Thursday was Day #3 of the Senate mark-up of S.744 in the Judiciary Committee. Unsurprisingly the Gang of Eight Republicans on the committee (Senators McCain and Flake) continued to hang tough with Democrats to prevent any meaningful amendments. It looked like a committee markup on the surface, but it was a dog-and-pony show with foregone conclusions because the pro-amnesty members meet in advance to decide what tiny increments of change they will allow. Genuine friends of sovereignty Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley deserve our respect for plugging away in such a corrupt environment.
The interests of the nation surely cannot be safe when amnesty hack Frank Sharry is pleased, as indicated by his remark upon the proceedings: “The Gang of Eight has . . . accepted a number of Republican amendments, but none of them undermine the core elements of the bill.”
You can watch the three-hour hearing on C-span, which allows the viewer to use the search function which will go to that place in the video when clicked. So if you search for grassley in the Timeline search function on the left of the page, then click, that part of the video will begin to run. It saves time and unnecessary brain pain.
After a Senate committee finished poring through the enforcement sections of a sweeping immigration bill on Thursday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, didn’t want to dwell on the three amendments he proposed that were voted down by his colleagues.
He has already been thinking of other ways to change the bill.
The core of the immigration bill, which was produced by a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight, remained largely intact after the third hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering more than 300 amendments. Grassley said little had been accomplished to satisfy him and other Republicans who feel the bill doesn’t do enough to secure the border and ensure that unauthorized immigrants can’t find work in the U.S.
Grassley said he will try to bolster those provisions on the Senate floor and lobby House members working on their own version of an immigration bill.
“I had my day in court (today), and I’m going to have a lot of other days in court,” said Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “It’s a long process. It’ll be going on for the next six months, so you shouldn’t be drawing any conclusions right now.”
Grassley’s disappointment was met by tempered enthusiasm from members of the Gang of Eight, and other pushing to pass the bill, which would allow the nation’s unauthorized immigrants the chance to become U.S. citizens.
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a group that supports the bill, said having four members of the Gang of Eight on the Senate Judiciary Committee — Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois — allowed them to fight off any amendments that would critically damage the bill.
“The Gang of Eight has held strong,” Sharry said. “They’ve accepted a number of Republican amendments, but none of them undermine the core elements of the bill. The early threats — the poison pills, the delaying tactics, things that we thought might actually hurt the process — they’ve been overcome.” Continue reading this article
One of the worst parts of the Senate amnesty bill is the disregard of public safety and the coddling of foreign criminals. And because this item has appeared in at least two previous amnesties, one must conclude that protecting illegal alien gangsters is a priority of the bill’s authors — the the special interests, both business and ethnic who actually wrote the legislation.
This kind of a pattern shows a suspicious friendliness toward brutal drug gangs that have made Mexico a killing field in the last few years. You have to wonder who in La Raza defends hispanic gangsters with such zeal and why. In many cases of gang crime in this country, hispanics are the victims, so why the permissiveness toward a real danger to the fellow members of The Race?
In 2011, Senator Jeff Sessions warned that the new DREAM Act was worse than the previous version, and provided a list to show it. One important item was the forgiveness for gangsters with just a promise to behave. (Surely Mexican Mafia members now incarcerated in American prisons would love a deal like that.)
3. The DREAM Act Provides a Safe Harbor for Any Alien, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly S.952 protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant status”—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for millions. Though the bill requires a modest “prima facie” showing of eligibility, this is the lowest standard of legal proof and could likely be satisfied by the alien’s signature. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent an illegal alien’s removal from the United States. Such delays will increase the number of those released on bail and will increase the number of absconders. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
In 2007, that year’s bill also contained a coddle card for criminals, as analyzed by Senator Sessions in a list of 20 loopholes, detailing three categories that related to the care of criminals:
Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible: Some aggravated felons – those who have sexually abused a minor – are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]
Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required: Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must show “good moral character.” Last year’s bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having “good moral character” and being eligible for amnesty. This year’s bill does neither. Additionally, bill drafters ignored the Administration’s request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. [Compare §204 in S. 2611 from the 109th Congress with missing §204 on p. 48 of S.A. 1150, & see missing subsection (5) on p. 287 of S.A. 1150].
Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible: Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they “renounce” their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].
Back to the present, the President of the ICE agents union, Chris Crane, has been doing media appearances to warn about the bill’s extreme laxity regarding criminals. He appeared on the John and Ken radio show on Monday to draw attention to the gang member waiver:
Chris Crane: It’s a lot bigger than just the gang members of course but on the gang member part of this, if they come forward and allegedly claim to renounce their gang affiliation, their gang membership, then they have a path to citizenship, and it’s pretty much that simple. [. . .] Continue reading this article
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama administration’s refusal to grant asylum to the Romeike family.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed against the family, arguing that asylum should not be granted because home schooling isn’t a fundamental right protected under religious freedom.
The Romeikes fled Germany in 2008 facing criminal prosecution for home schooling. In 2010, they were granted political asylum by immigration Judge Lawrence Burman, but his decision was overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals last year.
On Tuesday, the three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit issued a unanimous decision against the family.
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike began home schooling in Germany because they didn’t want their children exposed to things like witchcraft and graphic sex education that are taught in German schools. Continue reading this article
It’s not news the Britain’s leftist party favored enormous flows of diverse immigrants who were presumably friendly to the big-government approach to society. In 2009, Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for PM Tony Blair, blabbed that increased immigration under Labour was designed to make Britain more multi-culti and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”
‘We were sending out search parties for people’: Former Labour Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson has admitted that his party actively encouraged immigration to the UK while in government
Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.
The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, Congressman Steve King organized a presser with several House colleagues who strongly oppose the Senate amnesty bill.
The other speakers included Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Steve Stockman, John Fleming and Paul Gosar.
Rep. King noted that he has been a fierce foe of Obamacare, but sees the Senate amnesty as “far, far worse.” Like the other assembled representatives, a primary focus of King is to maintain the rule of law, which amnesty shreds by the act of rewarding lawbreakers. His other concerns are cultural assimilation, border control and national security.
Rep Gohmert of Texas (a drought-troubled state) observed that it’s likely a billion or more people abroad would like to move here. He was not reassured that authorities are able to keep out dangerous persons among the millions to be amnestied when the FBI couldn’t sort out the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brother when warned about Tamerlan by Russian police.
John Fleming of Louisiana reminded listeners that the 1986 amnesty was a failure and the government should not go down that path again.
Dr. Paul Gosar of Arizona warned against a huge bill which puts too much enforcement authority in the hands of Janet Napolitano.
Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks alerted about the enormous numbers of foreigners who would like to relocate here, e.g. 20 percent of Mexicans who would come illegally. He doesn’t want millions of lawbreakers to be future Americans, who will also cost taxpayers trillions of dollars according to the recent Heritage study. An open-borders society promotes anarchy, he stated.
Steve Stockman (R-TX) emphasized fairness for legal immigrants, whose care in doing immigration the lawful way is undermined by rewarding lawbreakers.
Congressman King emphasized how the bill is really really bad. He fears a doomsday scenario in which House leadership allows a conference between the House and Senate versions that might pass legislation unfavorable to the rule of law.
Rep. King said, “That conference committee could produce from it some version of the amnesty bill and send it to the floor, unamendable, an up-or-down vote, in which case, every Democrat would vote for it, it would only take a couple of dozen Republicans, and we could be stuck with a very bad bill on the way to the president. So I’m most concerned about that and I’ll continue to talk about that.”
SunTV’s John Robson starts up a segment with disgust at the fawning dhimmitude of American authorities for worrying about the Islamically correct treatment of murdering jihadist Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s body — something average Bostonians did not appreciate..
Then Robson focused on America’s political derangement over immigration in a conversation with author Peter Brimelow.
The one decent element in the 844-page Senate amnesty bill is the proposed termination of the fraud-ridden terrorist-welcoming Diversity Visa. But the Washington Post used its front page on Monday to sniffle about the loss of future diverse residents — oh the tragedy!
