents authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732).
(G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from entering the United States until the biometric identifier on the border crossing card is matched against the alien as required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).
(H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is denied entry into the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)).
Let me be perfectly clear; the citations in parenthesis at the end of each paragraph are the laws already passed by Congress regarding illegal immigration. So the only thing this amendment requires is that the Federal Government follow, obey and enforce the law.
The Senate defeated this amendment, 42-54.
Michelle Malkin underlined the Republicans who -- when forced to cast a Yea or Nay vote on whether to enforce the law -- sided with Ted Kennedy in answering, "No way, Jose!"
This is the very heart of the problem. If the Senate, and by extension the House, the Congress, the Executive Branch, and hence, the Feds are unwilling to enforce current laws, and local governments are prohibited from trying to implement anti-illegal immigration statutes because it's not their place, then why would anyone believe that a new set of laws will be any more likely to be enforced?
Layering another set of meaningless regulations atop the earlier, dusty, unused rules and penalties merely creates a 21st-Century legal Potemkin Village, a charade designed to quiet the rubes who want the U.S. to regain control of our borders.
We've got approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S., with all the laws we need to address the problem -- if only we decided that it was a problem that needed addressing.
Posted by Mike Lief at June 7, 2007 09:39 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
I do not trust President Bush and I am a straight ticket Republican voter. I have never voted for a Democrat. Given the choice between Bill Clinton and George Bush I would easily vote for Clinton.
Any half intelligent person would realize that we were lied to and manipulated into the war in Iraq. Colon Powell has been disgraced for his slide show of lies to the UN. Bush and his administration were behind this. Even if you believe that we have to stay in Iraq and win, you must admit that major manipulation of the highest magnitude was used to launch the invasion. If you don't admit it, you are in major denial.
Now on immigration Bush promises us a fence. He signs the bill. With no real work done on the fence and the ink on the fence legislation barely dry he turns around and tries to push an amnesty bill that would allow the entry of 20 to 50 million low skilled or unskilled future welfare recipients.
Bush is either the dumbest man to ever occupy the White House or he is a complete and utter liar. Either way, I'd take Bill Clinton over him any day. Clinton lied about a sex act. Bush lies to launch military invasions. He campaigns as a fiscal conservative but spends money like Barbara Boxer. He travels to the border and argues that are current border enforcement actually works. Are you kidding me? I have lived in Texas, Arizona and now California in the last ten years. I can tell you first hand and without any special training that our border enforcement is not working.
I want to hear a Republican defend this man.
Posted by: James R. at June 8, 2007 06:39 AM
I too would not vote for President Bush again. Instead of Clinton, I'd pull a protest vote for a libertarian before voting for Bush.
As I mentioned to a friend today, I think back on Harriet Myers as a shining example of how out of touch the president is with reality. I'm actually extremely confused about who he is and what really goes on inside his head. He's not Republican in my book either. Who would have thought that our party would ever cede the issue of fiscal responsibility to the Democrats?
Posted by: Bill H. at June 8, 2007 09:34 PM