• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Backdoor Amnesty Bill!!

A

Anonymous

Guest
U.S. Leaders Plot New Amnesty Strategy

Chilton Williamson, Jr.

The defeat of the Grand Bargain in the Senate last June proves to have been the opening battle of the public phase of the Second Civil War that had hitherto smoldered underground, like a fire in a coal mine. This war, like America's First Civil War-known more accurately as the War Between the States-is being fought over the future of the United States, but with the roles reversed: Unlike the Confederates, the new "rebels"-that is to say, the country at large--are fighting to keep the United States intact, against the Federal government and the economic interests intent, this time around, on its dissolution.

The Grand Bargain was the country's First Manassas, a wholly unexpected victory over Behemoth. But more-much more-than a brief four years will be necessary to determine whether constitutional principles prevail finally over established power, or the reverse, in the course of this war.

As everyone expected, Washington and the interests, so far from accepting defeat gracefully by heeding the will of the country at large, without so much as breaking step set about at once to accomplish by subterfuge what they were unable to achieve by open and direct means. Senator Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.), a fervid supporter of the Grand Bargain, has just proposed a bill that would grant citizenship to illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and completed either two years of college or military service. The bill will likely be brought up in September, following the congressional recess, and enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate. Shortly before Durbin introduced his proposal, Senators Diane Feinstein (D.-Cal.) and Larry Craig (R.-Idaho) began agitating for so-called AgJobs legislation that would "streamline" the guestworker program and ease the path to residency for at least some illegal farmworkers. Though the Senate refused to consider the idea, whose prospects look dim for now, the plan is certain to hang around offstage in some form or another, keeping company in the Senate lobby with a scheme to expand the H-1B visa program that permits well-educated foreign workers entry into the United States.

Concurrently with these maneuvers by the open-borders forces in Congress, the Bush administration announced its intent to enhance border security by enforcing existing laws and policies aimed at halting illegal immigration and initiating new ones as well, among them the prosecution of employers whom it has warned may have illegal workers on their pay-rolls and workplace raids on businesses suspected of hiring illegal immigrants. The announcement of this "crackdown," by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, raised cries, plaintive and angry, from the various business and immigrants' rights groups. Their distress would be gratifying, save for two considerations. The first is that the Bush administration, owing to its record in such matters, deserves-and gets-no confidence where issues of border security are concerned. "I won't be happy," Senator Charles Grassly (R.-Iowa) warned, "until I see action that's more than just a press conference and words on a piece of paper. I'll be taking a closer look at the initiatives, but from what I can tell at first glance these reforms could have been implemented a long time ago." The second is a suspicion that, in this instance, George Bush really does have action in mind-action he expects to result in social, economic, and political turmoil, aggravated by actions carefully taken by his government to that end. That is to say, Bush's plan following the defeat of the Bargain is to seem to give the country what it wants-and let it choke on it. The media, of course, can be counted on to play up and exaggerate the "disaster" that crackdown has induced, while La Raza, MALDEF, the Roman Catholic Church, and other advocates of mass immigration deplore what the New York Times has already attacked as "the misery strategy," and the heads of state of the Latin America countries denounce (the president of Argentina already has done so) the new American policy as an insult to all Latinos, backed up perhaps by the United Nations. In these circumstances-Bush may be hoping--the American public will cry Uncle and plead for comprehensive immigration "reform" of the sort Congress rejected in June. In this respect, a paragraph in the New York Times, 11 August 2007, is ominous:

Mr. Chertoff suggested that employers
[concerned about the "crackdown"] should
focus their ire on Congress for failing
to pass the broader immigration measure.

"We can be very sure that we let Congress
understand the consequences of the choices
that Congress makes," he said.

On the other hand, the misery strategy-as aptly named as it is apt-seems already to be working very nicely. Illegal immigrants around the country report difficulty in finding employment, remittances to their families in Mexico have fallen off sharply so far in 2007, half of those residing in "new destination" states informed a recent poll that they expected to be gone from the U.S. in five years, many or most complain of "discrimination" and a lack of "appreciation" on the part of native Americans, and some are actually returning home. And, for their part, state and local governments are taking steps to encourage them to do so: The nation is awash with legsialtive proposals aimed at curtailing further immigration and dealing with the problems and crises created by the immigrants who are already here. The misery strategy is, in fact, ideal for dealing with the immigration crisis, and we should all be grateful indeed to the Times for recognizing it as such and giving it a name, especially so fetching and catchy a one.