The Post article is a liberal Rorschach, full of the mythologies that underly the political urge to import foreigners who are supposed to enrich us in some mysterious way. Earnest foreigners arrive, work hard and become successful — it’s a narrative that highlights America’s generosity and openness, although perhaps by too much. Liberals cannot imagine an America without immigration to affirm the upside-down notion that Diversity Is Our Strength. If annoying traditional Americans could be demographically overwhelmed, then the country would be so much nicer — that’s the idea.
But even among the accolades for diverse immigration, the Post had to admit that the Diversity Visa lottery program is riddled with fraud. This widespread fakery means all sorts of criminals and enemies are given entry.
Be sure to read to the end of the Post piece for the guilt-trip finale: foreigners forced to stay in their dirtbag homelands won’t have fulfilling lives if Americans refuse them entrance to the land of opportunity. (Naturally, there is no mention of job displacement of citizens.)
In the contentious debate over immigration policy, three groups have dominated public and political attention: the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants seeking to become legal, the skilled foreign workers bound for high-tech jobs and relatives waiting to be reunited with their families.
Then there are those who won the green card lottery.
This tiny visa program, aimed at diversifying the pool of immigrants to the United States, selects 55,000 applicants at random each year. Unlike the other U.S. visa programs, it offers the “winners” and their spouses and children U.S. residency with almost no strings attached. Although the odds of winning are infinitesimal, the program is so wildly popular that last year almost 8 million people applied. And now it is likely to be quietly cut.
“In my country, whole cities wait to hear the results of this lottery. I can’t believe they would take it away,” said Ermais Amirat, 29, an Ethiopian lottery winner who lives in Alexandria and drives a limousine. “We may not earn a lot, but on $200 a month, your whole family can survive back home.”
Under a Senate compromise, the program would be eliminated and its visa slots would be subsumed into a broad system that stresses skills, education and other criteria for legal immigration.
A few defenders, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, have urged that the lottery be preserved. They say it helps compensate for the lopsided history of legal immigration, long dominated by a few large countries with high-skilled workers, such as China and India, and those with strong family ties to the United States, such as Mexico and the Philippines. They also note that it creates wide international goodwill for the United States at a low cost, amounting to only 5 percent of legal immigrants.
“Diversity visas are one of the few ways people from Africa and the Caribbean can come to this country,” Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-N.J.) said in an interview. “We are talking about creating a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people, and I wholeheartedly support that. But why do we need to cut a program where millions of people are competing for only 55,000 visas? I’m sorry, but I just can’t accept that.” Continue reading this article
The Gang of Eight loudmouths, particularly Senators Schumer and Rubio, insist that they are open to amendments to improve their 844-page bill. But when the Judiciary Committee met on Thursday to begin sorting through the hundreds of amendments, the deal was already cut. As Senator Jeff Sessions analyzed in a press release, the Gang of Eight met in advance to decide to what they would agree, and amendments that would improve border security were defeated. The bill which has been spun as being balanced in fact has no effective enforcement.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the Gang of Eight’s decision to block much-needed improvements to their legislation:
“One of the things that most upsets the American people about Washington is drafting a bill with special interests in secret and jamming it across the finish line in a way that minimizes public involvement and input. Despite touting their legislation as “the toughest border enforcement in history,” the Gang of Eight bill failed to live up to every major promise of its sponsors—including the promise of enforcement first—resulting in a bill that is even weaker than the rejected 2007 plan. This legislation needs improvement and openness.
Despite insistence on their openness to improving the legislation, the Gang has continued to stick together to defeat any amendment that would make any serious improvement to border security.
The National Journal reports today that ‘The night before Thursday’s marathon committee markup, members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight and their staffs huddled in a room in the Capitol to decide what amendments to their immigration bill they would let live—and what must die… Each evening, the gang will reconvene before the Judiciary Committee meets to analyze the next day’s slew of amendments and decide, collectively, what stays and what goes.’
Their legislation fails to achieve their stated goals. Their refusal to recognize that, demonstrates they are more committed to the flawed product than producing an immigration bill that serves the national interest.”
BACKGROUND ON YESTERDAY’S REJECTED AMENDMENTS:
1. Sessions amendment to define “effective control” of the border The amendment would assure that “effective control” reflects current law as defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, by specifically including prevention of unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. “Effective control” would trigger the initiation of the legalization process. The amendment failed by a vote of 6–12, with all Democrats and the two Gang of Eight Republicans voting no, while all the other Republicans voted yes.
2. Sessions amendment to require completion of border fencing This amendment would require that 700 miles of border fencing—already required by law to be constructed—be “substantially complete” before the legalization process begins. As written, the Gang of Eight legislation only requires the DHS Secretary to submit a fencing plan (which may well require no additional fencing whatsoever) to trigger the start of the legalization process. There is no requirement in the bill that any fence be built at all. Currently, only 36 miles of double-layer fencing exists. The rest of the border has a combination of single-layer pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers, both of which are easily scalable. The amendment also clarified the term “fencing” as: “Only fencing that is double-layered and constructed in a way to effectively restrain pedestrian traffic may be used to satisfy the 700-mile requirement under this subparagraph. Fencing that does not effectively restrain pedestrian traffic (such as vehicle barriers and virtual fencing) does not satisfy the requirement under this subparagraph.” The amendment failed by a vote of 6–12, with all Democrats and the two Gang of Eight Republicans voting no, while all the other Republicans voted yes. Continue reading this article
Los Angeles has been ground zero for for bearing the brunt of of immigration diversity for some time. Unlucky in geography, the county was home to 9.8 million residents as of 2010, 56.6 percent of whom over age 5 do not speak English at home according to the Census. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich has been reporting on the cost to taxpayers of illegal immigration for years, with an update a few days ago noting that $54 million in welfare benefits were issued to illegal alien parents just in the month of March in the county.
Even Los Angeles liberal pols are concerned about what another massive amnesty will do to the county’s welfare spending, although they are hopeful the feds will kick in some extra cash, as was done in 1986.
With an estimated 1.1 million people in L.A. County illegally, officials fear that the county will get stuck with many costs for those who apply for citizenship.
WASHINGTON — Few regions will absorb the impact of future immigration reforms more than Los Angeles County, home to an estimated 1.1 million people in the country illegally, one-tenth of the nation’s total.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee began debating the bipartisan immigration bill last week, county officials voiced concerns that local taxpayers will be “left holding the bag” to pay for the brunt of healthcare and other services for multitudes of immigrants who apply for citizenship.
Local and state officials believe the overhaul bill will encourage those in the country illegally to come out of the shadows and turn to local services during the proposed 13-year-long pathway to citizenship.
“The one thing that’s really clear as day is that the federal government is going to be protecting itself against costs, and we’re going to be left holding the bag,” said Mark Tajima, an analyst with the county’s chief administrative office.
In Washington last week for the start of the debate, county officials, including Supervisors Don Knabe and Zev Yaroslavsky, warned of a “major cost shift” to state and local governments from the proposed legislation and pressed Congress to provide federal aid to help cover future costs.
Officials could not, however, provide a figure on the potential tab. Instead, as they made the rounds on Capitol Hill, they pointed to the $800 million the county received in the last big immigration overhaul signed by President Reagan in 1986.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), after meeting with county officials, brought up the county’s concerns at the Judiciary Committee meeting and directed her staff to look into the possibility of creating a “state impact assistance” fund, similar to the $4 billion provided to local and state governments in the 1986 bill. Continue reading this article
Meanwhile out in the country, the inconvenient physical limits of the natural world are intruding. Texas has intermittent lengthy droughts anyway, and an escalating population, fueled by immigration, stresses the available water supply still further.
Out in West Texas, the present water shortage is considered extreme — check out the US Drought Monitor Map, updated weekly. As a result, towns like Odessa and Midland have decided to embrace water recycling, called “toilet to tap” by some skeptics.
The psychological ick factor has blocked some attempts to implement reclaimed water, because it means trusting the government to turn sewage into safe drinkable water. However in Orange County California, the recycled water is piped into local groundwater recharge basins, where it will eventually be pulled back for use.
As the population grows to environmentally unsustainable levels to please business and Democrat elites, the public will be increasingly have to pay for expensive water recycling technology. It’s another hidden cost of destructively high levels of immigration, along with schools and welfare to name a couple.
Today, in drought-stricken Texas, people are desperate for water. You can’t live on whiskey.