The point to be taken is that, whatever the President's intentions behind his "crackdown," and no matter the pain it inflicts both on the foreign invaders and their greedy and exploitive economic facilitators alike, the realized-and loudly expressed-sentiment of the nation grows more and more anti-immigrant with every passing day. "Give up, America," William Rusher counseled in a recent column. "Durbin can outlast you." Rusher's pessimism is only somewhat discountable by reason of his dismal prophecy two months ago, only days before the Grand Bargain exploded and crashed like the Hindenburg (another ambitious but ill-fated gasbag), that what the politicians and the interests wanted, the interests and the politicians would get in the form of an amnesty and guestworker bill. Though it didn't happen that way, Rusher's prediction that the Durbins among us will not go away cannot be gainsaid. But neither will the country as a whole that opposes them. Rusher worries that "It is extremely difficult to focus the attention of the people at large on any policy, however bad, that is wanted eagerly by an influential minority." His concern is justifiable, of course. Only 2007 is unlike 1965 or even 1986, when the last major immigration bills were passed. In 1965, the Third World presence in the United States was miniscule, barely observable; a generation later, in 1986, America was still a country of European-Caucasians, for all those not prepared to take a hard and searching look around them. Today, when a majority of the populations of a third of the ten largest counties in the United States are composed of actual "minorities," the transformation of the country is unignorable. Because the mass of illegal immigrants and their descendents, like Senator Durbin, are not going away either-at least, not in the immediate future. And perhaps we Americans, prone to distraction and forgetfulness as we are, should be thankful for that, as a constant reminder that we need scores of millions fewer, rather than more, of them.

###

http://www.manews.org/index.html

-------------------------------

SENATORS PLAN END-RUN DREAM ACT AMNESTY VOTE NEXT WEEK




In the middle of actions on Defense next week, the open-borders Senators are going to attempt to attach a new proposal that would give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. The opposition hopes that this measure will seem so much smaller than the Comprehensive Amnesty we defeated last June, that the American people will largely sit this one out.

The Dream Act is a nightmare massive amnesty offered to the millions of illegal aliens who entered the United States before the age of 16. It will allow them to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities. This in turn discriminates against and takes university openings from out of state U.S. citizens and law-abiding foreign students.
This disastrous proposal will also make illegal aliens eligible for federal student loans and federal work-study programs, another benefit that law-abiding foreign students cannot receive, ALL AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

There is no age limit. Anybody of any age can claim to have arrived before age 16.

Once an alien files an application, the federal government is prohibited from deporting him. Federal officers are prohibited from either using the information from the application to deport the alien or sharing that information with another federal agency.

One consistent theme: Illegal aliens are treated much more favorably than aliens who follow the law. There is no penalty for illegal behavior.

Many of the Senators who helped kill the Comprehensive Amnesty in June are even indicating they now favor the Dream Act proposal. Actions in the Senate not only seek to provide the Dream Act amnesty, but is designed to soften up the politics to pass other amnesties later this fall. We need your help in overwhelming the Senate with our opposition.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Actions in the Senate not only seek to provide the Dream Act amnesty, but is designed to soften up the politics to pass other amnesties later this fall.

Like every other effort to pass amnesty, they trod out a sad sorry story of some innocent child hurt by the current laws...





[/quote]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Here is another link to an article about this back door attempt---It also appears as tho during last weeks truck arguments, some Congressmen got reminded that NAFTA is not a "treaty" --but only a law-- that can be altered or removed with amendments or another law.....


WND reported last week Cornyn's offer of a side-by-side amendment to defeat an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to remove funding from the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Transportation appropriations bill for the department's trucking demonstration project to allow Mexican trucks on U.S. highways.

During the debate, Cornyn offered a mistaken argument from the Senate floor that the U.S. had a "treaty obligation" under the North American Free Trade Act to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S.

The Senate never passed NAFTA as a treaty. Lacking the two-thirds vote needed for passage of a treaty in the Senate, President Clinton submitted NAFTA to Congress as a law.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57672





Under United States law it is classed as a congressional-executive agreement rather than a treaty, reflecting a peculiar sense of the term "treaty" in United States constitutional law that is not followed by international law or the laws of other nations....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Government-managed trade, not free trade
Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize winning economist and former Reagan advisor) has argued that the North American Free Trade Agreement is actually not a "free trade" agreement, but rather is government managed trade. The essence of this criticism is that such trade agreements don't promote free trade, they inhibit it by implementing another level of bureaucracy on top of national governments. This can not only have a detrimental effect on trade, it results in an erosion of sovereignty for all nations involved and causes citizens and governments to be bound by decisions made by an unelected international body.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The effort to pass the DREAM Act (S. 774) has failed, for now, as Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled Amendment 2237 from the defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585) for Fiscal 2008.

Senator Reid pulled the amendment from the bill because there was not enough support to guarantee its passage in a floor vote. Though this is a victory for amnesty opponents, Senator Reid has indicated that he and other amnesty advocates will continue to look for ways to add the bill onto other pieces of legislation.

The DREAM Act would create a piece-meal approach to amnesty by allowing children who illegally entered into the United States before the age of 16, and who have lived within the U.S. for at least 5 years, to gain conditional legal status and eventual citizenship if the person attended a college or joined the military for a minimum of a two year period.
 

Latest posts

Top