BIG SPRING –– In a parched corner of Texas four hours west of Fort Worth, water supplies are drying up. But ideas to replenish them are not.
Near Midland lies what used to be a peninsula, a spot that was once nearly surrounded by a sprawling reservoir. But almost the entire lake has evaporated. Years of drought have created a desperate thirst; the area remains in an extreme drought.
Is it desperate enough, though, for residents in Odessa, Big Spring, Snyder, Midland and Stanton to accept a solution that some find hard to swallow?
The Colorado River Municipal Water District recently began recycling millions of gallons of sewage.
After the sewage is scrubbed at the wastewater plant in Big Spring, the liquid is pumped into a new $12 million washing warehouse where it goes through micro-filters and reverse osmosis. Then, it’s disinfected with hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet light.
“You are basically looking at bottled water quality water,” said operations manager John Womack. He contends what once went down a drain is pure enough to drink. Continue reading this article
North Africa and the Middle East were largely Christian regions until the Muslim hordes swept through and converted by the sword. As a grade-school kid, I never understood how that could work because the confluence of religious conversion and war didn’t seem to fit. Now we can see how the process functions first hand — constant intimidation with the message Join or Die is a very effect method of low-intensity warfare, perfected over centuries of practice by supremacist Muslims.
Below, Muslims harassed church-goers in front of London’s Westminster Cathedral.
Muslims warring against Christians and everyone else is a fact of history that has been going on for 1400 years. It seems highly unwise to invite such people into our midst via immigration. One wonders how many additional hostile Muslims would be admitted under the Senate’s crazy diverse overpopulation immigration scheme.
Scholar Raymond Ibrahim is a Coptic Christian whose parents left Egypt because of Muslim harassment. He recently published a book about the persecution of Christians in Islamic societies, Crucified Again.
He recently appeared on Canada’s SunTV with Brian Lilley to discuss the book:
A mass exodus of Christians is currently underway. Millions of Christians are being displaced from one end of the Islamic world to the other.
We are reliving the true history of how the Islamic world—much of which prior to the Islamic conquests was almost entirely Christian—came into being.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently said: “The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it’s increasing year by year.” In our lifetime alone “Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.”
Ongoing reports from the Islamic world certainly support this conclusion. Iraq was the earliest indicator of the fate awaiting Christians once Islamic forces are liberated from the grip of dictators.
The 2010 Baghdad church attack, which saw nearly 60 Christian worshippers slaughtered, is the tip of a decade-long iceberg.
Now as the U.S. supports the jihad on secular president Assad, the same pattern has come to Syria: entire regions and towns where Christians lived centuries before Islam came into being have now been emptied, as the opposition targets Christians for kidnapping, plundering, and beheadings, all in compliance with mosque calls that it’s a “sacred duty” to drive Christians away. Continue reading this article
A suspicious person might reasonably look away momentarily from the noisy debate on the legalization of (officially) 11 million lawbreaking foreign job thieves and reflect upon the ginormous “future flow” of legal immigrants that continues in perpetuity. Gargantuan unsustainable legal immigration is the real crime against Americans.
Senator Sessions brought up the question of legal numbers during the Thursday mark-up. Senator Schumer’s response was that the millions are coming anyway; under the new regime they will enter legally. Schumer said, “They’re coming. They’re either coming under law or not under law. And what we do is try to rationalize that system.”
So Schumer is saying in effect that no enforcement can be implemented that will keep out the invading foreigners, so Washington might as well legalize the unlawful behavior — problem solved, according to Democrat rules!
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and David Vitter (R-LA) today sent a letter to the Gang of Eight Senators asking for estimates of future flow under the bill, detailing the specific categories of immigration that must be tallied:
The immigration bill is proceeding toward a vote and yet members of the Senate still do not have an estimate from the bill’s sponsors of the future flow of immigration that will occur.
It appears your bill would authorize legal status for 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years and provide work authorization to many millions more through nonimmigrant visas.
The public, and the Senate, are entitled to hear directly from the bill’s sponsors about just how many people will be given legal status under this proposal over the next decade. Only then can we fully understand the implications for the 90 million Americans who are not in the labor force, many of whom are either unemployed or have simply given up looking for a job. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.